The anacronismo properly said, when we attribute values of a time to another one, opposing or better expressing, ignoring and disrespecting one another reality. Example: to speak on Internet in Old Greece, being that we know that as much the technology how much the term did not exist at such time. This example esdrxulo was only for not leaving doubts regarding the anacronismo, but we could even though think about one same concept in distinct realities, as for example, the democracy Greek and what our society contemporary understands as democracy. After this brief clarification concerning the anacronismo, we go the question that I consider here. It is consensus between the historiogrficas theoretical lines that the man belongs to its time, that is, is arraigado of values and consequentemente positions of the time where it lives, being passive nuances of the period where he is inserted. Mainly the professionals of certain areas, as the historians for example, must have acuidade in the treatment of such question, respecting the values of a time when if it premakes use to study it, serving of methodology and ethical position so that it can make a multicriteria analysis and searching to denigrate the possible minimum its object of study. The controversy that here explicit has as mote this paradox, as a man, being subject of its time, can analyze without committing the anacronismo, leading in consideration that not only its look, more also the method that uses is contemporary and that consequentemente he will be being anachronistic when studying the previous processes to its time? The conclusion that I arrive is that the anacronismo is inevitable, however, is tolerable until certain intolerable point and from other points. The validity of the anacronismo while ' ' positivo' ' if it relates to the fact to be limited has a method contemporary, being carried through by a man in its time, loading in the bulge different values of its object of study, leading in consideration that does not occur a total removal between researcher and object of study, what it takes in them to as the point, anachronistic intolerncia is what it serves as parameter to take precautions itself of mistakes.

Thus being, the more anachronistic, less faithful it will be its analysis and how much lesser this mistake, more consistency gets in the application of the method. The moved away look must also make the researcher to attempt against it the distanciamento, if not making of redentor, but having some conscience of its immense limitations, looking for at times, the more remote, sources ' ' brutas' ' , in the direction of more fidedignidades to the caught period. What it can be mentioned as example, the coherence of the French philosopher Michel Foucautl, when writing its History of the Sexuality, the search in knowing the language Greek who was the origin of sources of the treated subject, respecting the nomenclature based on studies pautados for theoretical referencial of philosophers of the proper period, giving a bigger credibility for leaving that she almost said for itself the analyzed texts, sending air-tight process to it of translation with the minimum of transliterao that it was possible. The anacronismo does not exclude the credibility of the historiogrfica research, but always it will be a shade to the watch, desiring to any incautiousness, to swallow the believed luminosity of the epgonos of the mitolgicos demiurges of long ago.

« »