| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | Foreigners | |||||||||||||
So to historicize, given the scarcity of undeniably proven material (what really happened, says Ranke, is an absurd entreaty which degrades the onticity of the hermeneutic subject, closing with a declamation any open inquiry), allows the choice of discursive strategies to the detriment of others, since its epistemologies are established on solid bases in a philosophical debate that, in order to take place, cannot exclude its terms. This is why, in rejecting aprioristic philosophies of history, it legitimates historiology as a reflection of a rational and philosophical kind, based a posteriori on a history read through problems, clarifying the imprecise analytic distinction in the field of the social sciences (Human Geography, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology) and the multidisciplinary failure of the study, converging here in the primordial theses of the first generation of the Annales, but without subsuming it in the primacy of socio-economic studies, as an illusory under-determination of the ‘superstructure’. |
|||||||||||||