what is history？

合集下载

历史学专业英语02-What_is_History共17页文档

Henry Ford
• “History is more or less bunk”
Winston Churchill
• “History is written by the victors”
• “History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it”
Distinctions of history
• "facts of the past“ (historical information that historians deem unimportant)
• "historical facts", information that the historians have decided is important
history
Edward Gibbon (1700s)
• “History is, indeed, a little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind”
Napoleon
• “History is a myth we all agree to isciplinary’
• "History is preoccupied with fundamental processes of change. If you are allergic to these processes, you abandon history and take cover in the social sciences. Today anthropology, sociology, etc, flourish. History is sick. But then our society too is sick".

经典英文电影台词虚拟语气

经典英文电影台词虚拟语气经典英文电影台词虚拟语气经典英文电影台词虚拟语气就是为大家整理的经典英文电影台词，请看下面：《当幸福来敲门》【1】1.You have a dream, you got to protect it.如果你有梦想,就要守护它.2.People can't do something by themselves;they wanna tell you you can not do it.当人们做不到一些事情的时候,他们就会对你说你也同样不能.3.You want something. Go get it!有了目标就要全力以赴.4.There is an I in "happiness",Thereis no Y in "happiness",It's an I幸福的幸里面是一个“幸”,不是一个“辛”.或者理解成,Y=Why=为什么,I=我.幸福里面没有为什么,只有我.5.I'm the type of person,if you ask me aquestion, and I don't konw the answer,I'm gonna to tell you that I don'tkonw.But I bet you what: I konw how to find the answer,and I'll find theanswer,.我是这样的人,如果你问的问题我不知道答案,我会直接告诉你“我不知道”.但我向你保证：我知道如何寻找答案,而且我一定会找出答案的.6.Don't ever let somebody tell you you can'tdo something, not even me.别让别人告诉你你成不了才,即使是我也不行.7.You got a dream,you gotta protect it. People can't do something themselves,they wanna tell youyou can't do it.If you want something, go get it. Period.如果你有梦想的话,就要去捍卫它.那些一事无成的.人想告诉你你也成不了大器.如果你有理想的话,就要去努力实现.就这样.8.What would you say if a guy walked in for aninterview without a short on and I hired him? What would you say? He must'vehad on some really nice pants.如果有个人连衬衫都没穿就跑来参加面试,你会怎么想?如果最后我还雇佣了这个人,你会怎么想?那他穿的裤子一定十分考究.9. Don't ever let somebody tell you you can'tdo something, not even me.别让别人告诉你你成不了才,即使是我也不行.《The Lion King狮子王》【2】1. Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance.世界上所有的生命都在微妙的平衡中生存。

外研社2023大学思辨英语教程精读4Unit_13_开放周备课示范PPT

Intensive Reading IVUnit 13What Is History课文讲授环节的设计思路•课程介绍•主要问题：语言与思辨•对二者的理解及其相互关系•课堂实施过程•尚待探索的问题语言与思辨 I•语言•具体内容：多方面+多维度•实现途径：学生自学；课文讲解；课堂练习；前情回顾；前后单元语言知识与技能的回顾与总结；课下写作任务•教师作用：督促语言学习；提示学习方法；检测学习效果（而非代替学生自主学习）语言与思辨 II•思辨•具体内容：多方面；正确看待学科知识与思辨技能•实现途径：思辨性课堂任务包含内容与技能两个维度，结合具体任务提出思辨策略，指导思辨能力培养语言与思辨 III•语言与思辨的关系•并非对立，而是互相渗透结合需要进一步探索二者协同发展的策略课堂具体实施Question 1Choose from the following features of positivist historians: •viewing historical knowledge as facts •pessimistic about achieving ultimate history •reflecting the self-confidence of the beat generation •_________________•_________________Question 2Correct mistakes, if any:•Lest anyone think the question meaningless, I’ll take as my text two passages…•Final history we cannot have in this generation; but we can dispose conventional history.•Acton speaks out of the positive belief … of the later Victorian age; Sir Clark echoes the bewilderment … of the beaten generation.Question 3Think of synonyms for the following:•(the question seeming meaningless and) superfluous •judicious (division of labor)•(pundits contradicting each other) flagrantlyQuestion 4Translate the following into Chinese: •When we attempt to answer the question “What is history?” our answer, consciously or unconsciously, reflects our own position in time, and forms part of our answer to the broader question what view we take of the society in which we live.讲解过程中特别提示分析方法和自主学习方法Introduction: by what?Lord Aton & Sir Clark: •Why these two historians (to merit this comparison at all)? group work: main contentions by Acton? •Key words/phrases from Acton? •Issues of historical study touched upon?material selectioninstruction:contentinstruction:skillDisagreement: Lord Acton vs. Sir Clark Issues of concern:•methods for historical study: •knowledge of history: •objectives (end product/nature of history): •relationship between historians:Historiography demo.ofwhattohave review of textDemonstration: analysis of one part•steps in the process:•overall structure→ key word reading of text→analysis of method→ clarification of key ideas →critique/application•both language & content/critique indispensable;success one depends on the otherCarr’s argument II (para. 6)For long paragraphs like this, work out the structure first. target: common-sense view •What is Carr having problem with?refutation 1: •What is it?•To argue his point, what methods does Carr use? •(modification of his criticism about the common-sense view?) 1. overall structure 2. key-word reading 3. method 4. modification of language by contentCarr’s argument II (para. 6)R. 2: establishment as basic facts resting not on___ but on___ •Methods of argument? Let’s read the lines together. (cf. those for R.1) •In spite of C. P. Scott’s motto, every journalist knows that the most effective way to influence opinion is by the selection and arrangement of the appropriate facts. •The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context. •Pirandello's character saying that a fact is like a sack—won’t stand up till you’ve put something in it.•The only reason we are interested to know that the battle was fought at Hastings in 1066 is that historians regard it as a major historical event. •Caesar crossing Rubicon; your arriving in buildingquotation+analogy historians’ practice quotation: lit. echo of e.g. in R. 1 The conclusion?Carr’s argument II (para. 6)•Now that we’ve understood the author’s ideas, let’s give our own comment: to what extent do you agree? •R. 1: Facts are not what the historian is primarily concerned with. •R. 2: the necessity to establish these basic historical facts rests not quality in the facts but on a priori decisions of the historian.•Possible strategy: follow-up questions , by thinking along theauthor’s logic, or by focusing on key ideas/concepts in statements.instruction: content instruction: skillHistory of two universities: table of contents尚待探索的问题•语言•学生input方面相对较好，output方面如何加强•思辨•思辨能力可以通过训练提高，但如何在学生可以承受的工作量下提高其知识储备。

