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.