Main menu


experimental concept that finds its implicit theoretical

Here, in this text, we are faced with two contradictory concepts of history:

A concept that stops at what is of history on the surface, and a concept that penetrates the apparent to the hidden in a search for the truth of history, to make it a general topic. The first concept is not scientific, and does not allow for construction. History in science. It is what was prevalent in the “history” of historians. Previous to Ibn Khaldun. It is an experimental concept, in that the historical reality in it is identical to its appearance. The events of the past appear to follow each other without a link or principle that explains them. If history takes these events as its subject, it is a narration of them that conveys the funny from them for the purpose of entertainment or pleasure, or for a moral purpose. It is as if history is a chapter of wisdom whose purpose is to extract from the events of the past a lesson for the present, by which the person in charge will be guided to his command. History, here, is not to produce knowledge, or to explain events with reasons. It has the right to preach and the present to learn. what

His purpose lasted as well, so it is natural for the sayings to grow in the process of narration

Historically, this is even desirable if it is to be fully investigated. It is also natural that the error in this process is far from the correct, and that the historian does not have the ability to distinguish between them, in the complete absence

Every hidden internal connection between events has been flattened. We summarize and say: The news or event concept of history is an experimental concept that finds its implicit theoretical basis in that reality

In its apparent meaning, it is limited to what appears to the eye in direct experience, or what is visible therein. Therefore, the news (with the hamza broken) was a transmission of the news (with the hamza opened) about the one to whom it appeared visible, and he was the first to see it. He is the first. He restores in this pre-scientific history the myth of the first in religion, who is the initiator, or call him, if you like, God. He is the same thought, one in different fields, such as religion, history, and philosophy, always returning things and events linearly, back to their beginning. In the first place, it is all

Existing . So to Him all existence is returned. This is religious thought.) The news was therefore quotation after quotation after quotation, etc., all the way to the first source, which is the first source. The chain of this transfer does not include the necessity of verifying the authenticity of the transferred, nor does it have

The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, but does not possess the tools for this distinction. Or say in other words, this logic of transfer requires - by looking at the transmitter and not at the transferred, if it stipulates that. How can it be knowledge if there is no consideration of its subject? How can history be composed in science, according to this experimental concept, and on the basis of this religious thought?

As for the other concept, which is Al-Khalduni, it is based on a radical contradiction of the empirical concept. This is because history, according to Ibn Khaldun, is not a narration of news, because historical reality is not an event reality. He is, apparently, a juvenile. Science requires that we destroy this apparent matter in order to arrive at the inner being, which is reality. This negation is the process of extracting reality from an appearance that obscures it. In this process, it is necessary to produce the necessary theoretical tools, which are the system of scientific concepts. This is what Ibn Khaldun will do in his introduction. There is a necessary connection, then, between defining historical reality and defining historical science, meaning that the structure of this reality,

He who is the subject of knowledge determines the form of his approach. Let us read the previous Khaldoun text carefully: There is a comparison made by Ibn