关于历史英文介绍作文

关于历史英文介绍作文History is a fascinating subject that allows us to explore the past and understand how it has shaped the present. It is a record of human experiences, achievements, and failures, providing us with valuable lessons and insights.The study of history helps us to understand the complexities of human societies and the reasons behindtheir rise and fall. It allows us to gain a deeper appreciation for the cultural, political, and social developments that have occurred over time.History is not just about memorizing dates and events; it is about critically analyzing and interpreting the past to make sense of the present. By studying history, we can learn from the mistakes of our predecessors and make informed decisions for the future.One of the most important aspects of history is itsability to foster a sense of identity and belonging. By understanding our historical roots, we can develop a greater appreciation for our heritage and cultural traditions.History is a dynamic and ever-evolving field, constantly being reinterpreted and reevaluated as new evidence and perspectives emerge. It is a living subject that continues to shape our understanding of the world and our place in it.In conclusion, history is a rich tapestry of human experiences that offers us valuable insights into the past and present. It is a subject that encourages critical thinking, empathy, and a deeper understanding of the world around us. By studying history, we can gain a greater appreciation for the complexities of human societies and the lessons they have to offer.。

雅思口语Part1答案：History历史

雅思口语Part1答案：History历史1. Do you like (to learn about) history?I love history it shows us where we come from. Peoplesay history always repeats itself and it does. I think it’s important to look back so we can learn from past mistakes and make sure we don't make the same ones as ancestors did. My favorite time in history would have to be the medieval times.我喜欢历史，它让我们知道自己来自何处。

人们说历史总是重演，是，确实是这样的。

我认为回顾历史非常重要，这样我们就能够从过去的错误中汲取教训，确保不再犯先人们犯过的同样错误。

我最喜欢的时代应该是中世纪了。

2. Do you think history is important?History is the record of events of what had happened in the past. In a sense all developments in politics, government, society, inventions and discoveries are part of human history. History helps you understand yourself better and understand others around you better.历史是过往曾发生事件的记录。

某种意义上讲，政治、政府、社会、发明和发现的发展过程都算是人类历史的一部分。

雅思口语范文Part 3 Topic 50 感兴趣想了解的历史时期

1. What can we learn from historical heritages? / Why should we protect old buildings?Historical heritages teachus about society and culture inthe past. They help us understandwhowe are andwhere we came from. They canshow us what life usedtobe like. They alsoexplainwhy we have certain traditions and beliefs461. Actually nothing stays the same462. History is always changing.Understanding the history of our heritages helps us continue to shape them.2. How can we protect old buildings?The government canprotect old buildings by makingrules that forbid destroyingthem463.They canmakelaws accordingtothosebuildings ’ historic andcultural value464. Thatway nobodycan legally destroy them or repurpose them. Ordinary citizens can help with this cause465 as well. They can advocate for466 those laws. They can also raise awareness about the importance of old buildings. Everyone can help protect these buildings.3. Is it useful to learn history? / What can we learn from history?Yes, I think it’s useful to learnhistory. After all, history helps explainwhy things are the waythey are467. For example, history canexplainwhere certaintraditions andbeliefs come from. It canteach you about important and inspiring figures from the past. Plus, it helps us learn from our mistakes as well.4. What are the ways to learn history?Wecanlearnabouthistory fromstudyinghistory textbooks. Buttherearemoreways thanthat.For example, wecanwatcholddocumentaries toseewhatlifewas like468. Itcanshow us theworldbefore we were born. We canalso watchfilms and look at paintings fromdifferent time periods.Thoseshow us theculturethey camefrom. Plus, youngpeoplecanalsotalk toolder generations tolearn about their lives.5. Do people prefer learning history through books or movies?It seems to me that people prefer learning about history through movies. Most of the people I know don ’t likereading. Itjustdoesn ’t interestthem469. They likewatchingmovies tolearnabout history. Movies are more visual and engaging470 than books are. After all, everything is shown on screen. Youdon ’t have to do any imagining. Things are easier to remember if you see them.6. Why are some people not interested in history?Well, some peoplejust care about what ’s happeningnow. They aren ’t interested inwhat happenedinthe past. Lots of people think history is toofar fromtheir daily life. They think learningabout it isn ’t helpful for one ’sjob and life. Another reasonis that history classes canbe ve ry boring. So people focus on other things and get distracted easily471.7. How can teachers make history classes more interesting?Teachers can make history classes more interesting by using different kinds of media. For example, they canshow their students historical movies or let themread historical novels. Plus,teachers cantry toget students toimagine what it wouldbe like tolive inthe past. Youknow, theycould assign studentsinteresting projects472 that get them to think in unique ways473. They can encourage students to be interested in history through their imagination.461 traditions and beliefs ：传统和信仰462 nothing stays the same ：没有什么是一成不变的463 making rules that forbid destroying them ：制定禁止破坏他们的规则464 historic and cultural value ：历史文化价值465 cause：目标、事业466 advocate for: 支持、拥护、宣扬…467 why things are the way they are ：世界(万事万物)为什么是这样的468 what life was like ：以前的生活是怎样的469 It just doesn’t interest them ：他们(对阅读)不感兴趣470 engaging ：吸引人的471 get distracted easily: 很容易分心472 assign students interesting projects ：给学生布置有趣的作业473 think in unique ways ：以独特的角度思考问题。

