Historian R. G. Collingwood argued that historical understanding requires "rethinking" the thoughts of past actors — reconstructing, so far as possible, the situation as those actors perceived it and the considerations that informed their actions. Mere description of events from outside, Collingwood maintained, captures only the skeleton of what occurred; understanding why an action was taken demands that the historian provisionally inhabit the perspective that made the action seem reasonable from within.
Which conclusion most logically follows from Collingwood's view as presented?
- A
Past actions can be fully explained by external description alone
- Bcheck_circle
Collingwood treats the reconstruction of agents' viewpoints as an internal requirement of historical understanding rather than an optional supplement
- C
Historians should refuse to consider the perspectives of those they study
- D
Historical explanation can be complete without considering the perspectives of past actors
Explanation
Treating "rethinking" as required for understanding why supports B. A, C, D contradict Collingwood's view.