- •Учебное пособие для магистрантов и аспирантов исторического факультета
- •Part I module I Text one
- •The End of the Middle Ages. A Century of Paradox
- •It is (was)... Who (that, when ...)
- •Text two
- •Text three
- •The Age Of “Compromise”
- •Text four
- •1. Read the text.
- •Commentary
- •Module II Text one
- •The Principle of Federalism
- •Answer the following question.
- •Give the examples of
- •Text two The Principle of National Interest
- •Read the text and translate it.
- •Characterize the American political system and compare it with the English one. Text three The British Tradition of Federalism: Framework of Analysis
- •Text four
- •Read the article. The Tongue Twisters
- •Answer the following questions.
- •Module III text one
- •The Twilight of British Imperialism
- •Text two
- •Read the text. Give the main points of the text in a few sentences. The Decline of the British Empire
- •Answer the following questions.
- •Text three
- •Read the text. Translate the following text into Russian. Compare your translation with the key. Britain Revealed
- •Text four
- •Write out the pronunciation of the following geographical names and practise them.
- •Write short essays on the following issues.
- •Module IV text one
- •Read and tell your classmates the gist of the text. History and Historiography
- •Answer the following questions to check how carefully you have read the text.
- •Text two
- •Translate the text without a dictionary. Discuss the text. Make a summary of the text.
- •Summarize the text in a paragraph of about 200 words. Text three
- •Translate in writing the text.
- •Speak on one of the topics.
- •Text four
- •Translate in writing the text.
- •Write an essay of about 200 words or speak on any non-Western historiography. Text five
- •From Tax Audits to Poetry
- •Module V text one
- •Read the text and find important ideas. Civilization
- •Answer the following questions to check how well you have read the text:
- •You have a list of opinions and a list of philosophers. Match the opinion to the philosopher who held it.
- •Text two
- •Text three
- •What is Philosophy?
- •Text four
- •Read and translate the text with the help of a dictionary. State
- •Answer the following questions to check how well you have read the text:
- •Complete the sentences:
- •Module VI text one
- •Governmental Structures
- •Text two
- •Monarchy
- •Text three
- •Text four
- •Oligarchy
- •Text five
- •Democracy
- •Text six
- •Read the text. Constitutional Government
- •Answer the following questions.
- •Decide whether the following statements are true or false:
- •Text seven
- •Module VII text one
- •Terrorism
- •Text two
- •Text three
- •Hail Caesar
- •Text four
- •Great Britain minus Scotland?
- •Read the text and discuss the following questions in your group.
- •Answer the following questions.
- •Part II keys The British Tradition of Federalism: Framework of Analysis
- •Britain Revealed
- •The British Monarchy
- •Англия Без Шотландии?
- •References
- •Contents
Text three
Read the text. Translate in writing the text. Express the most important ideas orally.
What is Philosophy?
A philosophy course in an evangelical Christian school creates for some people a situation that may be described by an analogy with Daniel in the lion’s den. Daniel did not want to be in that lion’s den. None of the lions wanted Daniel in there. The lions would have eaten him if they could, and Daniel survived only by the grace of God.
Students may see themselves as “Daniels” being challenged by the lion-like philosophies of men. Professors, on the other hand, may see the students as lions and may pray for God to shut their mouths. Home churches may think of themselves as being like Darius. They made a “decree” that their children should go to college and especially that their young ministers ought to attend a seminary. Then they find out that these young Christians will be required to take a course in philosophy. They sent their students on to the school anyway, but they anxiously pray; and then on graduation morning they come to ask, ‘O Daniel, has your God preserved you from the lions?’
Probably no other field of study has been so frequently criticized by Christian people as the field of philosophy. Yet if one were to ask the average Christian “What do philosophers talk about?” they probably could not answer with assurance. “I think philosophers are liberal,” says one. “Philosophy will destroy your faith,” says another. “Go on to the class,” says yet another, “but just remember that you don’t have to believe everything you hear.”
Sound advice, or so it seems. But what is it that students might hear that will destroy their faith? Exactly what is the content of a course in philosophy? The question sounds simple enough. Why is it so hard to get a simple, straightforward answer?
It is difficult to explain that philosophy is not a self-contained discipline. Philosophy is more a method of thinking than a specific thing being thought. It is a way of thinking more than it is a specific idea. For example, the term “philosophy” is frequently attached to some other field of study. There is a philosophy of science, a philosophy of art, and a philosophy of history. There is also a philosophy of religion. When someone studies the “philosophy” of something, the content of the course is determined by the specific discipline involved, but the method of study is different from what might be done in the normal study within that discipline. The questions asked by the philosophers arc more foundational, more basic, than the questions normally being asked by the practitioner of the discipline.
History can serve as an example. Most modern educational systems require some study of history. One may study the American Civil War or the History of Europe in the Middle Ages. In each case the course would include a survey of the events during the period of time designated. Not every event would be included in the study, however. Only those events that were considered to be important would be included. But wait a minute! How exactly does one decide which events are important? All historians seek to explain the events they are studying. But what is the proper way to explain events? Are events in history “caused” in the same way “scientific events” are caused? What is the nature of valid historical explanation? Are there historical “laws” comparable to scientific “laws,” or is history better understood if we use descriptive methods patterned after the kinds of explanations that are appropriate in setting forth the meaning and value of art? Is there one and only one “true” explanation of the flow of events in history? Why do various historians provide different explanations for the same events? If we all had the same information, would we all come to the same conclusions? Is there a pattern in history? Are things moving in a certain direction or toward a definite goal?
History refers to the sum of human events, but in practice no one ever knows or thinks of each and every event. “History” in practice refers to those events that are made known to later generations by written accounts or by the preservation of artifacts and information from the past. Thus, historians try to produce a truthful, sequential account of particular past events. (Chronology is often but not always a necessary clement of valid historical accounts.) Philosophy of history, on the other hand, is a study of the basic assumptions that make the study (and the valid and appropriate telling) of history possible.
From this brief illustration, it is already apparent that philosophy is a discipline that asks very basic questions, that seeks to clarify the underlying assumptions of various fields of study. There are, however, some basic assumptions or some fundamental questions that are common to all fields of study. These are the issues that define the so-called “philosophic enterprise.”
