Please explain a few historical theoretical terms! High score 100! !

1. Haider is a follower of Kant. Kant studied the philosophy of history after reading, but held a monistic value theory and put forward the historical view of "world citizen".

2. Arnold Yue Se Toynbee (1April 88914–1June 5438+001October 22, 975) is a famous British historian. His 10 volume magnum opus "Historical Research" tells the rise and fall of the major nationalities in the world, and is regarded as "the greatest achievement of modern scholars". An outstanding contribution of Toynbee's historiography is to make an overall and comprehensive investigation of the objective process of human historical development. As the "New Spengler School", Toynbee's "Cultural Morphology Theory" can be regarded as the inheritance and development of Bingler's cultural morphology theory. Toynbee's basic views on cultural forms are as follows:

History research group. Toynbee believes: "The historical research unit that can speak for itself is neither a nation-state nor the whole human being at the other extreme, but a group of human beings that we call society." Thus, the concepts of national history and dynastic history in traditional historiography were abandoned and replaced by civilization (or society).

The number of civilizations. In Toynbee's place, the field of vision of civilization investigation has been expanded, from eight in Bingler to twenty-six. Among these civilizations, there is a certain kinship, that is, the relationship between the previous generation of civilization and the next generation of civilization. He admitted that western civilization is only one of these civilizations, thus alienating Chen's "Western Europe-centered theory" in western traditional historiography.

Comparability of civilizations. In Toynbee's view, these civilizations can be compared, although they came first.

Civilization originated from "challenge and challenge". Toynbee analyzed the origin of the first generation of six major civilizations and thought that the emergence of civilization was the result of successfully challenging the particularly difficult environment.

The scale of the growth of civilization. Toynbee believes that not all civilizations can develop smoothly. In fact, some civilizations have miscarried, and some civilizations have stopped at the beginning of their growth. This is obviously because of excessive challenges. In his view, the scale of the growth of civilization should be that in the process of a series of challenges and challenges, the place has shifted, that is, from the external environment of civilization to the interior of civilization. The "self-determination ability" shown in this gradual sublimation process is the symbol of the growth of civilization. The process of civilization generation ultimately comes down to the continuous growth of "self-determination" in this society, which is promoted by those creative few people.

Reasons for the decline of civilization. Toynbee believes that the reason for the decline of civilization is the loss of "self-determination".

The disintegration of civilization. Great Unified Empire-Intermittent Period-Great Unified Church-Great Ethnic Migration.

The prospect of western civilization. Toynbee opposes Bingler's pessimistic view on the future development of western civilization, and thinks that as long as it is handled properly, western civilization can avoid the fate of disintegration, maintain its vitality and continue to develop.

To some extent, Toynbee's historical theory reflects two trends of contemporary western historiography: first, the traditional narrative historiography of19th century turned to holistic and analytical historiography; Second, the history of non-Western Europe has received more attention. In the explanation of the origin of civilization, Toynbee put forward the theory of challenge and being challenged, which is better than Bingler's and a step forward than the traditional theory of race and environment, because he noticed the relationship between man and environment and the dynamic role of subject in the process of social development. But this theory also has two fatal defects: first, it overemphasizes the role of outstanding figures in history; Second, the existence of material factors is ignored in the process of challenge. It is reasonable for Toynbee to see the problems brought by scientific development and pay attention to moral progress and human self-improvement. But he went to the other extreme: he exaggerated the importance of religion in history. It is not true that Toynbee used his theory of the decline of civilization to forcibly promote the history of other civilizations. However, in his later years, he admitted his mistake and pointed out that only one Western European model could not explain everything, and China model or Jewish model should be added, and he had high hopes for the future of China. From Toynbee's theory and system, we can also see the influence of contemporary western irrationalism: emphasizing the role of subconscious and intuition. But he still believes that human reason and conscience are above everything else. Toynbee is also different from Bingler in explaining the future of the West. He believes that although western civilization has reached its peak, there is no reason to say that it has gone to death. The future fate of the west depends on whether westerners can successfully face challenges and solve various problems related to the survival of western civilization. This optimistic and realistic attitude reflects the great changes that have taken place in the times and western society since World War II.

3. Benedetto Croce is a famous Italian literary critic, historian, philosopher and sometimes regarded as a politician. He has written a lot in philosophy, history, historical methodology, aesthetics and other fields, and is also an outstanding liberal-although he opposes laissez-faire and free trade. His work in gramsci antonio also had a far-reaching impact.

