No, I am not convinced by the arguments for “Big History” put forward by David Christian. I have to disagree with David Christian’s arguments for "Big History" as I do not think that the reason to why people learn History includes the concepts contained within the study of "Big History". More specifically I do not agree that the study of history should go past that of ‘Human History’, therefore I will argue that it is more important and effective to learn this type of history than that of ‘Big History’. To prove my point I will give a rebuttal against what David Christian says for ‘Big History’. I am also not convinced that the concept of 'Big History' is applicable to the understanding of human history or that of 'Small History'.
In the other hand, if such reasoned conclusions are only built originally upon a organization of sense perceptions, then the arguments what are being considered. They lead us to our most logical conclusions, they can never be said to be certain because they are built upon
Problems to solve have solutions which can be considered an end point in a process. The solution in problems to solve can stand alone, unlike a polarity to be managed. The solution to a problem to solve doesn’t necessarily have opposite that is required for solution to work over an extended period of time. Polarities to manage do not get solved, they are ongoing. They do not have clear end point solutions, instead there is a never-ending shift in emphasis or focus from one pole to the other and back.
He argued that they were part of the structure of the mind and that we would have no experience without them. He says that sight, smell, touch etc. are all meaningless to us unless they are brought under these innate concepts. Kant believes in a world beyond our conceptual scheme called the noumenal world which he says we can know nothing about and it is impossible to discuss. People have criticized this view by say that how can Kant know that the Noumenal world exists if there is no evidence of it.
However, despite the compliments of the promise of a relationship that we must find in these books, this is not a promise that can be fully fulfilled at any time. For what is promised is not a contract that can be signed, sealed and delivered, and then deposited and stored in the strongboxes of the past, but a personal relationship. "Relationship" is a dynamic word because the relationship can not remain static. Thus in the exodus something is set in motion before it is realized; the exodus is only an outlet, and therefore a beginning; God's words from Sinai say, "Do this, do not do that." Therefore, both Exodus and Leviticus point to the future as yet unrealized, a future in which Israel will still need to find out what this promise of relationship,
It’s not clear as to whether Spinoza meant (a) there cannot be two substances with all the same attributes in common; or (b) there cannot be two substances with an attribute in common. Spinoza uses the phrase “nature or attribute” which suggests that he meant (a) because a substance’s nature constitutes sharing all of the same attributes not just some. This interpretation helps his argument for premise one the most because if substances are distinguished by their attributes, then substances cannot have all the same attributes in common. For Spinoza, substance is something self-conceivable, however, this conception of substance does not work if there are substances that share something in common because we would conceive one substance in terms of an extrinsic property. Hence, our conception of one substance would be understood via an external property in relation with the other substance.
Following a brief discussion of developments in the scientific understanding of time, we discuss and illustrate how these new understandings enhance the utility and theoretical soundness of the theory and how time can be integrated into the theory’s main components: goal difficulty, goal attainability, and goal specificity. Time is an important factor in people’s lives, both at and outside of work. A significant portion of people’s cognitions relates to time— namely, past and present experiences, as well as future expectations and plans. However, it is interesting to note that work motivation theories have generally failed to systematically incorporate time as an important variable affecting people’s motivation (cf. George & Jones, 2000; Rousseau & Fried, 2001).
Compare and contrast our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future To compare our approach to knowledge about the past with our approach to knowledge about the future, it first must be determined what ‘knowledge’ is. According to Plato knowledge is “a justified true belief”. So, knowledge must have a logical evidence and to be approved by society and facts. However, to define ‘knowledge’ is not as easy as it seems. The following quote from Bertrand Russell demonstrates it: "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult one with which we shall deal.
”That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow” Consider knowledge issues raised by this statement in two areas of knowledge. What has been proven today, and has been accepted as knowledge might be discarded with time. With time society, and technology develop. In my TOK essay I will be discussing two areas of knowledge that will link up nicely with the statement above. Facts change when new evidence is presented.
That has been proved by Einstein. However, two years ago even faster velocity was observed. This makes us question, whether what we know is true- if the theory proves to be wrong, it could be discarded. As it can be seen- If one becomes suspicious, obstacles to accept something as knowledge arise- although we may believe we possess objective facts, from a different perspective gained by progress, such facts become re-interpreted in the light of new evidence, discoveries, technology, or societal trends. So, we cannot completely trust our knowledge.