Essay Questions

Is Hegel correct in his belief that all eyewitness history is essentially flawed?

Eyewitness history is not as subjective as reflective history, because it occurs in real time, and is therefore judged on its own merits - it is what it is. However, it is subjective because the record of what is happening is still dependent on both the point of view and also the physical location of the person witnessing it. For example, the King might witness a large crowd gathering in celebration from his upper floor window in a palace. He is looking down at the action below, and would surmise from his elevated viewpoint that a jubilant crowd has gathered safely and successfully to mark a particular day in the country's history.

By contrast, a worker, who has taken the day off to celebrate with the crowd, can see pickpockets running rampant amongst the people. He can see a small demonstration chanting slogans deriding the King. He can see the police force violently dragging someone away for a transgression. Both men's eyewitness accounts of the same event would be different, but both men would be describing the same event. This is why Hegel is correct in his theory that eyewitness history can be subjective.

Why is reflective history the most unreliable form of history, according to Hegel?

Reflective history is the most unreliable form of history because it relies also on opinion and perspective as well as the situation of the eyewitness reporting it. For example, the British colonization of the Commonwealth would be seen differently years after the event itself, and furthermore differently according to which side of the debate one was on. British colonials, who used to live a charmed life in Rhodesia, until a military coup overtook them, renaming the nation Zimbabwe in the process, would look back at those colonial years and feel a melancholic longing for them. To the colonialists, they were the days of British supremacy around the world, the "good old days", the era when Britain stood strong and proud as a leader; halcyon days.

To the native people of the countries that were colonized, the days do not hold quite so much charm. They would look back and see that their country was occupied by an invading nation, and that they did not attain their freedom as people until they took back their nation and kicked out the colonial rulers. Both of these accounts are essentially true, because they are an interpretation of events that actually occurred, but both are colored by the viewpoint of the person actually reflecting on the same events. This shows that Hegel was right in his view that reflective history is the most unreliable kind of history that there is, and therefore should be trusted the least.