शैडोइंग अभ्यास: What is History? E.H. Carr - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

What is history?

How should history be written?

E.H.

Carr, the historian, diplomat, journalist, philosopher and author of a 14-volume history on the Soviet Union,

set out to answer this question in 1961.

The book is considered a a classic.

Carr starts by discussing the common sense view of history.

In essence, that history is about facts and simply collecting as many facts as possible.

In this view, facts are like fish on a fishmonger's slab, ready to be chosen and cooked.

There are basic facts, raw materials, but the facts only speak when the historian calls on them.

Carr compares the fact that the Battle of Hastings happened in 1066,

with the fact that in 1850 a gingerbread vendor was killed by an angry mob.

The latter is not well known, it is unimportant.

One is selected over the other because it's considered useful.

We use the fact to understand something larger.

So on the one side we have the historian in the present making a judgement about what facts to select.

On the other side, there are documents, letters, diaries, treaties, etc. These are facts of a certain kind,

but tell us no more than what the author thought and are of course invariably one-sided.

Carr says that the classical liberal view of history, popular across the 19th century, proposes that, like the hidden hand of the market,

Letting historians pick from this fishmonger's slab of facts would result in a universal harmony.

The truth would emerge.

Carr starts to point out a few problems with this view.

First, the facts of the past are only accessible through the present.

He says of the historian, the very words which he uses, words like democracy, empire, war,

have current connotations from which he cannot divorce them.

A historical event looks very different through the eyes of a 17th century Frenchman than it does to a 21st century American.

But does this lead to what Carr calls total skepticism?

If there are different views at different times, how can any of them be the right one?

Is there no objective position from which to view history?

To answer the problem of total scepticism, Carr starts with the common view of historical work.

That is that 1 the facts are collected and 2 they are interpreted and written into a narrative.

For Carr, though, this isn't accurate.

It's much more likely that the process is reciprocal.

Some facts are collected, a tentative interpretation is made, more facts are collected, the interpretation is revised, and so on.

He says the historian is engaged in a continuous process of moulding his facts to his interpretation, and his interpretation to his facts.

It is impossible to assign primacy to one over the other.

This process is a dialogue between facts in the past and the historian contextualised in the present.

He says the past is intelligible to us only in the light of the present, and we can fully understand the present only in the light of the past.

He then goes on to say that the process is not just an individual one.

The men whose actions the historians studies were not isolated individuals acting in a vacuum,

they acted in the context and under the impulse of a past society.

He argues then that this means it's obvious we must look at social forces, class vested interests as well as individuals.

So as well as history being a dialogue between the past and the present, it's now a dialogue between the individual and society.

He's painting a picture on multiple axes – past and present, individual and societal.

But how then do we retain any sense of objectivity?

How do we know where to look and which facts to pick up?

To begin to get out of this predicament, Carr moves to compare the process of the historian to the process of the inductive method in science.

He says scientists no longer really spend their time searching for the laws of nature, but instead come up with a hypothesis,

test whether it's a fact, then reassess.

Science is also driven by a back and forth, and by values in the present.

He explores a number of objections to history being a science, problematising them in turn.

For example, it is said that science deals with the general and history with the particular, with unique events.

But he argues that history is also general.

For example, the historian looks for the causes of the phenomenon of war or revolutions.

These are general categories.

Another objection is that history is unable to predict the future.

But he points out that although science predicts, it only predicts probabilities.

Gravity might predict how an apple falls from a tree, but it can't predict things getting in the way or someone catching it before it hits the ground.

He also notes that modern physics after Einstein is also relative, not as universal as was once thought.

Ultimately, he says that the word science already covers so many different branches of knowledge, employing so many different methods and techniques,

that the onus seems to rest on those who seek to exclude history rather than on those who seek to include it.

Carr's view of history as a science is probably the view that would receive the most criticism today.

He moves on to look at causation.

For a long time, historians and philosophers looked for universal laws of history, to try and make it more scientific.

Historians now look for multiple causes.

The Bolshevik revolution, for example, might be said to be caused by the failure of the Tsar, the impoverished proletariat, Lenin's character,

etc. Usually a primary cause is given, then maybe a hierarchy of causes.

