지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The 'Critique of the Present' (Zeitkritik) is defined in general as a work to expose characteristics, values, evils, and problems of the present time from a historical or above-historical standpoint, in comparison with the past and the future, or in contrast to the Absolute (preassumed idealized conditions). This work has been done mostly by philosophers like Heracleitos, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Marx, and Nietzsche. But it is rather suitable for historians than for philosophers, for the 'Critique of the Present' means in a pure sense an evaluation of the present time on the basis of history. This article aims at examining the interrelationship closely between the 'Critique of the present' and the study of history by studying cases of such "present-critical historians" as Polybios, Tocqueville, Burckhardt, and Huizinga.
From this case study, it is proved that these historians felt their own times always as a big crisis, set a norm for their critical work, diagnosed problems of their own times as symptoms to be healed, and prognosticated prospects and directions of the present. So in Burckhardt, who preferred tne elite culture and classical art of the old europe, we can see a "conservative critique of the present" in Polybios and Tocqueville, who tried to sketch an optimistic picture of the future, a "progressive critique of the present" in Huizinga, who planned a new cultural life by criticising the cultural pattern of his own age, a "critique of culture." In this sense, the 'Critique of the Present' had a decisive impact on the shaping of their own philosophical view of history. Futhermore the critique filtered in various ways into their historical study and historiography: the selection of the subject of study, the problem of historical knowledge and judgement, the mind and mode of the critique of historical material, and forms and contents of historiography. All these elements, in brief historical methodology, resulted directly or indirectly from their critical view of the present. Finally this critique contributed to their theoretical insight into various spheres of man's life of which history consists: politics, society, culture, and art. From here diverse related theories sprang out: historical theory of politics and society (Polybios, Tocqueville) came from historical critique of politics and society, historical theory of culture and art (Burckhardt, Huizinga) from historical critique of culture and art.
It seems to be clear that the 'Critique of the Present' as an important motive and element of the study of history must be studied profoundly and continuously.
From this case study, it is proved that these historians felt their own times always as a big crisis, set a norm for their critical work, diagnosed problems of their own times as symptoms to be healed, and prognosticated prospects and directions of the present. So in Burckhardt, who preferred tne elite culture and classical art of the old europe, we can see a "conservative critique of the present" in Polybios and Tocqueville, who tried to sketch an optimistic picture of the future, a "progressive critique of the present" in Huizinga, who planned a new cultural life by criticising the cultural pattern of his own age, a "critique of culture." In this sense, the 'Critique of the Present' had a decisive impact on the shaping of their own philosophical view of history. Futhermore the critique filtered in various ways into their historical study and historiography: the selection of the subject of study, the problem of historical knowledge and judgement, the mind and mode of the critique of historical material, and forms and contents of historiography. All these elements, in brief historical methodology, resulted directly or indirectly from their critical view of the present. Finally this critique contributed to their theoretical insight into various spheres of man's life of which history consists: politics, society, culture, and art. From here diverse related theories sprang out: historical theory of politics and society (Polybios, Tocqueville) came from historical critique of politics and society, historical theory of culture and art (Burckhardt, Huizinga) from historical critique of culture and art.
It seems to be clear that the 'Critique of the Present' as an important motive and element of the study of history must be studied profoundly and continuously.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 현재비판과 역사철학
Ⅲ. 현재비판과 역사방법론
Ⅳ. 현재비판과 역사외적 이론
Ⅴ. 맺음말
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
대학 글쓰기에서의 문화비평문 쓰기 교육방법 연구 : 한남대학교 〈논리적 사고와 글쓰기〉 사례를 중심으로
어문론집
2016 .03
-
문학 작품 ‘비평문 쓰기’의 문제해결 방안 연구 : 10학년 문학영역과 쓰기영역을 중심으로
국어교육연구
2011 .08
-
시비평문 쓰기 교육의 방향에 대한 연구
문학교육학
2009 .01
-
맑스의 정치경제학 비판에 있어 물신주의 비판
철학사상
2011 .11
-
문화로서의 역사? : 요한 호이징하(Johan Huizinga)에서의 '역사'와 '문화' 그리고 '문화사'
역사학보
2002 .06
-
百年以中有秋之究-批判反思-
중국사연구
2008 .01
-
포스트모던 역사인식과 역사학습
역사교육
2000 .06
-
사회비판의 두 유형과 공조 방안 : 한국사회를 위한 종합적 사회비판 전략의 모색
사회와 철학
2011 .04
-
장일우(張一宇) 문학 비평 연구
한국현대문학연구
2005 .06
-
역사적 사고의 한계와 역사화의 가능성
역사교육
2003 .09
-
Jean-Pierre Richard의 비평 방법론
프랑스어권 문화예술연구
2013 .11
-
부르크하르트의 시민사회 비판의 문제점과 한계
대구사학
2005 .01
-
자유론 비판
신학연구
1956 .06
-
역사적 사실의 특징과 역사교육의 특수성
역사교육
2010 .03
-
“This Very Contaminated Tool” : An Immanent Critique of Feminist Standpoint Theories
새한영어영문학회 학술발표회 논문집
2015 .10
-
선교의 방향에 대한 반성과 제시
개신논집
1995 .12
-
헤겔의 체계에 대한 마르크스와 키에르케골의 비판
철학연구
1983 .12
-
인터넷과 "새로운 윤리학"의 주장
철학연구
2001 .06
-
계보학적 비판으로서의 『계몽의 변증법』 읽기
철학
2019 .11
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-911-002851679