For example some historians argue that queen Victoria was the greatest ruler of great britain while others disagree with this claim, since everyone is entitled to their own opinion and have their own reasons and motives for a particular assertion. Another problem that also weakens history is hindsight which means that sometimes we know more about the past compared to the people who actually live in it. This is because in order to make a topic more understandable the historian pieces together information that might have been forgotten or were unavailable before because of which some documents are ripped out of their original contexts of purpose and function, as Lowenthal says ‘history always conflates,it changes , it exaggerates aspects of the
So when we all know what our country has stood for and been about over the years, we are able to feel that we are a part of the whole and the other parts of the whole are like us in some important ways. Finally, we study history because it is exciting and fun. Maybe not for you. Certainly not for all but for some. Yes, we can see that learning history helps us know many useful and interesting things.
The concept of myth is central to all cultures because it lives in our stories and every culture in human history has created its own mythologies to understand how the universe works. Myths still have the same meaning no what matter how much people start to evolve and understand the way of life differently. In A Short History of Myth by Karen Armstrong, all of myths about heroes and deities struggling and fighting with evil creature
Philosophy is a conversion” (275). Hadot’s comment that philosophy is a conversion is one of the most important sections in the entirety of his book, as it teaches the reader that philosophy isn’t something so easily received. Throughout the chapter, Hadot places emphasis on the history of philosophy and how humans have, for centuries, attempted to understand their place in this world and
For many years, the issue of self-identity has been a problem that philosophers and scholars have been to explain using different theories. The question on self –identity tries to explain the concept of how a person today is different from the one in the years to come. In philosophy, the theory of personal identity tries to solve the questions who we are, our existence, and life after death. To understand the concept of self-identity, it is important to analyze a person over a period under given conditions. Despite the numerous theories on personal identity, the paper narrows down the study to the personal theories of John Locke and Rene Descartes, and their points of view on personal identity.
Why is critical thinking so important and so necessary when it comes to how , we as humans view our world. When it comes to critical thinking a person must think for themselves. It is the only way for a person to come up with their own moral compass. So what exactly is critical thinking. Weidner (2014) explains it as the ability to understand the context of what is being relayed”.
Have you ever contemplated to yourself why such great myths like the Odyssey have been able to defy time? Unlike buildings or paintings that have slowly deteriorated over ages some of humanity’s greatest myths are still very much alive in today’s culture. They seem to be able to move through time like water from being able to connect with different people from generations and cultures. Over centuries these myths may change in subject matter or moral teachings, but one constant theme can be seen throughout them all. The story telling phenomenon of the hero’s journey can be found in almost every culture.
Thus, implies that historical knowledge evolves and as it evolves it undergoes the process of shiting through being accepted and discarded. This applies to the life of a student living in history. With the ability to determine the acceptance of disapproval of certain knowledge, it helps people to understand the value of past knowledge and how as the paradigm shifted, the perspectives of people should shift as well. Which, again emphasizes on historical knowledge to be subjective and has the difference within individuals on what is more valued compared to others. However, some might argue that historical knowledge are all supported by evidence and there shouldn’t be a change in how we view them.
Means the historian’s task is less mimetic and the novelist can create additions to the record. Milan Kundera illustrates the differences between the historian and novelist in the Art of the Novel: A historian tells you about events that have taken place. … A novel examines not reality but existence. And existence is not what has occurred, existence is a realm of human possibilities, … Novelists draw up the map of existence by discovering this or that human possibilities. If a writer considers a historical situation a fresh and revealing possibility of human world, he will want to describe it as it is.
To really understand Morash and Horgan approaches to writing media history, it is first important to understand the historical approaches to communication studies in media history. The writings of communication is woefully underdeveloped. “In part, this is because communication media are to a large extent, as the name declares, the carriers rather than the creators of the causes and effects historians normally attend to.” The media generally develops in the background, “not the event filled foreground, of mainstream historical subjects”, in some respects the media does become the message,there a moments in mass media institutions differentiate from church and state and “attain a degree of autonomy, that the media exert independent influence