Influenced by Hegel and other German thinkers, Croce developed a self-proclaimed philosophy of spirit. He prefers to call it "absolute idealism" or "absolute historicism". Croce's work can be regarded as the second attempt (Kant's first attempt) to bridge empiricism and rationalism (or transcendental philosophy and sensibility respectively). He called his method "mentalism", and he paid attention to the experience of people living in a specific time and place. Because reality is rooted in inner existence, and inner existence can only come from real experience, Croce takes aesthetics as the basis of his philosophy.

Croce's methodology towards philosophy is manifested in his division of spirit or mind. He first separated spiritual activities from theory and practice. Theoretically, spiritual activities include aesthetics and logic. Among them, aesthetics is the most important, including intuition and historical view. Logic includes concepts and relationships. In practice, spirit includes economy and ethics. Here, economics should be understood as including all secular affairs.

Every department has its own way of thinking. Aesthetics is driven by beauty, logic aims at truth, and economics pays attention to useful things, morality, or ethics, which is related to kindness. This descriptive generalization is actually to show the inherent logic of human thinking, but it is prescriptive, so these statements come from the statement and confidence of epistemology itself.

Croce respects Vico very much and agrees with his view of history: history should be written by philosophers. Croce's "On History" further developed this view, holding that history is a "moving philosophy". He believes that there is no "once and for all blueprint" or ultimate plan in history, and the statement of "historical science" is a joke.

He coined the term "onagrocracy" (comparing the government to a screaming donkey) to describe the ruling style of Italian fascist movement and leader benito mussolini. This is a contempt for bad politics and an ironic supplement to Aristotle's three famous political terms: tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.

He has a famous saying that all history is contemporary history.

4. British historian, archaeologist and philosopher. Philosophically, it belongs to the neo-Hegelian school. His historical theory is embodied in the book The Concept of History. (1) He believes that the so-called historical facts are the product of historians' transcendental historical imagination, and the basis of history is not historical facts, but the thought of explaining history and transcendental historical imagination. He opposes the historical theory of positivism and emphasizes that there is no objective historical truth that is universally applicable. All history is the history of contemporary people. All history is the history of thought. (Jian Yuan Hu Weng)

5. Walsh put forward the theory of scene matching in Prehistory, Philosophy, Science and Philosophy.

Walsh believes that "the basic principles of scientific thinking are the same for all observers, at least (at most) (at least) at any particular stage of scientific progress. But there is no cause (result) in history, but it cannot be said to have the same effect "(page 1 14). Obviously, Walsh thought of objectivity and objectivity. But why not make a diachronic consideration? Assuming that all scientific theories in different periods are considered in the same period 1, the scientific situation is not like that when there are no objective (subjective) (objective) problems in history. History, philosophy, science and philosophy do not have the historicism of upper (lower) philosophy of science and the viewpoint (material) (viewpoint) of the new historicism school provide the basis for our viewpoint.

Walsh's landscape theory, we can find similar theories in historicism and neo-historicism schools of philosophy of science, such as Du Ming's theory that artificial (natural) order is not ideal (reality) (ideal), T. Kuhn's paradigm theory, lakatos's scientific research programmes theory, Chapelle's information domain theory, and so on. We take Kuhn's paradigm theory as an example and compare it with Walsh's landscape theory. Paradigm, simply put, is the belief that a group of scientists are not divided (* * * the same) in a certain profession or discipline. Kuhn believes that this belief makes scientists have a "religious fanaticism" in their research, and they want to "involuntarily (forcibly) bring the artificial (natural) world into the ideological framework stipulated by the paradigm." . T.S. Kuhn, Structure of Ions in Scientific Revolution, Chicago History, Philosophy, Science, Philosophy, 1962, PP15/~152. Since "paradigm" is only a kind of "belief", it is only a set of highly credible basics. "Credibility" determines "no objectivity (subjectivity) (objectivity)". There is no objective (subjective) (objective) difference between history and artificial (natural) science, only quantitative (credibility) difference, and there is no qualitative difference.

