Why bother with the study of history What possible connections exist between an increasingly remote past and our own predicaments (困境) in the present Can stories about other peoples in other places at any other times have any meaning in an age of vaulting (飞速发展的) technology and traumatizing (惊人) change Is it reasonable to think that anyone can benefit from the experiences of others in a presumably unprecedented (前所未有的) time when our political and economic systems falter (踉跄), and the nuclear, peril causes nightmares of dread These questions hold more than rhetorical importance and compel serious answers. Undergraduates in all programs of study need to know what they can hope to learn and how their experiences will affect their capacity to think and act creatively in the future.
Skeptics have often argued that a knowledge of history will not provide much help. The American industrialist Henry Ford characterized history as "bunk". Although the observation probably tells more about the limitations of Ford’s mind that about the nature of history, other luminaries (名人) have expressed similar reservations. In the seenth century, the French scientist and mathematician Rene Descartes worried that undue curiosity about the past would result in excessive ignorance of the present. Another Frenchman, Francois Marie Arouet de Voltaire, a philosopher and historian, described history as "a pack of tricks we play on the dead". Although he meant the comment as an appeal for history written more accurately, he inadvertently gave support to the cynical claim that historians invariably fall into one of three camps: those as George Wilhelm Fried Rich Hegel, a nineteeth century German, feared that the only thing we can learn from history is that no one learns anything from history.
Undoubtedly the writing of history is a perilous (危险的) venture. A common lament among historians is the fact that every day requires them to face up to their incomprehension of the world and their incapacity to interpret their evidence correctly. Surely they should rank among the humblest of people. Nevertheless, for many, the sheer joy of the endeavor makes the risk worthwhile. Some even have assigned to themselves important and useful functions. Most historians regard the study of history as a way for human beings to acquire self knowledge. Edward Gibbon, the great English historian of the Roman Empire, sadly described the historical record as consisting of "the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind". Though certainly indicative of a wretched and dismal (阴沉的) state of affairs, his remark also held forth the possibility of escaping such conditions through rational in quiry. Transcendence over the past could come about only through knowledge.
Other historians have invoked (行使) their discipline as a kind of ethical sanction (制裁). Lord Acton, a Victorian Englishman, insisted upon maintaining "morality as the sole impartial criterion of men and things". He called upon historians to act as arbiters, defending the proper standards, out of an expectation that the threat of disapproval in the future might discourage incorrect behavior in the present. Historians should call malefactors to account for their misdeeds.
Still others presumed the existence of links between the past and the future and suggested that comprehension of what had taken place might prepare for what will come about. How to get ready for the unknown has always posed a great problem. George Santayana, a Harvard philosopher, asserted early in the twentieth century that people who forget about the past are condemned to repeat it. This utilitarian (实利主义的) conception saw in the discipline a way of developing workable strategies for survival. History comprised the recollections of all people. Santayana’s claim affirmed that things learned from experience could aid in the avoidance of mistakes, pitfalls, and catastrophes in the future.
This passage is primarily concerned with ______.