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。

厉史英语单词

厉史英语单词单词：history1. 定义与释义1.1词性：名词1.2释义：历史，指过去发生的事件，尤指人类社会过去的发展进程；也可表示对过去事件的研究或记载。

1.3英文解释：The study of past events, particularly in human affairs; the whole series of past events connected with someone or something.1.4相关词汇：- 同义词：past（过去）、chronicle（编年史，可作为名词意义上的相关词）- 派生词：historical（形容词，历史的；有关历史的）、historian（名词，历史学家）2. 起源与背景2.1词源：该词源于古希腊语“historia”，最初表示通过调查或研究而获得的知识，尤其是对过去事件的了解。

2.2趣闻：在古代，许多文化都有专门记录历史的人，比如古希腊的希罗多德被称为“历史之父”。

他游历各地，收集不同民族的故事、传说以及真实发生的事件，然后把它们整理成《历史》一书，这是西方文学史上第一部完整流传下来的散文作品。

3. 常用搭配与短语3.1短语：- history book：历史书- 例句：I'm reading a very interesting history book about ancient Rome.- 翻译：我正在读一本关于古罗马非常有趣的历史书。

- make history：创造历史- 例句：The astronauts made history when they landed on the moon.- 翻译：当宇航员们登上月球时，他们创造了历史。

- history lesson：历史课- 例句：We had a really boring history lesson today.- 翻译：我们今天上了一堂非常无聊的历史课。

what is history？

What is history?
"Everything must be recaptured and relocated in the general framework of history, so that despite the difficulties, the fundamental paradoxes and contradictions, we may respect the unity of history which is also the unity of life." Fernand Braudel
What is history?
"That historians should give their own country a break, I grant you; but not so as to state things contrary to fact. For there are plenty of mistakes made by writers out of ignorance, and which any man finds it difficult to avoid. But if we knowingly write what is false, whether for the sake of our country or our friends or just to be pleasant, what difference is there between us and hack writers? Readers should be very attentive to and critical of historians, and they in turn should be constantly on their guard." Polybius

英语家乡介绍 -回复

英语家乡介绍-回复the following questions:1. What is the name of your hometown?2. Where is it located?3. What is the population of your hometown?4. What is the history of your hometown?5. What are the main attractions in your hometown?6. What is the climate like in your hometown?7. What are the local customs or traditions?8. What are the main industries in your hometown?9. What is the local cuisine like?10. How has your hometown influenced you?Introduction:My hometown, [Insert name of hometown], is a fascinating place located in [Insert location]. With a population of [Insert population], it carries a rich history and cultural heritage. In this article, I will take you on a journey to explore the main attractions, climate, local customs, industries, cuisine, and how my hometown has influenced me.1. Name and Location:[Insert name of hometown] is situated in [Insert location]. Its strategic location has contributed to its historical significance as a hub for trade and cultural exchange.2. Population:With a population of [Insert population], [Insert name of hometown] is a vibrant community that welcomes both its residents and visitors with open arms.3. History:[Insert name of hometown] has a remarkable history that dates back several centuries. It has witnessed the rise and fall of empires, the influence of different cultures, and the reshaping of local traditions.4. Main Attractions:One of the main attractions in [Insert name of hometown] is [Insert main attraction]. This iconic landmark, known for its [Insert unique features], draws tourists from far and wide. Additionally, [Insert other attractions] are also worth exploring, offering visitors a glimpse into the rich heritage and local culture.5. Climate:The climate in [Insert name of hometown] is [Insert climate description]. This particular climate provides pleasant conditions for outdoor activities and agriculture, which plays a significant role in the local economy.6. Local Customs and Traditions:[Insert name of hometown] boasts a variety of customs and traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation. From [Insert custom/tradition 1] to [Insertcustom/tradition 2], these practices reflect the values and beliefs of the local community.7. Main Industries:The main industries in [Insert name of hometown] include [Insert industry 1], [Insert industry 2], and [Insert industry 3]. These sectors contribute to the economic development of the region and provide employment opportunities for the local population.8. Local Cuisine:The local cuisine in [Insert name of hometown] is a delightfulcombination of flavors and aromas. From [Insert dish 1] to [Insert dish 2], the culinary scene offers a wide range of traditional delicacies that will leave your taste buds craving for more.9. Influence on Me:Growing up in [Insert name of hometown] has had a profound influence on my values, perspectives, and identity. The strong sense of community and respect for tradition have shaped my character, instilling in me a deep appreciation for cultural diversity and a desire to explore the world around me.Conclusion:In conclusion, [Insert name of hometown] is a place of historical significance, natural beauty, and cultural wonders. Its attractions, climate, customs, industries, cuisine, and influence have made it a truly unique place to call home. Whether you are a local resident or a curious visitor, [Insert name of hometown] offers an enchanting experience that will leave lasting memories.。

