Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Three Stories of Incomplete Memory and Fragile Consciousness: History, Historicity, Historicism

Year 2019, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 265 - 278, 31.12.2019
https://doi.org/10.17131/milel.668358

Abstract

Talking about history in a synoptic or panoptic way is another version of ‘talking about something in its totality’ (as a whole) which is the characteristic dimension of metaphysical tradition. This way of talking on history serves for experiencing solely a grand narration (or mythos in its literal meaning) itself, and not the history as a course of happening. For that reason, historicity as an ontological experience of history lets us realize that we understand history basically in terms of the question ‘how’, and not ‘what. Namely, understanding history in terms of the question ‘how’ reveals the critical, fragile, changeable and unforeseeable dimension of the course of happening. Any significant discourse on history becomes immediately a part of history

References

  • Arnason, Johann P. “Theorising History and Questioning Reason”. Theo-ria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 87 (1996): 1-20.
  • Papaioannou, Chrysi Andriani. Ahead of its Time: Historicity, Chronopolitics, and the Idea of the Avant-Garde after Modernism. Leeds: The Univer-sity of Leeds, School of Fine Art, History of Art and Cultural Stu-dies, Doktora Tezi, 2017. Erişim 14 Kasım 2019. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/16922/1/Papaioannou_Ahead%20of%20Its%20Time.pdf
  • Vattimo, Gianni. “Myth and the Destiny of Secularization, Social Rese-arch”. Myth in Contemporary Life 52 sayı:2 (1985): 347-362. Erişim 26 Ekim 2019. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40970374?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Kırpık Hafıza ve Kırılgan Bilincin Üç Öyküsü: Tarih, Tarihsellik, Tarihselcilik

Year 2019, Volume: 16 Issue: 2, 265 - 278, 31.12.2019
https://doi.org/10.17131/milel.668358

Abstract

Bütüne dair konuşma (metafizik) geleneğinin bir başka formu olarak tarih hakkında bütüncül (sinoptik ve panoptik) konuşmak, bizi tarihle değil, tarih anlatısıyla, Vattimo’nun deyişiyle, ‘sözlük anlamıyla mitos’ ile yüzleştirir. Bu yüzden tarihin ontolojik tecrübesi olarak tarihsellik, bütün hakkında ‘ne’ değil, ‘nasıl’ sorusu eşliğinde ancak kırılgan yani farklılaşan bir süreç olarak konuşabileceğimizi fark ettirir. Tarih hakkındaki her bir (kayda değer görülen) konuşma, derhal tarihin bir parçası haline gelir

References

  • Arnason, Johann P. “Theorising History and Questioning Reason”. Theo-ria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory 87 (1996): 1-20.
  • Papaioannou, Chrysi Andriani. Ahead of its Time: Historicity, Chronopolitics, and the Idea of the Avant-Garde after Modernism. Leeds: The Univer-sity of Leeds, School of Fine Art, History of Art and Cultural Stu-dies, Doktora Tezi, 2017. Erişim 14 Kasım 2019. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/16922/1/Papaioannou_Ahead%20of%20Its%20Time.pdf
  • Vattimo, Gianni. “Myth and the Destiny of Secularization, Social Rese-arch”. Myth in Contemporary Life 52 sayı:2 (1985): 347-362. Erişim 26 Ekim 2019. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40970374?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
There are 3 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Subjects Religious Studies
Journal Section Makaleler
Authors

Burhanettin Tatar 0000-0002-4259-5335

Publication Date December 31, 2019
Submission Date September 26, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 16 Issue: 2

Cite

ISNAD Tatar, Burhanettin. “Kırpık Hafıza Ve Kırılgan Bilincin Üç Öyküsü: Tarih, Tarihsellik, Tarihselcilik”. Milel ve Nihal 16/2 (December 2019), 265-278. https://doi.org/10.17131/milel.668358.