When studying history, how can one distinguish between "historical facts" and "narrative perspectives" using first principles?

HistoryFirst Principles ThinkingCritical ThinkingLearning Methods
Views: 2Created At: 9/18/2025Updated At: 11/6/2025
Cheryl Jones
Cheryl Jones
Philosophy student, exploring first principles in ethics.

Ah, that's an excellent question. Many people studying history easily get bogged down, feeling as if they're being led by the author. Deconstructing this using "first principles" isn't as mysterious as it sounds. Let me give you a simple analogy, and you'll understand.

Imagine yourself as a detective investigating a crime scene from many years ago.

"Historical facts" are the most basic, undeniable pieces of physical evidence at the scene.

  • The deceased is lying here. (This is a fact)
  • There are three stab wounds on the body, identified by the forensic pathologist as fatal. (This is a fact)
  • A bloody knife with A's fingerprints is found nearby. (This is a fact)
  • Surveillance footage (if available in that era) shows only A entering and exiting the room on the night of the incident. (This is a fact)

These are what "first principles" refer to as "basic axioms." They are the starting point for all reasoning, raw materials, hard, objectively existing things. In history, these "physical evidences" are excavated artifacts, unedited original archives, personal letters and manuscripts, archaeological discoveries, and so on. For example, "On February 12, 1912, Emperor Puyi of the Qing Dynasty issued an edict to abdicate" is a historical fact, as evidenced by the original abdication edict.

"Narrative angle" refers to the stories told by different lawyers (e.g., prosecutor and defense attorney) based on this physical evidence.

  • The Prosecutor's Story (a narrative): A had long harbored resentment towards the deceased. That night, he brought a knife and committed premeditated murder. The chain of evidence at the scene is complete; A is a cold-blooded killer! This story emphasizes A's motive (which might require some circumstantial evidence) and the brutality of the act.
  • The Defense Attorney's Story (another narrative): The deceased had long subjected A to domestic violence and psychological abuse. That night, the deceased assaulted A again. In extreme fear, A picked up the knife to defend themselves. This was a tragedy of self-defense! This story would seek evidence of the deceased's misconduct and emphasize A's role as a "victim."

You see, both stories use the same core "fact" (A killed someone), but the impression they give is vastly different. Why? Because they:

  1. Selectively highlight or conceal certain facts: The prosecutor might not mention the deceased's domestic violence, while the defense attorney would repeatedly emphasize it.
  2. Add a large number of causal explanations and adjectives: "Premeditated murder" vs. "self-defense", "cold-blooded" vs. "terrified". These are interpretations, "opinions", not "facts" themselves.
  3. Have their own stance and objectives: The prosecutor aims for conviction, the defense attorney for acquittal.

Back to studying history, how do we apply this "detective mindset"?

  1. Distinguish between "physical evidence" and "stories": When reading any piece of history, always have an alarm bell ringing in your mind. When you see descriptions like "Emperor So-and-so was a great monarch, he sagaciously and heroically...", you should think: Wait a minute, "great" and "sagacious and heroic" are stories (narratives), not physical evidence (facts). What specific things did he do? What laws did he enact? What battles did he fight? These laws and battles are the "facts". Whether these actions qualify as "great" is the "narrative" the author wants you to accept.

  2. Question the source of the "physical evidence": If an author says someone won a battle, what is the basis? Is it quoting official historical records, enemy accounts, or a soldier's diary from that time? Official histories might exaggerate for propaganda, enemy records might downplay for prestige, and a soldier's diary might only capture a corner of the battlefield. No "physical evidence" is 100% perfect, but by comparing them, the outline of the facts becomes clearer. This is "cross-verification".

  3. Consider who the "storyteller" is: Who is the author writing this piece of history? Is he a court historian or a folk scholar? A native or a foreigner? A victor or a vanquished? What is his purpose in writing this book? To sing praises? To warn future generations? Or to make money? Knowing the author's background and motives will help you better understand why they chose that "narrative angle".

In essence, applying first principles to study history means forcing yourself to shift from accepting a complete "story package" to examining a pile of raw "parts."

Your task is not simply to believe either the prosecutor or the defense attorney, but to gather all the physical evidence (facts) and then try to reconstruct the case yourself. You might find that the story you reconstruct is different from what they told.

This process might be a bit tiring, but it's incredibly interesting. It transforms you from a passive listener of stories into an active, independent-thinking explorer. The history learned this way is truly your own; it's "alive."

Created At: 09-18 08:30:53Updated At: 09-30 07:49:37