history 英语作文

history 英语作文History is the study of the past. It is a discipline that seeks to understand and explain the events, people, and societies that have shaped the world we live in today. History is a crucial part of our education, as it provides us with a sense of identity and helps us to understand the world around us.History is a vast and diverse subject, covering everything from the ancient civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia to the modern world. It encompasses the study of politics, economics, culture, and society, and seeks to understand the causes and effects of historical events. By studying history, we can gain insight into the human experience and learn from the mistakes and successes of the past.One of the most important reasons to study history is to gain a sense of perspective. By understanding the past, we can better understand the present and make informeddecisions about the future. History helps us to see that the world is constantly changing and that the challenges we face today are not unique. By studying the past, we can gain a sense of hope and resilience, knowing that people have overcome similar challenges in the past.Another important reason to study history is to gain a sense of identity. By learning about the history of our own culture and society, we can develop a sense of pride and belonging. History helps us to understand where we come from and how our society has been shaped by the events and people of the past. By studying history, we can gain a deeper appreciation for our own heritage and the contributions of those who came before us.History also teaches us valuable lessons about the human experience. By studying the successes and failures of the past, we can gain insight into human nature and learn from the mistakes of others. History helps us to develop critical thinking skills and the ability to analyze complex issues. By understanding the causes and effects ofhistorical events, we can gain a deeper understanding ofthe world around us.In conclusion, history is a crucial part of our education and provides us with valuable insights into the past. By studying history, we can gain a sense of perspective, develop a sense of identity, and learn valuable lessons about the human experience. History is a discipline that helps us to understand the world we live in today and make informed decisions about the future.。

英语情景口语：history历史

060 HISTORYWordsPeriod century age era colony (civil)war invasion treaty prehistoric evidence ancient ancestor empire leader discover(y) revolution emperor primitive artifact archaeology originMonument/memorialPhrasesStudy a period of historyHistorical figureHistorical recordsHistoric eventBeginnerA; are you interested in history?B: yes, I am. I enjoyed studying it at school, though I had trouble remembering all the dates, so my teacher never gave me good marks.A: I love history, but I’ve always thought that learning the reasons behind events is more important than remembering exactly when they happened.B; I wish you had been my history teacher! I might have got better marks!A; some people say that history repeats itself.B; what does that mean? The same events never happen twice, do they?A: the idea is that the people and dates change, but the reason why things happen stay the same.B: I see . I think I’d agree with that statement. People often seem to make the same mistakes over and over again.Intemp3ediateA; London is such a historic city! There’s history everywhere you look. There’s nelson’s column, built as a monument to one of the Britain’s great admirals and his important victory. He won the battle of Trafalgar in 1805.B: I’m looking forward to seeing Westminster abbey, where many historic figures are buried, like Isaac Newton, the great mathematician and Winston Churchill, the great wartime leader.A: nearby, on the banks of the thames, there’s the statue of Boudicea. She fought the Romans when they invaded Britain. B: women have often played an important role in british history. Queen Elizabeth I built a navy strong enough to fight off the Spanish amp3ada in 1588. more recently, Margaret thatcher transfomp3ed british society in the 1980’s.A: she was a very controversial leader. Are we going to visit the famous tower of London later?B: there’s a lot to see there. Perhaps we should go tomorrow.A: I’m looking forward to seeing the famous castle and prison. Many historic figures were imprisoned there in the past. I really want to see the crown jewels too.B: I’ve seen them before. They’re quite incredible. If you want to see historical figures in London , there’s one place you have to go.A; where’s that? On, I know! Madame tussaud’s the waxworks museum.B: there you can see british leaders, entertainers, crimicals, and royalty.A: sometimes, it’s hard to know who belongs in each section of the museum!。

