عنوان مقاله [English]
Introduction: Taha Hussein is an Egyptian literary figure of the twentieth century who has played an effective role in promoting the written culture of the contemporary Arab world by creating numerous works in the field of history and literature. He has been able to play the same role in the Arab philosophical tradition as founded by Descartes in the Western philosophical tradition.
The purpose of this study is to analyze the method of Taha Hussein's historiography by emphasizing the introduction chapter of the book Fi Al-Adab Al-Jahili. It also seeks to enumerate the theoretical foundations of Taha Hussein's methodology and evaluate it epistemologically. In addition, it attempts to weigh its epistemology in terms of importance, validity and contemporaneity of the Verstehen tradition according to the theoretical foundations of the Max Weber method. The study criticizes the efficiencies and inefficiencies of this epistemology too.
Methodology: This study describes Taha Hossein’s approach for the historiography of ignorant poetry and criticizes its efficiencies and inefficiencies with a comparative descriptive method and a conceptual analysis approach.
Results:Contrary to Taha Hussein's approach, the historian does not avoid the value system in all the stages of a research process to apply the components of the value system, nor can the natural sciences in the postmodern reading, despite claiming objectivity, be free from value biases. This is because theories are not only the product of reflection and thinking on an object but also the result of genius, profound reflection and, in general, the interaction of the subject and the object.
Neither the dogmatism of objectivists and Taha Hussein nor the relativism of subjectivists and postmodernists alone leads the historian to the destination, because both approaches believe in methodological exclusivism in history and historiography. But the third approach, which made history a continuous dialogue between the historian and the event, and the acquisition of knowledge as the result of the interaction of the mind and the object are more effective.
Truth-based propositions that convey extra-mental facts are not limited to the field of experimental science. Therefore, they cannot be included in the limited field of experimental science with a hasty and incorrect generalization and the possible fallacy of "whole-to-part definition"; they can be redefined under the propositions of mathematics, logic, philosophy, history, and so on.
Discussion: Verstehen is a school of thought in which the agent of the mind, the presuppositions, the philosophical foundations of ontology, anthropology, and values play major roles, whether or not the historian is aware of such data when historiographing. The purpose of this method is not only to reconstruct an event but also to reach the thought behind it, and it is obvious that the realization of this work will be possible only by rethinking this thought in the mind of the historian. Verstehen is the way in which we understand the inner meanings of phenomena along with a kind of sense of empathy and spiritual closeness to the social and historical actor. There is no doubt that this approach is very different from what is common in the natural experimental sciences because observation and experimentation can be effective by providing general rules to recognize inanimate objects. If a sociologist or a historian does not understand social and historical behavior and its hidden meanings, no other analysis or explanation can be very effective.
Objectivity, which is an important topic in historical epistemology, means that historical events must have features and components acceptable to all historians so as to pass what happened on to others, regardless of their values and beliefs and assumptions in general.
The most important discussion that Max Weber has dealt with in the field of historical research is the study of the position of the historian's value system and his beliefs and its impact on the historiographical process. When a researcher enters the research process, his values inevitably fall in the field of research and any understanding or perception achieved between human beings, consciously or unconsciously, is influenced by the theoretical philosophical foundations as well as the value system of the researcher. Weber considers value neutrality to be necessary only at the stage of possible collection or gathering. He distinguishes between the gathering authority, which is concerned with the choice of a subject for research, and the arbitral authority, which makes the distinction.
Taha Hussein, who was concerned with the gap between tradition and modernity, sought to transform the educational system of his time by innovating a method of literary historiography. He also tried to establish Egyptian modernity by reviving traditional literature.While criticizing the traditional method, he emphasized the objectivity and methodization of research and writing the history of literature. In order to confront the two traditional and modern paradigms, he intended to create a homogeneous combination in historiography and to choose a middle method that was a combination of the Azhari tradition and modern methodology. To this end, he criticized the method of literary historiography and the old and new approaches to teaching at his time, which lacked critical accuracy. He preferred Descartes's skeptical method and his philosophical reflections, but he turns to the foundations of his method. In general, the theoretical components of Taha Hussein's literary historiography can be itemized as follows:
a) Doubtfulness of a method as a basic rule for believing historical propositions
b) The complete emptiness of the researcher's mind of any presuppositions, patriotic tendencies, and religious beliefs as well as being generally devoid of any credibility and value propositions
c) Making a distinction between the intellect and the heart and freeing the intellect from the bondage of all the three inner realms of man, namely emotions, feelings and excitements.
d) Lack of adherence to anything but theoretical and practical commitment to the correct scientific method of research.
Conclusion: The result of this research indicates that, in addition to being an epistemological category, historiography has a historical function. Therefore, it is not devaluated and cannot be devoid of the presuppositions, philosophical foundations and the culture of the researcher of history in general, nor is such an approach desirable in historiography.