the history and fact

*****back


"A story and the novel" do not have to be a fact, but "the history" must be A fact.

Then what is the historic fact?
It "is what was proved".

The material world is absolute.

That is why it is theoretical,
There should be the absolute right or wrong whether there was a human action, thought; なのである.



However, there are few actions that a trace wins through up to.
One's action that a person recognizes is limited.
There are few actions that others recognize.

Besides it is rarely written and,
The testimony of the person cannot often trust a lot of mistake and falsehood, too.

How does it get closer to "proof?"
It is the realistic problem as the human being.


And as a problem of the material world,
There can be the thing that there is not it despite "a fact" theoretically.

There is not the value evaluation despite "a fact".

Although, as for the value evaluation that I watched from a certain person and group, it may be said that there is it in the head of the person and the people of the group

In fact itself which became targeted for an evaluation, the value is because it is a thing not to be included in.


However, the one which we need
It is the answer to question what is important.

It is positive that there is this by the realistic problem as the human being again