What is History

My Understanding of History Jasmine Chiu 4G (8)History is the past, or as Roman philosopher Cicero says, “History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time”. It is a record of important events that ever happened and events that has changed the people’s lives. For example, the Industrial Revolution in Europe in the 18th century reformed the whole European landscape, bringing great improvements in the economic and technological aspects. It modernized the whole of Europe. That’s a historical event.History is presented and recorded in many forms. It can be in primary sources or secondary sources, written and non-written. History is around us, from your diary to your history textbook, from the folk song that your grandma taught you to oral memoirs from victims of the war. These are all forms of history.History is also something that profoundly links to the present, and even the future. What our predecessors had done in the past still affect us. Take the Age of Reason as an example, in the 18th century, there were many Enlightenment ideas generated. These ideas laid the foundation for the universal core values and constitutions, like basic human rights and freedom of speech.In addition, history serves as moral and academic education to us. Livy, a Roman historian once said that history is a record in which “you can find yourselfyou’re your country both examples and warnings”. History warns us against greed for power, as well as brutality and aggressiveness to others, like Hitler’s and postwar Germany’s consequences after the Nazi frenzy. As well as dictatorship and unfair treatments of social classes lead to rebellions and even riots. After we have learnt of their catastrophic aftermaths, we can prevent ourselves from committing the same deeds. At the same time, history is the best teacher for strategies and methods. We can adopt some of the methods the people from the past had used. For example, the Roman Republic’s Senate and government structure, as well as the freedom of speech are still widely adopted in many countries in the world, particularly the West. Therefore history is not just the past, it is also our present and future. The experiences from the people in the past, are with high educational value, just like the old saying, “experience is the best teacher”.History’s a study of facts, and behavior of humans. Its nature is to be objective. However, there are biased historians who recorded only one side of the event. Some even distorted the true facts and recorded false history. That’s why history, thoughaimed to be objective, often comes out more as government propaganda, and even biographies.To conclude, I think history is a study of facts and human behavior in the past. History is the best teacher as it is a record of both failures and successes in the past. We can use history as a reference in life. It is around us, presented and recorded in many different forms. Although history is a record of the past, it affects our present-day life and even the future. That’s why, as I understand it, history is an important subject which will help in our lives.。

What can we learn from history(1)

What can we learn from history ?sometimes people or countries make some mistakes, they do some bad things, and we can learn from them to not do the same things.people have good ideas, they do good things, and we can learn from them how to meet a challenge or face a problemthere are people who had a very difficult life, but never gave up, they always tried to do something better. what can we learn from them?there are people who had very strong beliefs and tried to change the world with their beliefs (and they did! just like gandhi or martin luther king, jr.)For almost two centuries, American historians have been studying communication; and all signs indicate that, rather than declining, the interest in communication history is on the rise. That interest raises the question of why study history, and, more specifically, communication history.Besides the simple enjoyment they derive from studying history, historians, and students as well, give various answers to such questions. Coming from professional backgrounds in such areas as journalism and advertising, some want to learn from the past so that they may be better practitioners in their professions. Oriented primarily toward the present rather than the past, some examine the past to help them find the roots of present practices. Others pragmatically believe they can learn mistakes of the past so that they can avoid repeating the errors, while others think they can use the past to help prepare for the future.All these views may have some validity - some, more than others - but the serious historian finds that the study of history is valuable primarily in other ways. First, it helps us to understand the past. Although historians may first approach the past for some other reason, with continued study they find that it has intrinsic value in itself. They wish to study the past for its own sake. Second, the study of history can help us understand people. Conditions and times may change, communication technologies and publishing and broadcasting enterprises come and go, but human nature, the human character, human relationships, and the human spirit endure. Third, it can help us understand the present. Its value, however, is not simply in helping discover the paths by which the present emerged, but in revealing particulars from the past that may serve as comparisons with the present, as lenses through which to consider our own times. Fourth, the study of history is valuable for the intellectual stimulation it provides. Professional communication schools today emphasize courses of study to prepare students for careers, but the true value of education lies in developing a critical intellect in the student. The study of history, requiring as it does rigorous and mature thinking, helps nurture the intellect as few other disciplines can do.。

Unit 3 Grammar and usage 课件-2022高中英语牛津译林版(选择性必修第三册

1) History is a dialogue between the present and the past.What is history?History is ……2) History is what you remember.a noun phrase a noun clauseS+V+P Predictive ClausesOne historian is worthy to be mentioned in the course of Chinese history.He is acknowledged as the father ofChinese history for his masterpiece—— the Shiji.Task 1: Read the passage on P34 and answer the question: What contributed to Sima Qian’s success as a great historian? His interest in history (his father’s influence),his learning of Chinese classics,his extensive traveling across the country,his position as Grand Historian,his diligence,his perseverance/strong-will.对... ...感兴趣周游全国获取广泛的信息接替他父亲成为太史令方便他接触... ... 整理可用的资源 take an interest in ...travel extensively across the countryget a wide range of informationsucceed his father as Grand Historian facilitate his access to ...sort out available resources需要艰苦的努力有效且高效地继续某事被关进监狱身体上和精神上无论顺境还是逆境require painstaking efforts effectively and efficiently carry on with ...be put in prison physically and mentallyin good times or bad timesTask 2: Read the passage again and find the sentences with predicative clauses.Learning and travelling were exactly what helped him in his later career as a historian.His father’s dream was that one day he could write a great masterpiece recording what had happened in history. His chief concern was whether he could do his job more effectively and efficiently.Working out the rules•We can use a noun clause as the predicative of asentence.•We can use that to introduce a predicative clause whenthe clause is a (1) _________. We can use whether tointroduce a predicative clause when the clause is a (2) _____________. We can use what , why , when , where , etc. to introduce a predicative clause when the clause is a (3) ___________.statement yes-no questionwh-questionlinking verbsbesensorylook,sound,smell,taste,feel,touchbecome,go,turn,fall,come,get,grow,runthe changeto continueto be (状态）remain,stay,keepto give theimpressionof being ordoing sthseem,appearturn out,provethe resultThe question is what caused the accident . That mountain is no longer what it used to be.The problem is whose work is the best.The question is which of us should go.The question is who(m) we should trust .1. 连接代词who, what, which, whom, whose, whatever, whoever, whomever, whichever 在从句中作主语、宾语、表语或定语，本身具有语义。

