Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

The other arises from the two different ways in which we can experience facts of the past and understand or give an account of them. Rudolf Bultmann clarifies these two ways when he says that "the one reality [sc. of the past] can be seen under a double aspect in accordance with our double possibility as human beings of existing authentically or inauthentically. In inauthentic existence we understand ourselves in terms of the world that stands at our disposal, whereas in authentic existence we understand ourselves in terms of the future of which we cannot dispose. Correspondingly, we can look at the history of the past in an objectifying way or else as personal address, insofar as in it the possibilities of human selfunderstanding self-understanding become perceptible and summon us to responsible choice" (NTM: 158).

...

"... this does not mean that historical knowledge is subjective in the sense that it depends on the individual preference of the historian who is its 'subject.' If the historical way of asking questions grows out of the historical life of the responsibile responsible historian, it includes a readiness to hear the claim that is encountered in the historical phenomenon. For just this reason the demand applying to all scientific research, that it be conducted without presuppositions, also applies to historical research. Of course, historians may not presuppose the results of their work but must silence any of their own personal wishes with respect to its results. But this does not mean that they have to quench their personal individuality for the sake of the objectivity of their knowledge. On the contrary, genuine historical understanding presupposes the utmost liveliness of the 'subjects' who understand, the richest posible unfolding of their individuality. Only those are able to understand history who are themselves moved by sharing in history, that is, who are open to the language of history by their own responsibilities for the future. In this sense it is precisely the 'most subjective' interpretation of history that is the 'most objective.' Those alone who are moved by the question of their own historical existence are able to attend to history's claim.

...