介绍历史英语作文

History: A Global PerspectiveHistory, the record of past events, is a fascinating tapestry of human existence. It weaves together threads of war, peace, innovation, and culture, creating a rich tapestry of human experience. From the ancientcivilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China to the modern-day nations of the world, history is a continuous narrative of human progress and struggle.The ancient world was marked by the rise and fall of empires, wars, and the emergence of religions that shaped the spiritual and cultural landscapes of the times. The Greeks, with their philosophy and democracy, left an indelible mark on the field of thought and governance. The Romans, with their engineering feats and legal systems,laid the foundation for modern civilization.The Middle Ages saw the ascendancy of feudalism and the Church, with the latter playing a pivotal role in shaping the moral and spiritual values of the era. However, it was also a time of scientific and cultural revival, with the emergence of universities and the beginnings of the Renaissance.The Renaissance marked a turning point in history, ushering in a new era of scientific exploration, artistic expression, and political revolution. The Age of Discovery saw the expansion of European powers into new territories, leading to the colonization of much of the world. Simultaneously, the Scientific Revolution transformed our understanding of the natural world, laying the foundation for modern science.The 18th and 19th centuries saw the Industrial Revolution, a period of rapid technological and economic growth that transformed society and the way people lived. The Industrial Revolution gave rise to urbanization, the development of new industries, and the growth of labor unions and socialist movements.The 20th century was marked by two world wars, the Cold War, and the emergence of global superpowers. It was a time of decolonization, the civil rights movement, and the women's rights movement. The technological revolution, led by the development of computers and the internet, further transformed the way we live and communicate.Today, we stand at the cusp of a new era, marked by the rise of globalization, the increasing interconnectedness of the world, and the emergence of new challenges such as climate change and technological displacement. History, more than ever, serves as a guide to help us navigate these challenges and build a better future.**历史：全球视角**历史，作为过去事件的记录，是人类存在的一幅迷人画卷。

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.。

什么是历史what is history

▪ Visions of a brighter future based on golden age of the past
2. FATE: The order of the progression of cycles is fate, man can do nothing to change this
Five stages of history
Stages of history:
1. Primitive: the original communist state that was ended by the rise of private property
2. King-Slaves: the struggle between kings and slaves led to aristocracy
Oswald Spengler
Cyclical view of history where cultures mature and decline through a cycle of four epochs (rise and fall)
1. Childhood: agriculture and conquest 2. Youth: expansion and discovery 3. Maturity: cities and commerce 4. Old age and death: quantity not quality, utility
Ancient Greek Historians
Belief in two key concepts:
1. CYCLES: Historical events proceed over a long period of growth and decline and back to another period and decline through eternity