2019年雅思口语话题解析：History

2019年雅思口语话题解析：History雅思口语part1往往被同学们认为是雅思口语三部分中较容易的部分。

实际的确如此，part1 的难度最低，话题贴近生活，在这个答题过程中更易于同学们进入口语对话状态。

但对于英文基础较差的同学，雅思口语part1部分虽然简单但依旧会暴露出语法，用词等不足。

HistoryWar history 战争历史Qin Dynasty 秦朝past events 过去的事件Historical documentary 历史纪录片Four great ancient civilizations 四大文明古国Chinese ancient myth 中国古代神话Chinese ancient history 中国古代史Five thousand years of history 五千年历史1. Do you like history?Yes. I love history very much. According to my first history teacher, there are many branches in history including war history, political history, economic, social,international and ancient. My favorite is the Chinese ancient history.2. Do you think history is important?Yes, of course. From history we can use knowledge of past events to study things that aren't currently happening. forexample, we sometimes need to learn about war while we are still in peacetime. Also history helps us know how ourculture is developed so that we get a better understanding of our present.3. Does china have a long history?Yes, definitely. China is one of the four great ancient civilizations. It has five thousand years of history during the Chinese ancient myth. Calculated from Qin Dynasty, the first united empire, it still has two thousand and two hundred years of history.4. Do you think you can learn history from films or TV programs?By some means yes. But I can’t agree with it completely. There’re many documentaries and forums dedicated to tell us about real history, meanwhile some films and TV series that tell stories in the past actually don’t have anything to do with history. Some audience might get confused or even misled by them.5. Do you think the internet is a good way to learn about history?Yes, I think so. We can get lots of information from the internet, including old photos and films, articles and books written by famous people and so on. All these are good ways to learn about history. And we can get them free instantly. With that we no longer need to buy tons of books or go to the library.。

