“Others have seen what is and asked why. I have seen what could be and asked why not” (Pablo Picasso). Explore this distinction with reference to two areas of knowledge.
Clearly Picasso is thinking about the creative process, but aren’t we also creative in the economic field, the social field and the political field? Didn’t Roosevelt’s 14 Points, particularly the League of Nations, look both at what is, and asked why as well as why not? The same could be said for the United Nations. What of any revolution you care to think of, whether they be economic, social or political? Didn’t people look both at what is, and ask why as well as why not? So, you have a strong counter-argument that there are countless examples in history that take Picasso’s thinking a step further, and ask both questions. Why should one be exclusive of the other?
“There is a sharp line between describing something and offering an explanation of it.” To what extent do you agree with this claim?
I would pick up on ‘a sharp line’ for in explaining something, we often have to also describe it. So, is it a ‘sharp line’? In history, can we explain the characteristics of a war without some description of those characteristics? Perhaps we can, but the explanation is at least better for some description. The same with the fear of opposing an authoritarian state. Can we properly explain what this was like without some description of the way the secret police, the Gestapo or the KGB, worked? Or can we explain what life was like in a concentration camp or a gulag without some description of life in the camps?
Does it matter that your personal circumstances influence how seriously your knowledge is taken?
In history we make use of auto-biographies, memoirs, diaries, eye witness statements, etc. Their personal circumstance is therefore critically important. How well does a rich man know the life of a poor man, or vice versa, for example? How well do many of our chroniclers know the lives of women (for the more we go back in time, the more of them are male)?
“The role of analogy is to aid understanding rather than to provide justification.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
Historical analogies can be used by politicians to justify their policies. Appeasement can often be used as a reason for going to war, for example, bomb Saddam because look at what happens if you don’t. The Right will forever use the Soviet Union for justifying their defence of liberal democracy (or at least their version of it) no matter how much it is patently failing the majority. When every historian will tell you that history never truly repeats itself.
“Given that every theory has its limitations, we need to retain a multiplicity of theories to understand the world.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.
A theory is an explanation of a phenomenon, either accepted or debated. In history we have ‘schools of thought’: the orthodox view, the revisionist view or even the post-revisionist view. Or else we have different perspectives: the winners, the losers; a Marxist, a liberal; the Soviet, the American, the West’s, the Islamic fundamentalist’s. Take your pick in what interests you. To properly understand why an event happened as well as its consequences, even how things unfolded, both or all schools of thought or perspectives need to be taken into account.
“Present knowledge is wholly dependent on past knowledge.” Discuss this claim with reference to two areas of knowledge.
I would use good old Hegel here and his dialectics: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, before the whole thing starts again in another cycle. As with Q5, history often has an e orthodox view, but also a revisionist view and a post-revisionist view that makes use of both the other two views. Again, it is a matter of taking your pick from what interests you in history.