Tarih yazımında nesnellik ve nedensellik ilişkisi üzerine eleştirel bir inceleme
Özet
Objectivity and causality are mostly argued concepts in the area of history of philosophy as well as in other disciplines. This thesis aims to articulate the relation between objectivity and causality in writing history. The aim of the thesis is to display that conceptions of objectivity and causality are also changed in time by reason of changes in description what history is. The first part of thesis deals with the conceptions of history represented by Comte and Marx who were the pioneers of traditional approach to the problems causality and objectivity in history. The conceptions of history attained by these thinkers have a holistic understanding for history of mankind They hold that it is possible to have an objective knowledge of history by illuminating the relations between causality and objectivity in history. Such kind of conception of history requires a method which is consisting of a strict and deterministic set of rules. Although there are many differences between these thinkers, both of them partake a common method of history which is the so-called as the explanatory method Therefore, this part articulates the usage of explanatory method in philosophy of history. The second part of the thesis is about the relation between the concepts of causality and objectivity in critical approach to history. In contrast to traditional approach, which takes its starting point to imitate the method of natural sciences in order to attain an objective knowledge of history, the critical approach insists on the differentiation between the methods of social sciences and natural sciences. The critical method which dwells upon the distinction between natural sciences 93and social sciences tries to construct a sound argument against the defenders of unity of these disciplines. The last chapter of this part deals with the problems which ignored by traditional view and the solutions offered to these problems by the proponents of the understanding approach In the third part, this new understanding of history, which is called in the name of the discourse developed by postmodern thought, is tried to elucidate. In spite of definin this new understanding of history, It is aimed to give an account of what history is not according to postmodern view. The reasons of gradually disappearing the concepts causality and objectivity in postmodern discourse constitute the subject of this part and; in this part it is also considered" Mat which reflections can be inferred from such a situation. The conclusion paW discusses that which conception of writing history seems to be more plausible.