什么是思想史what is intellectual history

W HAT IS I NTELLECTUAL H ISTORY?A FRANKLY PARTISAN INTRODUCTION TOA FREQUENTLY MISUNDERSTOOD FIELDPeter E. GordonProfessor of HistoryHarvard UniversityIntroductionHarvard University now boasts of a great number of accomplished historians whose interests and methods align them primarily—though not necessarily exclusively—with intellectual history. These include (in alphabetical order): David Armitage, Ann Blair, Peter Bol, Joyce Chaplin, Peter Gordon, James Hankins, James Kloppenberg, Emma Rothschild, and Judith Surkis. But just what is intellectual history?Intellectual history is an unusual discipline, eclectic in both method and subject matter and therefore resistant to any single, globalized definition. Practitioners of intellectual history tend to be acutely aware of their own methodological commitments; indeed, a concern with historical method is characteristic of the discipline. Because intellectual historians are likely to disagree about the most fundamental premises of what they do, any one definition of intellectual history is bound to provoke controversy. In this essay, I will offer a few introductory remarks about intellectual history, its origins and current directions. I have tried to be fair in describing the diversity of the field, but where judgment has seemed appropriate I have not held back from offering my own opinions. The essay is frankly partisan, in that it reflects my own preferences and my own conception of where intellectual history stands in relation to other methodologies. I hope it will be of some use for students at both the undergraduate and graduate level who are thinking about pursuing work in intellectual history.Intellectual History and the History of IdeasWhat is intellectual history? Broadly speaking, intellectual history is the study of intellectuals, ideas, and intellectual patterns over time. Of course, that is a terrifically large definition and it admits of a bewildering variety of approaches. One thing to note right off is the distinction between “intellectual history” and “the history of ideas.” This can be somewhat confusing, since the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably: “history of ideas” is a rather old-fashioned phrase, and not currently in vogue (thoughthere is an excellent journal for intellectual historians published under the title, The Journal of the History of Ideas.) But if we are worried about precise definitions rather than popular usage, there is arguably a difference: The “history of ideas” is a discipline which looks at large-scale concepts as they appear and transform over the course of history. An historian of ideas will tend to organize the historical narrative around one major idea and will then follow the development or metamorphosis of that idea as it manifests itself in different contexts and times, rather as a musicologist might trace a theme and all of its variations throughout the length of a symphony. Perhaps the most classic example is the book by Arthur Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (originally given as the William James Lectures at Harvard University in 1933). This kind of exercise has many merits—for example, it permits us to recognize commonalities in thought despite vast dissimilarities in context, thereby calling attention to the way that humanity seems always preoccupied with certain seemingly “eternal” thoughts. But this advantage can also be a disadvantage. By insisting that the idea is recognizably the same thing despite all of its contextual variations, the history of ideas approach tends to encourage a kind of Platonist attitude about thoughts, as if they somehow preexisted their contexts and merely manifested themselves in various landscapes. Lovejoy was in fact rather more nuanced than this suggests, however: his study of the “great chain of being” (as one example of what he called “unit ideas”) demonstrated that there was an internal contradiction in this concept, a tension which eventually transformed the original idea and led ultimately to its self-destruction. As Lovejoy practiced it, the history of ideas was much like a history of large-scale concepts, in which the historical narrative showed how intrinsic tendencies in those concepts “worked themselves out” as if of their own internal logic.Intellectual history is often considered to be different from the history of ideas. Intellectual history resists the Platonist expectation that an idea can be defined in the absence of the world, and it tends instead to regard ideas as historically conditioned features of the world which are best understood within some larger context, whether it be the context of social struggle and institutional change, intellectual biography (individual or collective), or some larger context of cultural or linguistic dispositions (now often called “discourses”). To be sure, sometimes the requisite context is simply the context of other, historically conditioned ideas—intellectual history does not necessarily require that concepts be studied within a larger, non-conceptual frame. Admittedly, this last point can be controversial: some intellectual historians do adopt a purely “internalist” approach,i.e., they set thoughts in relation to other thoughts, without reference to some setting outside them. This method is usually most revealing when the relations between ideas helps us to see a previously unacknowledged connection between different realms of intellectual inquiry, e.g., the relation between theological and scientific modes of explanation, or between metaphysical and political concepts of causality. But this method tends to reproduce the Platonism which beset the older-style history of ideas approach. Even today, many intellectual historians remain—stubbornly or covertly—internalist in their method. They may pay lip-service to contextualism, but they are chiefly interested in conceptual contexts only. But because internalist styles of argumentation have in recent decades fallen out of favor amongst historians and humanists more generally, those who write intellectual history in the internalist manner often look rather tweedy and traditionalist to their more “worldly” colleagues both withinand beyond of the historical discipline. Indeed, intellectual historians who practice this sort of concept-contextualism will not infrequently meet with accusations of quietism, elitism, or political naiveté. Internalism is nonetheless defensible on methodological grounds, though it is important to acknowledge its risks and its limitations.As this discussion makes plain, there are many types of intellectual history, and each of them has its own methodological peculiarities. Perhaps the most helpful way to think about the various tendencies in intellectual history today is to compare them with those disciplines—within and beyond the discipline of history itself—which they most closely resemble. These are: philosophy, political theory, cultural history, and sociology. Intellectual History and PhilosophyIntellectual history can frequently involve a close reconstruction of philosophical arguments as they have been recorded in formal philosophical texts. In this respect intellectual history may bear a noteworthy resemblance to philosophy, and most especially, the history of philosophy. But intellectual history remains importantly distinct from philosophy for a number of reasons. Most importantly, philosophy tends to disregard differences of history or cultural context so as to concentrate almost exclusively upon the internal coherence of philosophical arguments in themselves. One often says that the task for intellectual historians is that of “understanding” rather than philosophical evaluation. That is, intellectual historians want chiefly to “understand”—rather than, say, to “defend” or “refute”—a given intellectual problem or perspective, and they therefore tend to be skeptics about the philosophers’ belief in decontextualized evaluation. Philosophers, too, of course, will frequently appeal to historical-contextual matters when they are trying to figure out just why someone thought as they did. So the difference between philosophy and intellectual history is merely one of degree rather than kind. Yet intellectual historians tend to be more relaxed about crossing the boundary between philosophical texts and non-philosophical contexts. Indeed, intellectual historians will tend to regard the distinction between “philosophy” and “non-philosophy” as something that is itself historically conditioned rather than eternally fixed. They will therefore be wary of assuming one can ever concentrate one’s attention upon a purely philosophical meaning uncontaminated by its surroundings. Because they are historians, intellectual historians believe it is important to understand why people thought differently about things we may not agree with today. This pronounced awareness regarding historical difference makes historians generally reluctant to draw strongly evaluative claims about past ideas. Of course, historians cannot bracket out their own moral or intellectual commitments entirely and it would be foolish to believe they could do so. But history nourishes a certain skepticism about the permanence of any philosophical or moral commitment, and it therefore promotes a certain readiness to entertain differences in philosophical perspective whereas philosophers would likely think that the differences are either superficial or evidence of philosophical error.This interest in reconstructive understanding as against strict evaluation has at least two notable consequences for the practice of intellectual history. First, it enables intellectualhistorians to draw sometimes surprising and creative connections between different sorts of texts. Second, it allows them to think about intellectual “meaning” in a rather capacious or open-ended fashion, such that the canon of what counts as the proper topic for intellectual history remains remarkably loose. Intellectual historians are interested in “ideas” of all sorts, not only ideas as they are defined within the current guidelines of academic philosophy.These two features of intellectual-historical practice may invite charges of eclecticism or lack of philosophical rigor. Such criticism is not without merit. Some intellectual historians seem so concerned with contextualizing philosophical ideas they miss important details in the ideas themselves. Philosophers are right to complain that philosophical comprehension should not be sacrificed for the sake of broad-mindedness. But every opportunity for creativity is accompanied by risks. Intellectual historians are likely to defend their efforts by noting that philosophy carries a correlative risk that, by fixing itself so narrowly upon the details of philosophical argument, philosophy can miss the reason why such an argument was ever considered significant. Still, it is important to see that the boundary-line between philosophy and intellectual history remains highly flexible. There are of course differences of methodological emphasis, some of which are outlined above. (For another perspective, insisting on a strong divide between intellectual history and philosophy, one should consult the introductory pages of Bernard Williams’ book, Descartes, The Project of Pure Inquiry. Penguin: Harmondsworth, 1978.)It is critical to recognize that the boundary between intellectual history and philosophy has been drawn differently at different times and places. Philosophy in Europe tends to be far more historical than in the United States; much of what passes for “intellectual history” in the United States would therefore be practiced in Europe within the confines of a department of philosophy. On the other hand, many scholars in the United States who teach in philosophy departments and do work categorized as “history of philosophy” quite frequently adopt the contextualist methods of their intellectual-historian peers. This prompts the question as to why the historians of philosophy are in philosophy departments at all, especially when some of their peers dismiss their work as “merely” historical. It often seems the distinction can seem to have very little to do with actual disagreement over method, and far more to do with contingent factors such as competition over funding and the institutional reproduction of group-identities (e.g., a person with a degree in one discipline is usually considered unqualified for another discipline) Despite all the talk about professional training in the methods appropriate to a specific discipline, there is really almost as much heterogeneity within any given discipline as between one discipline and another. Disciplines can be and have been carved up in all sorts of ways, and one would be justified in thinking there is no deep logic in current distinctions between them. In recent years, much of the truly groundbreaking scholarship by philosophers and historians appears to span the divide between their two disciplines. To classify such work exclusively as philosophy or history would be challenging indeed; some noteworthy examples would include: Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard, 1989); John Toews, Hegelianism (New York: Cambridge UP, 1980); Martin Jay, Marxism and Totality (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia, 1984); and J.G.A Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1975). In such cases, the distinction between philosophy and history seems so slight as to be almost negligible, more a matter of institutional affiliation and nomenclature than substantive disagreement over canons or method.Still, the rough distinctions between intellectual history and philosophy outlined above hold generally true for most if not all scholarship. Intellectual historians often write about philosophical topics, but as compared to their peers in philosophy, intellectual historians are: a) more interested in understanding than strong judgment, b) more