MRR1

1. The three (3) things that I significantly learned from the reading are: first is the
objectives or primary goals that historians consider on writing about history; history-as-
actuality and history-as-record has a quite difference to each other, and how they test
for the material’s originality. I realize that historians focuses on being timeless,
informative and interpretative on their writings. I simply learned that as we try to learn
the specific details of the history, we only know about it on its recorded data but not
actually understand or know what really happened. I also learned that historians have
their own context if something is legit or not. Having an original source is quite a
material contains creatively and it is fascinate. Moreover, sources must be acknowledge
and approved by many, and should be the main source of information from earliest
times.

2. The three (3) things that are still unclear to me are: first is the concept certitude vs
certainty that were based on verifying information of history, though it is quite complex
and I think it requires more specific ideas to be more understandable by the readers.
Next is the idea of “verisimilitude” and the concept of “historiography” and a sense of a
human. Lastly is the concept of “Diplomatic” wherein it is stated that is a technique on
identifying or testing the viability and legitimacy of sources in history.

3. I used to think that writing a history is likely to be as simple looking on such

evidences from the past or going in historic areas and looking for old writings. Moreover,
historians are never accurate with their writings about the certain events from the past. I
thought that their judgment wouldn’t be no longer rejected and opiniated since they are
known on being the primary sources. I also used to think that subjective knowledge is
no longer acceptable or credited since it is not considered as an inferior to any other
information and knowledge, however it still does need certain protection or a thorough
investigation to be known as reliable.

4. The three (3) questions that I want to ask about the readings are: first, how are those
histories said to be truth or verified if there is a propensity of subjectivity from the source
and observers? Next, specifying the modern times, is subjective lens or process is still
the efficient and proper way to write about a certain event of history? Would it improve
or badly effect the credibility of the writings? Lastly, in writing about the history, does
gossiper can be considered as a secondary source of news, rumors and evidence about
the history?