The Landscape of History Essay -- Book Review, John Lewis Gaddis

In The Landscape of History, John Lewis Gaddis makes a cohesive argument concerning closely the debate over the objectivity of truth by stating objectivity as a consequence is hardly possible, and that there is, therefore, no such thing as truth (Gaddis 29). The question for neutral history has long been debated by numerous historians, and the differing viewpoints of history have led to a transition in our ways of opinion in the modern world. Ultimately, the question that this paper focuses on is to what extent is history objective? Along with this, the relation to diachronic consciousness and the challenges of living in modernity will also be assessed. This paper will analyze the texts of John Lewis Gaddis, Nietzsche and the Birth of Tragedy, Modernity and Historical Vision, Living in Modernity, and Hermeneutics. Finally, the paper will make out that history is not largely objective, and is fundamentally shaped through the historians subjectivity. John Lewis Gaddis, in his boo k, The Landscape of History, generates a strong argument for the historical method by bringing together the multiple standpoints in viewing history and the sciences. The issue of objective truth in history is addressed throughout Gaddiss work. In general, historians learn to select the various events that they believe to be valid. Historians must face the fact that there is an accurate interpretation of the past ceases to come through because interpretation itself is based on the experience of the historian, in which people cannot observe directly (Gaddis 10). Historians can only view the past in a peculiar(a) perspective, which generates subjectivity and bias, and claiming a piece of history to be objective is simplistic. Seeing the world in a multidimensiona... ... in history. There is no real objective aspect to history, but a multitude of attitudes towards history can make history a discipline that allows for multidimensionality. The debate regarding whether or not history co uld be objective has been discussed and interpreted by many historians. The ways we think about history has allowed for the divergence of various perspectives in the world we live in today. In sum, the question discussed in this paper pertains to the extent of which history can be objective. This question has left room for several interpretations in the field of historiography and challenged our experienced in the era of modernity. This papers argument went for the subjective side of the argument with evidence for my argumentation from John Gaddis, Friedrich Nietzsche, Postmodernity and Modernity, Living in Modernity, and Heideggers Hermeneutics.