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。

你认为历史中什么最重要英语作文

History's Greatest Lessons: The Value ofPerspectiveHistory, a vast tapestry of human experience, is often regarded as a mere record of past events. However, its true significance lies beyond the chronicles of wars, kings, and empires. In my opinion, the most crucial aspect of history is the perspective it offers. This perspective is not just about understanding the past but also about gaininginsights into the present and shaping the future.The value of perspective in history is multifaceted. Firstly, it allows us to gain a deeper understanding of human nature. By studying historical figures and events, we can observe how people have responded to different situations and challenges. This understanding helps us appreciate the complexities of human behavior and the choices we make in our own lives.Secondly, history provides a unique lens through which we can view the present. By comparing and contrasting the past with the present, we can identify patterns, trends, and repeating mistakes. This understanding enables us tomake more informed decisions and avoid repeating the same mistakes.Moreover, history's perspective also plays a crucial role in shaping the future. By understanding the past, we can identify what works and what doesn't, and use this knowledge to create a better future. For instance, by studying the environmental degradation caused by industrialization in the past, we can now take proactive measures to ensure sustainable development.Additionally, history's perspective is also crucial in promoting cultural understanding and tolerance. By studying the diverse historical backgrounds of different nations and cultures, we can appreciate their unique values and contributions to humanity. This understanding helps us bridge divides and build a more inclusive world.In conclusion, the most important aspect of history is the perspective it offers. This perspective not only helps us understand the past but also enables us to gain insights into the present and shape the future. By embracing the value of history's perspective, we can create a more informed, tolerant, and sustainable world.**历史的重要教训：视角的价值**历史，作为人类经验的广阔织锦，往往被视为仅仅是过去事件的记录。

关于历史英文介绍作文

关于历史英文介绍作文英文：As a history enthusiast, I have always been fascinated by the stories of the past. History is a subject that allows us to understand the world we live in today and how it came to be. Learning about the events and people that shaped our world is not only informative, but it is also entertaining.One of my favorite periods in history is the Renaissance. This was a time of great artistic and intellectual growth in Europe, and it saw the rise of some of the most famous artists and thinkers in history. Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, and Galileo Galilei are just a few examples of the great minds that emerged during this period.The Renaissance was also a time of great change in Europe. The Protestant Reformation, which began in theearly 16th century, challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church and led to the formation of new Christian denominations. This period also saw the rise of powerful monarchies, such as the Tudor dynasty in England and the Habsburg dynasty in Austria.中文：作为一个历史爱好者，我一直被过去的故事所吸引。

What Is Science

What Is Science作者：英国大使馆文化教育处来源：《疯狂英语·初中天地》2024年第01期AWhat is science？The answer is either very difficult or very easy. I’llgo with the easy one：everything. Science is the study of… everything，from things so small that they cannot be seen to the universe itself， whichis everything there is and so big it never ends！ Science is the study ofthe world we live in and all the things that live （or don’t） in it， including us，people.BIf you are reading this， then you must be a person. Or maybe not.You could be a computer， of course， which is something very importantin the world of science these days， and becoming more and moreimportant all the time. Time：there’s another big science word， one of thebiggest. Time has been one of the most important subjects for some ofthe greatest scientists throughout history，and what is “history” itself if notTime？CAnyway，we don’t have time to worry about that. So let’s return tothe meaning of the word “science”：the study of everything. To test if mymeaning works， I have tried to think of things —any things， real or notreal —that have not been studied by some sort of science.DAnd I can’t. Can you？ Try ......How about “nothing”？Surely “nothing” can’t be studied by science.But then I remember that “nothing” has been one of the most importantand difficult subjects throughout the great history of the science ofphilosophy：the study of “being”.Activity 1 Which answers or examples a–f go with which question 1–6？1. What does a biologist study？2. What does a chemist study？3. What does a mathematician study？4. What does a philosopher study？5. What does a psychologist study？6. What does an astrophysicist study？a. H2O， O2， H2， CO2.b. Animals and plants.c. E = mc2.d. The stars.e. How and what peoplethink and feel.f. I think， and so I am.Activity 2 Complete the sentences.L ook at the use of the words “must”，“could” and “maybe” in partB of the story. Now use those words to complete the spaces 1–3 inthe conversation between Ike and May below. Use each word once.Ike： Do you think there is other life beyond our planet？May： 1 ， yeah. Who knows？ There 2 be. Yeah，it’s possible！Ike： Possible？！It’s more than possible！ Look at how big theuniverse is and how many stars there are in it： billions and billions.There 3 be other life！I’m sure of it.參考答案：Activity 1 1. b; 2. a; 3. c; 4. f; 5. e; 6. d Activity 2 1. Maybe; 2. could; 3. must。