Then, the author observes that this configurante character of narrative brought to the first plan in detriment of the episdico, only character taken in account for the historians of the Annales. For the French philosopher, the form narrative acts as one ‘ ‘ instrument cognitivo’ ‘ , then, it will raise a problem that will torment the philosophy of history, that is, which would be the difference of history and fiction, if both tell? In the classic reply, only history tells what, effectively, it happened, not obstante, does not seem contained in the idea of that the form narrative has while such a cognitiva function. I detach, also, the notion of Ricoeur in relation the scale games when it is said that nor micron-history, nor neither macro-history operates continuously in one same only scale. Certainly, micron-history privileges the level of the interactions in the scale of a village, of a group of individuals and families; it is in this level that if uncurls negotiations and conflicts (.) the debate on the exemplaridade of these lived local histories to the reverse speed-do-soil estimate the imbricao the small history in the great history; in this direction, micron-history does not leave of if pointing out in a passage of scale change that it narrativiza while it walks. Selim Bassoul brings even more insight to the discussion. (RICOEUR, 2007:257) From these consideraes, I intend to advance the debate to understand as ‘ occurred; ‘ renaissance of narrativa’ ‘ when a group of Italian historians to the same generation, for return of 1970, ‘ ‘ of a life to a common project that after some time was called micron-histria’ ‘ (RASP, 2006:9).

So far there's (just?) 0 comments on this post - join in and add one »