Without analyzing (synthesizing) the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that there is no difference between history and artificial (natural) science in terms of authenticity, interpretation, prediction, history, philosophy, science and objectivity. If there is a difference, it is only a quantitative difference, not a qualitative confusion (difference). In this sense, history is fully qualified as an artificial (natural) science. Mark? Bloch put it well: "We seem to have more reason to believe that even if a science has no Euclidean argument or eternal law, it still does not harm the dignity of science. We have nothing to bury (discover), and it is more appropriate to regard certainty and universality as' measuring history, philosophy, science and philosophy'. We don't think it is necessary to impose the same (unchangeable) thinking mode introduced from artificial (natural) science on every kind of knowledge, because even in artificial (natural) science, this mode is no longer unimpeded. "

6. Speculative historical philosophy is inextricably linked with religious thought because of its ideological origin. Historical consciousness itself originates from myths and legends, and Augustine, the originator of historical theory, is a Christian philosopher. Vico, the founder of historical philosophy, has a profound religious background; Hegel, the master of speculative historical philosophy, and Toynbee, the most influential representative in the 20th century, all have a strong or weak religious color. The speculative nature of historical philosophy is closely related to this. In criticizing Hegel's view of history, Marxism profoundly reveals the speculative nature of historical philosophy: in history, they "replaced the realistic and unknown connection with a new-unconscious or gradually conscious-mysterious providence."

7. Philosophy of historical analysis. The philosophy of historical analysis takes history as its object, and takes it as its responsibility to criticize or analyze the procedures, categories and terms in historical research, and discusses the premise, assumptions and demonstration methods of history, the understanding and interpretation of history, and the objectivity of history. It is intended to show how historical knowledge is possible. It analyzes and clarifies concepts and logics, mainly represented by Dilthey, Vendel Ban, Richter, Croce and collingwood.

Dilthey, the founder of modern German philosophy, distinguished the difference between historical science and natural science in his Preface to Mental Science. In Dilthey's view, historical science deals with concrete and individual things, while natural science deals with abstract and general things. The research method of natural science is observation, while the research method of spirituality is understanding. Dilthey flaunted historicism and regarded the concept of "experience" as the key to understanding history, that is, we should understand history from the inside. After Dilthey, Vendel Ban and Richter of the German neo-Kantian philosopher Frejborg School made a strict distinction between history and natural science. Vendel's class has a book history and natural science. He believes that history and science are two different things, each with its own methods. Natural science aims at summarizing universal laws, while history aims at describing individual historical facts. Li Celtic is the author of (Cultural Science and Natural Science). Richter believes that Vendel's class tells two differences between science and history, not one: the first difference is the difference between generalization and individualization; The second is the difference between value judgment and non-value judgment. Historical understanding must contain a value system that cannot be abandoned, which is completely unnecessary for natural science.

Croce famously said, "All history is contemporary history", and collingwood famously said, "All history is a history of ideas". Croce believes that historical knowledge is the product of thought (or spiritual structure) and the living thought of the past, so all history is contemporary history, that is, it only exists in historians' understanding of it. One of his famous formulas is that abstract philosophy is methodology and concrete philosophy is history. Collingwood's basic argument is that history is a history of ideas and a calendar of people's ideological activities.

History, so the task of history is to repeat the past thoughts, but that is not a simple repetition, but to include the past thoughts in the living thoughts of current historians. Croce and Collingwood opened up the philosophy of history from the field of speculation, affirming that there are open links in the barrier of human history, instead of being monolithic like "natural plan" and "rational cunning", and human emotions, desires and wills are also important links. This critical philosophy of history tends to be infinitely subjective and gradually slides to the extreme of "thought creates history", so it is called "New hegelianism".

The rise of western analytical philosophy of history, to borrow Kant's words, is to solve such a problem-how historiography, as a kind of knowledge or science, becomes possible. Kant believes that it is impossible for a bird to directly understand the nature of the world without first discussing the ability and nature of cognition. The focus of analytical philosophy of history has shifted from explaining the nature of history to explaining the nature of historical knowledge, and the problems faced are more about what historical knowledge is than calendar.

What history itself is. In short, it is from the previous metaphysical historical research to the study of historical epistemology. From the internal context of the development of historical philosophy, the rise of analytical historical philosophy is the logical result of the bankruptcy of speculative historical philosophy. Generally speaking, since the 20th century, the study of historical philosophy has begun to develop from speculative historical philosophy to analytical historical philosophy.