The following text is from a philosophy of history article.
Historical explanation differs structurally from natural scientific explanation. While natural sciences seek covering laws subsuming particular events, historical understanding often involves empathetic reconstruction of agents' reasons and meanings. Dilthey's distinction between Erklären (explaining) and Verstehen (understanding) captures this methodological divide. Contemporary philosophy of history debates whether this distinction reflects deep differences in subject matter or merely different explanatory strategies applicable across domains.
What is the primary purpose of the text?
To argue that history cannot be objective at all
To present a methodological distinction and an ongoing debate about its implications
To provide specific examples of historical explanations
To compare historiographical traditions across different nations
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. The text presents Dilthey's Erklären/Verstehen distinction and the ongoing debate about whether it reflects deep differences or merely strategies.
- Evidence: The text presents the distinction: "Dilthey's distinction between Erklären (explaining) and Verstehen (understanding)." It notes the debate: "Contemporary philosophy... debates whether this distinction reflects deep differences... or merely different explanatory strategies."
- Reasoning: The passage introduces a famous concept and discusses how it is currently debated.
- Conclusion: The purpose is to present distinction and debate.
💡 Strategy: Summarize: Explain vs. Understand. Is it real or just useful?
Choice A is incorrect because objectivity isn't denied. Choice C is incorrect because specific examples aren't provided. Choice D is incorrect because nations aren't compared.