willing to cross the institutional boundary-line separating the philosophical canon from the larger world of ideas, and c) more ecumenical about what sorts of ideas deserve our intellectual attention.Intellectual History and Political TheoryAs it has been customarily practiced, intellectual history has more often than not devoted itself to understanding the history of political thought. Why this should be so is an interesting question and merits some comment. The traditional emphasis on politics surely has something to do the origins of modern historical scholarship in nineteenth-century Germany. The earliest practitioners of historical Wissenschaft (“science,” or “knowledge”) were heirs to the Greek ideal of political-historical narration, an ideal traceable to Thucydides. Modeling themselves consciously after the Greeks, German nationalist historians of the nineteenth century tended to believe that history is first and foremost a study of political narrative. This idea gained reinforcement from philosophers such as G.W.F. Hegel, who saw world history as the unfolding idea of freedom. And, for historians such as Leopold von Ranke, “history” and “political history” were taken to be nearly synonymous. The German conception of history as a political narrative proved especially attractive in the nineteenth century, when, following Napoleon’s defeat, a great number of German intellectuals (many of them liberal if not quite democratic in their political commitments) were preoccupied by the question of what distinguished the German states from the rest of continental Europe. Yet the idea had earlier precedents.A similar tendency can be detected in the work of the 18th-century philosopher of history, J.G. Herder, who believed that history is the expression of national differences. All of these tendencies conspired to reinforce the view that history should be chiefly about political change, and this is the view that still implicitly governs the practice of history throughout most of Europe and North America.Intellectual history, too, continues to reflect the broader historical emphasis on politics. Even today, most intellectual historians continue to believe that their primary task is to understand not just ideas in general, but rather political ideas in particular. If one looks at the publications and syllabi of intellectual historians, this assumption is immediately evident. This political emphasis has many roots. It is a noticeable feature in the works of Friedrich Meinecke, one of the earliest and most significant practitioners of what the Germans called Geistesgeschichte (“the history of ideas”). Meinecke wrote mostly about political thought; he was especially concerned with the question of what distinguished the history of German political thought from the “cosmopolitan” philosophies fashionableelsewhere in Europe. The nationalist tenor that pervades his earlier works now seems somewhat dated. It is interesting to note that in his very last book, The German Catastrophe, Meinecke abandoned his overtly political nationalism but still managed to preserve a certain cultural nationalism, as is evident, e.g., in his suggestion that small cultural “societies” should be organized throughout post-WWII Germany for the rebuilding of national consciousness upon the sturdy foundations of Goethe and Schiller. But Meinecke is merely one example. The larger point is that most intellectual historians were trained as historians and therefore absorbed the normative emphasis on political matters that continues to govern much of the historical discipline. But intellectual historians have modified this emphasis according to the intellectualist focus of their own practice; they accordingly construe intellectual history as a discipline that is primarily concerned with political ideas and ideologies. It is therefore sometimes difficult to distinguish between intellectual historians and historians of political thought.In Great Britain, the emphasis on political thought within intellectual history has drawn inspiration chiefly from two accomplished practitioners—Isaiah Berlin (who taught at Oxford) and Quentin Skinner (who teaches at Cambridge). Berlin, a Russian-born polymath, was the author of numerous essays and books on the European intellectual tradition. An ardent believer in individual freedom, he devoted much of his scholarship to exposing the danger in the political-theoretical notion he called “positive liberty”, i.e., the notion that an individual’s true freedom is only realized when it is shaped according to the ostensibly “higher” needs of society or the state. Against this tradition of “monism” (so-called due to its metaphysical drive to subsume all perspectives within a single, apparently rational unity), Berlin defended a kind of “pluralism,” emphasizing the primacy of personal liberty and the irreducible diversity of individual as well as cultural perspectives. He discovered the resources for this pluralistic philosophy in a dissenting intellectual tradition he called the “Counter-Enlightenment”, which included such thinkers as Herder, Vico, and Burke. In a 1953 essay on Tolstoy’s philosophy of history, “The Hedgehog and the Fox”, Berlin offered a famous distinction between these two intellectual traditions in allegorical terms borrowed from the Greek poet Archilochus: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” (Berlin’s essay was originally published under the title, “Leo Tolstoy's Historical Skepticism” in Oxford Slavonic Papers 2; 1951.)Needless to say, such baggy categorizations are unlikely to capture the actual details of philosophical dispute. An obvious flaw in Berlin’s monism-pluralism distinction is that thinkers such as Herder and Burke, though ostensibly pluralists about the relation between various cultural traditions, tended to be monists about the integrity within a given culture. Herder was in this respect an important precursor of German Romanticism. And Burke went so far as to embrace a quasi-organicist theory of political culture, such that any sign of internal disunity or dissent seemed to him an indication of pathology. The irony is that Berlin himself had a penchant for hedgehog-like generalizations, but was most successful only when he remained a fox. He authored an astonishing number of essays on disparate themes and thereby introduced people to specific topics they might otherwise have missed. But his grander intellectual pronouncements about the history of political thought now seem almost dilettantish intheir generality, and, the closer one examines them, the more they seem to demand qualification.Quentin Skinner remains today one of the most important figures in intellectual history, and he stands at the epicenter of what is commonly called the “Cambridge School” in the history of political thought. The author of a great variety of essays on intellectual-historical methodology and early-modern (chiefly English) political theory, Skinner is perhaps most famous for advocating a certain contextualist approach to intellectual history, as set forth in the path breaking essay, “Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas” (originally published in History and Theory, 8;1969, pp. 3-53, subsequently revised and amended). While the fuller spectrum of its theoretical commitments defy summary, Skinner’s basic methodological posture amounts to a kind of historicist contextualism, according to which the meaning of an idea can only be understood when it is placed within the larger, historical context of linguistic utterances, written or verbal, of which it is a demonstrable part. Skinner has put this method to work in numerous studies on the history of political thought, most famously, perhaps, in works devoted to understanding the ideas of Thomas Hobbes within the larger context of seventeenth-century political debate. Skinner has been criticized on a number of grounds, perhaps most vigorously for the quasi-idealistic implication that non-linguistic features of a given historical context (such as class or economic arrangements more generally) play no role in determining the meanings of a political idea. Another, quite different line of criticism might be that Skinner’s contextualism seems to presuppose an implausibly holist view of cultural meaning, i.e., that for every idea, there just is one, pre-given context that must be described, with the happy consequence that ideas seem to be fixed entirely within self-contained but objectively identifiable spheres of significance. This presupposition seems to neglect the obvious fragmentation or disunity within linguistic contexts, and it also resorts (implicitly) to a spurious objectivism about the identification of contexts, as if the historian’s choice of linguistic context were a matter of brute empiricism rather than interpretation.An interesting feature shared in common by both Berlin and Skinner is the emphasis on political ideas, largely at the expense of other sorts of ideas (metaphysical, scientific, aesthetic, and so forth). One might excuse this emphasis merely as an expression of scholarly preference, but it has played an enormously influential role in validating the sorts of topics that are considered proper for intellectual historical inquiry. As noted above, the political emphasis is grounded in traditional assumptions as to what counts as “history.” Curiously, while the larger historical profession has slowly jettisoned this traditionalist commitment to the primacy of politics and has broadened its sights to address a rich variety of non-political themes, intellectual historians have remained largely more conventional in their approach: they still tend to equate intellectual history with the history of political ideas and ideologies, or, more recently, with the history of socially-effective “discourses” or “representations.”Skinner exemplifies this political emphasis to an extraordinary degree. Indeed, his methodology itself—linguistic contextualism—seems to favor the study of political ideas over and against other sorts of ideas. On Skinner’s view, the linguistic context for an idea consists in the larger environment of theories, documents, and utterances—categorizable as “speech acts”— all of which bear implicitly or explicitly on the idea in question. This methodological requirement may be generally applicable to a wide variety of historical topics. But it seems somehow best suited to understanding the world of English seventeenth-century politics, a “public sphere” teeming with literate and silver-tongued gentlemen whose occasional forays into political theory were rarely dissociable from the more practical business of Parliamentary debate. The pragmatic character of Anglo-Saxon political thought lends itself quite readily to Skinner’s methodological conviction that linguistic contexts are theoretical and practical at once. That all intellectual contexts have this practical character seems doubtful. This caveat notwithstanding, Skinner remains one of the most influential and philosophically sophisticated intellectual historians writing today. Indeed, his influence reaches well beyond intellectual history into the discipline of political theory, such that it is sometimes difficult to see whether his work belongs exclusively to either field. Because of his strong commitment to the notion that meaning depends upon historical context, he has been a fierce critic of “presentism,” the attempt to judge past ideas wholly in accordance with present needs while disregarding obvious differences of history. But on this point Skinner has not always been entirely consistent. One senses in much of his work that he is striving not only to understand certain ideas but also to promote them. This is especially true for the idea of “neo-Roman liberty”, which has made a frequent appearance especially in his more recent books. But to recognize this element of advocacy in Skinner’s scholarship is hardly a strike against him. Even the most scrupulously non-partisan historians are motivated in some way by their own interests, both personal and political, and Skinner is no exception.In Anglo-American scholarship, the preference among intellectual historians for writing primarily on topics in political theory may be due in part to the marginalization of these topics elsewhere in the academy. Anglo-American philosophy departments frequently seem to regard political philosophy as an inferior branch of the discipline (well below, for example, epistemology, logic, or the philosophy of language), so those who wish to study the history of political thought are likely to seek a warmer reception beyond the walls of philosophy; intellectual history has doubtless been one of the chief beneficiaries of this disciplinary migration. Departments of political science may present a similar challenge to those interested in political ideas. As the discipline has increasingly adapted itself to the social-scientific research agenda with its emphasis on decision theory and generalizable models, the space for purely reflective study of political themes and values has been much constrained. Given the often fractious divide in political science departments between scientists and theorists, intellectual history has often seemed a more hospitable disciplinary alternative.But alongside these purely disciplinary explanations one must take note of a crucial historical factor. Around the mid-twentieth century, the institutions of higher learning throughout North America underwent a dramatic transformation under the impact ofémigré scholars fleeing persecution in Europe. These scholars—Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss, Theodor Adorno, Ernst Cassirer, to name just a few—sustained an intimate but conflicted bond to the world that had expelled them. They brought to the American scene a new sensibility—deference for the European intellectual tradition combined with an acerbic, insider’s recognition of its potential dangers to human freedom. Political。