Carr draws an analogy.

Driving back from a party, a man who has drank too much,

in a a car with defective brakes kills a man crossing the road to get cigarettes at a blind corner.

What was the cause?

And what is our motivation in finding out what the cause is?

To make roads safer?

To reduce drinking?

Maybe he was killed because he was desperate for cigarettes, but by intuition we distinguish between rational and accidental causes.

Carr's point here and he quotes the German historian Friedrich Meineck,

is that, "...the search for causalities in history is impossible without reference to values.

Behind the search for causalities there always lies,

directly or indirectly, the search for values." We are always trying to learn something from history.

This leads Carr to argue that,

to avoid total scepticism, the facts and interpretations historians choose should be organised around the idea of progress.

Maybe not as an unbroken straight line without reverses and deviations, as he says, but progress all the same.

Ultimately he says that a belief in progress means belief not in any automatic

or inevitable process but in the progressive development of human potentialities.

Being objective, choosing the facts and the hierarchy of causes, means considering the future.

He says when we call a historian objective we mean I think two things.

First of all we mean

that he has the capacity to rise above the limited version of his own situation in society and in history.

Secondly, he means

that he has the capacity to project his vision into the

future in such a way as to give him a more profound

and more lasting insight into the past than can be attained

by those historians whose outlook is entirely bounded by their own immediate situation.

In other words, historians should work to transform society as much as other disciplines do.

Carr has been criticised for having a relativistic view of history.

That the facts and questions are determined by the present, so that no objective reading of the past is possible.

But through an optimism about the future, Carr also tries to draw a route back to objectivity,

picking facts through the value of progress.

It's a unique argument and many have claimed it doesn't hold today, but the text, both short and rich,

100

is still held as a classic introduction to the question, what is history?

101

If you want to support Then and Now then please subscribe below

102

and most importantly click the bell here to receive notifications when I upload a new video.

103

You can also follow me on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram in the links in the description below and

104

if you're feeling really generous then this channel only exists through

105

the support of pledges on Patreon where you can support new content with as little as a dollar for each new video.

106

Thanks for watching, see you next week.

✨ अनुशंसित वीडियो

133 वाक्य

World War II: The Complete Story (1939–1945) 🌍⚔️ | Learn English Through History

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

24 वाक्य

English vocabulary in use Advanced Unit 2

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep

इस पाठ की शब्दावली और बोलने के सुझाव

इस वीडियो में शैडोइंग के लिए 106 वाक्य और 1442 शब्द हैं। बोला गया हिस्सा 9:47 लंबा है। वक्ता लगभग 147 शब्द प्रति मिनट की स्थिर गति से बोलता है, जो शैडोइंग के लिए आरामदायक है। 82% शब्द अंग्रेज़ी के 3,000 सबसे आम शब्दों में से हैं; बाकी शब्द अभ्यास से पहले देख लेना अच्छा रहेगा।

इस वीडियो की मुख्य शब्दावली

वीडियो के 15 कम प्रचलित शब्द, उच्चारण और अर्थ के साथ:

historian /hɪˈstɔɹi.ən/ (संज्ञा) — इतिहासकार, इतिहासज्ञ. A writer of history.
interpretation /ɪnˌtɜːpɹəˈteɪʃən/ (संज्ञा) — निर्वचन, अर्थनिर्वचन. An act of interpreting or explaining something unclear; a translation; a version.
collect /ˈkɑlɪkt/ (क्रिया) — शामिल होने, इकट्ठा करना. To gather together; amass.
objective /ɒbˈd͡ʒɛk.tɪv/ (संज्ञा) — उद्देश्य, मक़सद. A material object that physically exists.
dialogue /ˈdaɪəˌlɑɡ/ (संज्ञा) — बातचीत, गुफ़्तगू. A conversation or other form of discourse between two or more individuals.
belief /bɪˈliːf/ (संज्ञा) — विश्वास, धारणा. Mental acceptance of a claim as true.
compare /kəmˈpɛɚ/ (क्रिया) — तौलना. To assess the similarities and differences between two or more things [“to compare X with Y”]. Having made the comparison of X with Y, one might have found it…
select /sɪˈlɛkt/ (क्रिया) — चुनना, चयन करना. To choose one or more elements of a set, especially a set of options.
cigarette /ˈsɪɡəɹɛt/ (संज्ञा) — सिगरेट, सिग्रेट. A small cigar consisting of tobacco or another substance, wrapped up in a thin roll with paper, intended for smoking.
hierarchy /ˈhaɪ.ə.ɹɑː(ɹ).ki/ (संज्ञा) — पदानुक्रम, अनुक्रम. A body of authoritative officials organized in nested ranks.
objection /əbˈd͡ʒɛkʃən/ (संज्ञा) — आपत्ति. The act of objecting.
philosopher /fəˈlɑsəfɚ/ (संज्ञा) — दार्शनिक. A lover of wisdom.
relative /ˈɹɛl.ə.tɪv/ (संज्ञा) — रिश्तेदार, नातेदार. Someone connected by blood, marriage, or adoption; someone in the same family.
technique /tɛkˈniːk/ (संज्ञा) — तकनीक. The practical aspects of a given art, occupation etc.; formal requirements.
bound /ˈbaʊ̯nd/ (विशेषण) — बाध्य. Obliged (to).

वीडियो में आने वाली फ़्रेज़ल वर्ब

look for (क्रिया) — ढूँढ़ना, ढूँढना. To seek.
look at (क्रिया) — हेरना. To observe or watch.
pick up (क्रिया) — उठाना. To lift; to grasp and raise.

ध्यान देने योग्य उच्चारण

वक्ता 4 बार संक्षिप्त रूपों का प्रयोग करता है, जैसे can't, doesn't, isn't। इन्हें वैसे ही छोटा बोलें जैसा आप सुनते हैं।

“sh” और “zh” की ध्वनियाँ: interpretation /ɪnˌtɜːpɹəˈteɪʃən/, objection /əbˈd͡ʒɛkʃən/, motivation /ˈmoʊ.tə.veɪ.ʃən/, rational /ˈɹæʃ(ə)nəl/, notification /ˌnoʊtɪfɪˈkeɪʃn̩/
लंबे शब्द — बलाघात सही रखें: historian /hɪˈstɔɹi.ən/, interpretation /ɪnˌtɜːpɹəˈteɪʃən/, universal /ˌjunəˈvɜɹs(ə)l/, hierarchy /ˈhaɪ.ə.ɹɑː(ɹ).ki/, philosopher /fəˈlɑsəfɚ/

इस वीडियो से अभ्यास कैसे करें

पहले बिना बोले पूरा वीडियो एक बार सुनें और जो शब्द नहीं आते उन्हें लिख लें।
सामान्य गति पर एक-एक वाक्य की शैडोइंग करें और हर वाक्य तब तक दोहराएँ जब तक आपकी लय वक्ता से न मिल जाए।
अपनी आवाज़ रिकॉर्ड करें और मूल से तुलना करें, ख़ासकर historian, interpretation, collect जैसे शब्दों पर ध्यान दें।

इस वीडियो का व्याकरण

वक्ता जिन संरचनाओं का सबसे अधिक प्रयोग करता है, वीडियो के असली शब्दों के साथ:

संरचना	वीडियो में
Passive voice be + past participle — ज़ोर इस पर कि क्या होता है, न कि कौन करता है	be written · is considered · be chosen
Present perfect have/has + past participle — बीता हुआ काम जिसका असर अभी भी है	has been criticised · have claimed
Relative clauses who / which + उपवाक्य — व्यक्ति या वस्तु के बारे में अतिरिक्त जानकारी	those who seek · man who has

शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?

शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।

शैडोइंग तकनीक: पूरी चरण-दर-चरण गाइड पढ़ें →

शैडोइंग अभ्यास: What is History? E.H. Carr - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें

Hegel: Philosophy of world history and spirit

The Agricultural Revolution: Crash Course World History #1

The uncomfortable truth | Yuval Noah Harari

Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??

There's a Giant Hole In Earth's History

2. Socratic Citizenship: Plato's Apology

The Heart Structures and Agency

1 8 What is Causation

Eco 155: Principles of Macroeconomics Class 1

Philosophy of Science Lecture #1: Introduction