Philosophy of History – final study sheet
Exam: May 11 (Monday), 10:15am-12:15pm.
Short answer questions. The following terms cover most of the key issues discussed since
the midterm. You are to use this list in preparing for the short answer section of the exam.
Ahistorical and historical
Monumental, antiquarian, critical
Too much history
Difference between history and science
Use of concepts in interpretation
Narrative structure
Hazardousness of semiotic
Messianic history
Thinking and arrest of flow of thoughts
World-system perspective
Market dynamics and history
Superodination
semiotic paradigm
pattern recognition
mythistory
pattern recognition
partisanship & history
Morellian method
Cheese and the Worms
Freudian slips (as clues)
discontinuity theorists
passive genesis
narrative structure
self and history
Essay question. Two of the following three will be on the exam. You are to write on one
of the two (60 points).
1. Nietzsche is in many ways an anti-Hegelian philosopher, though in other respects
one could argue that there are some similarities between them. Discuss Hegel
briefly in order to set up how Nietzsche is both similar to and yet different from
Hegel. Be sure to bring in the arguments and distinctions Hegel and Nietzsche
make in setting forth your claims.
2. Wallerstein and Collins argue that to understand historical processes and
historical change one must first understand the economic basis of the societies
being studied. Wallerstein and Collins will thus interpret history in light,
respectively, of capitalism as a world-system and market dynamics. Carlo
Ginzburg in many ways offers an alternative vision of how to do history. Discuss
the main points of Wallerstein and Collins and then compare and contrast these
with those of Ginzburg.
3. The role of narrative in history is a matter of fact – most history books are written
in narrative form, or treat historical events as events in an unfolding story. Carr
argues that despite this fact, many theorists claim that there is a discontinuity
between the historical narratives of historians and the events these narratives are
“supposedly” about. Explain this discontinuity, the arguments for it, and then
contrast it with the position Carr puts forth. In concluding, set forth your own
thoughts regarding the proper place of narrative in doing and understanding
history.