History 研究历史可以帮助我们更好地了解现在英语作文

Some people think history has nothing or little to tell us, but others think that studying the past history can help us better understand the present.Present a written argument to an educated reader with no specialist knowledge of the following topic:Discuss the two views and give your own opinion.You should write at least 250words.Model Answer :History tells about the old civilisations, their strategies, their way of living, world conflict and the ways people overcame it. So I don't agree that history has a little to tell us.The basic characteristics, sufferings, crisis and wit are same for all the ages of the human kind. The way people struggled to achieve a better life in the primitive time is very much similar to the present time. The ways may be different but the theme is same and there is lots of evidence that the study of past history reviles a new invention to the present people. Though it is true that history itself is disputed as it has been written bythe winners and sometimes history differs from place to place. For example: according to Indian History, English came to rule the country and had destroyed the peaceful lifestyle there by treachery and cunning strategies but in English history the English are heroes and they claim to modernise the Indian. In my opinion, nonetheless history has it's invaluable importance to all of us will remain until the end of the human race.How could we know about the great people who had sacrificed their lives for the betterment of the world or those who have cruelly tried to bringsuffering for people? History tells us a lot about the people of all centuries. History suggests the different techniques that can be malevolent or beneficial for a country by presenting practical evidence. Again, history tells us about the devastating wars and potentially warns us about the conflict of nations. History suggests us about the good and evil and helps us to choose the appropriate way.276 words)(This model answer has been prepared by the site developer. However, please note that this is just one example out of many possible answers.)。

历史英文讲解

历史英文讲解History refers to the study and interpretation of past events, particularly those that have shaped the world we live in today. As we explore history, we gain valuable insights into the experiences and contributions of different cultures, societies, and individuals. In this article, we will delve into the importance of history and how it is taught and explained in the English language.Understanding history allows us to make sense of the present and provides a context for the world we live in. It helps us appreciate the struggles and achievements of those who came before us and teaches us valuable lessons that can guide our decisions and actions. By studying history, we can develop critical thinking skills, learn from past mistakes, and gain a broader perspective of the world.History education plays a crucial role in ensuring that future generations are knowledgeable and informed about the past. In English-speaking countries, history is generally taught as part of the school curriculum. Students learn about key historical events, figures, and concepts through textbooks, lectures, discussions, and research.The English language is widely used in history education as it provides access to a vast array of historical resources, including primary and secondary sources, academic journals, and historical archives. English language proficiency allows students to engage with original historical documents, such as letters, diaries, and speeches, which provide firsthand accounts of past events.One important aspect of history education is the use of narratives to tell the story of the past. Narratives help students connect with historical events on a personal level and make the subject matter more relatable. English provides a rich vocabulary to describe historical events, analyze causation, and understand the motivations of individuals and societies.Teachers of history in English-speaking countries aim to foster critical thinking skills and encourage students to explore different perspectives and interpretations of historical events. They often use primary sources, historical imagery, and multimedia resources to engage students and make history come alive. By examining different viewpoints, students can develop their analytical and evaluative skills, enabling them to form well-rounded opinions and interpretations of history.In addition to formal education, history is also explained and shared through various mediums, such as books, documentaries, and online platforms. Many historians and scholars communicate historical knowledge to the general public through accessible and engaging language in order to promote a wider understanding of the past. The English language plays a significant role in the dissemination of these historical narratives, enabling a global audience to access and appreciate different historical perspectives.In conclusion, history plays a crucial role in our understanding of the world and the development of critical thinking skills. The English language provides a platform for the exploration and explanation of history, allowing both students and the general public to engage with the past. Through diverse narratives and the analysis of primary sources, we can appreciate theimportance of history in shaping our societies and learn valuable lessons from the experiences of those who have come before us.。

雅思口语范文history

雅思口语范文history1. Do you like ( to learn about) history?Yes, I like to learn about history. When I was a student, I enjoyed studying history. I like learning about things that had happened in the past and discovering why certain events happened. I also like visiting museums and historical places. I think they are quite interesting and informative. So I like history.2. Do you think history is important?Yes, I strongly believe history is important. History is a record of events that had happened in our past. By studying history, we can learn the lesson of our past and prevent ourselves from making the same mistakes. So I think history is quite important.3. Do you think you can really learn history from films or TV programs?No, I dont think so. It is true that by watching some history films or TV documentaries we can learn some things about history that we might not have known before. However, most information presented by films or TV shows are, at best,simplistic in content and, at worst, full of errors and misrepresentation. So even thought it might be visually entertaining to learn history through visual media, I dont think it is the best way to learn history.4. Do you think the internet is a good place to learn about history?Well... Not all sources and websites are of the same quality. Even though there are a lot of historical information online, it is important to remember that just as there are educational websites run by professionals and experts, there are also websites full of false and misleading data. So, as long as one is cautious and verify the validity of the source, the internet can be a good place to learn about history.5.Do young people feel that history is very important? Probably not, no, because I think a lot of young people nowadays dont really feel that history has a direct impact on their own lives, which I guess is reflected in the fact that not many students choose History as their major at university, at least compared to other subjects like Accounting or Finance for example. So I think this is a goodindicator that many young peo3雅思口语信范文1. Do you write many letters or emails?2. Who do you usually write to?3. Do you prefer to write letters by hand or to use a computer?4. What are the differences between emails and letters?5. Is it hard to think of what to write?6. How do you feel when you receive a letter or email?7. Which do you prefer to make a phone call or write an email?8. Do you think people will still write letters in the future?9.Do you think some people are still addicted to writing letter?雅思口语新题范文：Letters1.Yes, I almost write emails for my clients as part of my job on a daily basis.2.There are many things I have to write, for example, Iusually write end user training for my clients to teach them how to use the system, or I write the development guide for my technical staffs to tell them how to code.3.If I were to choose between the two, Ill probably go with writing things with a computer. I believe that in the age of fast pace and a culture of efficiency, writing with computers can bring people convenience and efficiency. Whereas, hand writing stuff is really hard to share.4.Well, between the two, a letter is printed or handwritten on actual paper and sent through the mail while an email is typed on a computer, tablet or smartphone and sent electronically. While emails have become a more popular way of communication for individuals and businesses, traditional letters still have a place in todays modern, tech-oriented society.5.Normally it seems like a daily routine for me to write emails to my clients about how to use the system; but if they complain to me about the poor user experience, I sometimes really find myself getting stuck in how to explain everything to cool them down.6.I would be feeling excited to receive a letter or emailfrom other because the sender has spent time writing it. Especially when someone writes to me to appreciate me or compliment me about my responsible work.7.Well, if I were to choose between the two, I will probably go with writing an email because I can have plenty of time thinking about how to express my opinion correctly and clearly, besides, the whole conver〔sat〕ion can be tracked in the mail list; whereas, you know, making a telephone call usually leads to misunderstanding because sometimes it is not very accurate and obscure.8.I believe that as a major method of communication between people, letter writing has a vast and interesting history; besides, handwritten letters are personal. They show the receiver that someone has spent time and effort in communicating with them. They are a way of connecting two people that cannot be achieved through the impersonal use of texts or instant messages. Therefore, I feel that the handwriting letters are irreplaceable in the future.9.Very few on that note. Generally everyone prefers letters but there are some who are crazy about them. My mother is one such person. She is so fond of letters thatno matter how many other things I give to her, every letter that I write makes her happier than anything in the world.。

history.

why do historians disagree?
1 .They select only those records they deem most significant. Moreover, they also recreate parts of the past. • 他们只挑选那些他们认为最重要的记录来用，此外他们还对部分历史进行重新创造。 2.Historians are able to select and create evidence by using some theory of human motivations and behavior • 根据某些有关人类动机和行为的理论，历史学家能够挑选和创造证据。
How does a historian study history? what is the role of the historian？
• Historians usually study history by facts and th ey come to different conclusions because they vie w the past form a different perspective.
• 广义上，“历史”可以指过去发生的一切事件，不一定同人类社会发生联系。在哲学上，这种含义下的历史称为历史本体，例如宇宙历史、地球历史、鸟类历史等等。而狭义的历史则必须以文字记录为基础，即文字出现之后的历史才算历史，在此之前的历史被称为史前史。与人类社会相关的历史，又可以称为人类史或社会史，而脱离人类社会的过去事件称为自然史。一般来说，历史学仅仅研究前者，即社会史。
• 历史学家通常是通过史实来研究历史，并且从不同的角度看待历史从而得出不同的结论。 • They are constantly discovering new information, gaining new insights form other social scientists a nd mastering and using new techni were as simple as this ,the problem would be easily resoved. but the choices were not so easy to make. • 如果选择都如此简单，那问题都很容易解决，但是作出选择并不是那么容易。 4.The facts selected, and those ignored, will depend not on the problem studied but on the points of view of the historians. • 事实的挑选和忽略并不有所研究的问题决定，而是取决她们的观点。

历史学专业英语09-_Political_History

19th century British political history
• Influenced by the Liberal (Whig) government • Believed the government improved political
institutions • Claimed responsibility for reforms • Thomas Macaulay ‘History of England’
20th century
• The supremacy of governments now questioned
• World War One highlighted the ineffectiveness of institutions
• Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (1931)
High politics
• Principles are not important • Motivated by belief • Ideas are important • Politicians ‘play to win’
High politics – newer approaches
• Local factors • Individual behaviour within a group • Thought and political action • Emphasis on ‘situation’ • Look at history of ideas or popular politics
• Did this because political history was 'written without reference to their social environment'