Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

History HL or philosophy SL?

Recommended Posts

I already have 3 hls, math chem and english. I am not good at english so I'm just wondering if I take philosphy sl instead of histroy HL, is it actually going to be even harder for me? But I've heard that histroy hl is very time consuming and i'm already taking 3 hls. So i'm just wondering what are the differences between these two? And I'm thinking about becoming an engineer so neither will help me,just need a course to complete the diploma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as you don't need history nor philosophy for being an engineer, I suggest taking philosophy then, as I guess it might help a little with TOK, so you actually benefit from your group 3 subject :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy SL I don't actually think is helpful for TOK. Philosophy is analytical intelligent semi-BS whereas TOK is just... well, full on BS. In the nicest sense!

Anyway, History HL is a more difficult subject than Philosophy, for sure. If you're relatively thoughtful and logical AND good at writing essays, Philosophy is a walk in the park. I took it and it was crazy easy plus it has a few interesting aspects so I'd recommend it :) History requires rigid essay structure and a load of memorising, whereas for Philosophy you just have to know the gists of various famous arguments/ideas, be able to explain them and apply them to what you're talking about in a critical way. If you're good at memorising discrete facts, go for History. If you tend to remember just the gist of things, go for Philosophy. Basically the main skill in Philosophy is understanding, applying and articulating viewpoints. Viewpoints being, of course, theories and logical arguments, as opposed to TOK view points which are just whatever you happen to invent in your head!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I already have 3 hls, math chem and english. I am not good at english so I'm just wondering if I take philosphy sl instead of histroy HL, is it actually going to be even harder for me? But I've heard that histroy hl is very time consuming and i'm already taking 3 hls. So i'm just wondering what are the differences between these two? And I'm thinking about becoming an engineer so neither will help me,just need a course to complete the diploma.

Hi,

HL history requires a lot of work. In my opinion HL history is the same as SL history but just twice the workload and I would have been better off taking SL history. I agree with all of Sandwich's points above (except that ToK is a bunch of BS, how dare she!) but I would just like to ask why are you deciding between these two subjects. Have you got physics in your subject choices as many universities require physics to qualify as an applicant for engineering courses. If you do not have physics would it not be better to fill in your spot with it? If you do have physics, I would recommend either doing history at standard level or philosophy, certainly not HL history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so my post is pretty critical. I've taken both, History and Philosophy at the same time and let me tell you, it clearly depends in what you're best so you'll have to decide on your own. History of course needs a lot of memorising and philophy a lot of logic. As a person I consider history much more important to my personal life and philosphy a lot of BS that help you structure your mind a little bit more. Even though what the people above are saying about the amount of work in history, it personally enriches you a lot more.

As far as I am concerned, philosophy, even though it doesn't consume a lot of time, doesn't work for anything but teaching you how to write more logically and things that almost seem invented and out of nowhere from different philosophers such as Plato and Nietzche. History teaches you a lot about our current world and it definetely works and it is not speaking BS in a good way. Once again, it clearly depends if you are good remembering things or not. If you're NOT then go for phylosophy, but if you are, which I may infere from your subject choice, go for History, it is much more interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so my post is pretty critical. I've taken both, History and Philosophy at the same time and let me tell you, it clearly depends in what you're best so you'll have to decide on your own. History of course needs a lot of memorising and philophy a lot of logic. As a person I consider history much more important to my personal life and philosphy a lot of BS that help you structure your mind a little bit more. Even though what the people above are saying about the amount of work in history, it personally enriches you a lot more.

As far as I am concerned, philosophy, even though it doesn't consume a lot of time, doesn't work for anything but teaching you how to write more logically and things that almost seem invented and out of nowhere from different philosophers such as Plato and Nietzche. History teaches you a lot about our current world and it definetely works and it is not speaking BS in a good way. Once again, it clearly depends if you are good remembering things or not. If you're NOT then go for phylosophy, but if you are, which I may infere from your subject choice, go for History, it is much more interesting!

This thing is they both don't interest me , even though i have a very good memory. IB is already very time consuming , and I'm trying to choose the easier one here.

Edited by Summer Glau
no text speak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh okay so yeah, the option is clearly philosophy as it is the easier one, for people with an amazing habilities for logic and understanding theories by philosophers which are really just crazy stuff.

Bertrand Russel put it in an interesting way. He saw Science as dealing with definitives, and Theology as dealing with the infinite. The grey area between the two is what he saw as Philosophy. Without understanding that, one can never properly understand either Science nor Theology.

Russel also pointed out that while the study of Philosophy has had significant social, economic and political effects throughout history ever since the pre-Socratics of Ancient Greece, he also saw Philosophy as an opportunity for personal growth, intellectually and spiritually. One doesn't have to agree with every philosopher (and in fact, one cannot since that'd be an exercise in doublethink), but to call the philosophies that have shaped human history "crazy stuff" betrays a certain level of narrow-mindedness that probably isn't helpful to someone trying to decide whether to take the course or not (even if he's already made the decision when you posted.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh okay so yeah, the option is clearly philosophy as it is the easier one, for people with an amazing habilities for logic and understanding theories by philosophers which are really just crazy stuff.

Bertrand Russel put it in an interesting way. He saw Science as dealing with definitives, and Theology as dealing with the infinite. The grey area between the two is what he saw as Philosophy. Without understanding that, one can never properly understand either Science nor Theology.

Russel also pointed out that while the study of Philosophy has had significant social, economic and political effects throughout history ever since the pre-Socratics of Ancient Greece, he also saw Philosophy as an opportunity for personal growth, intellectually and spiritually. One doesn't have to agree with every philosopher (and in fact, one cannot since that'd be an exercise in doublethink), but to call the philosophies that have shaped human history "crazy stuff" betrays a certain level of narrow-mindedness that probably isn't helpful to someone trying to decide whether to take the course or not (even if he's already made the decision when you posted.)

Although to be fair, some of IB Philosophy IS crazy stuff XD We did The Republic by Plato which is meant to be one of the most influential things he ever wrote (according to the back cover of my book...) and in it he variously asserted the existence of other worlds that only Philosophers can see, that we are all made of various mixtures of often impure metals which determine our purpose, that children ought to be taken at birth and put in a communal creche and so on! It had some interesting stuff in it too, but mostly pretty crazy things we had to memorise as it was the set text :blink: Neat to write essays about, it's easy to be critical of that brand of mental-ness xP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh okay so yeah, the option is clearly philosophy as it is the easier one, for people with an amazing habilities for logic and understanding theories by philosophers which are really just crazy stuff.

Bertrand Russel put it in an interesting way. He saw Science as dealing with definitives, and Theology as dealing with the infinite. The grey area between the two is what he saw as Philosophy. Without understanding that, one can never properly understand either Science nor Theology.

Russel also pointed out that while the study of Philosophy has had significant social, economic and political effects throughout history ever since the pre-Socratics of Ancient Greece, he also saw Philosophy as an opportunity for personal growth, intellectually and spiritually. One doesn't have to agree with every philosopher (and in fact, one cannot since that'd be an exercise in doublethink), but to call the philosophies that have shaped human history "crazy stuff" betrays a certain level of narrow-mindedness that probably isn't helpful to someone trying to decide whether to take the course or not (even if he's already made the decision when you posted.)

Although to be fair, some of IB Philosophy IS crazy stuff XD We did The Republic by Plato which is meant to be one of the most influential things he ever wrote (according to the back cover of my book...) and in it he variously asserted the existence of other worlds that only Philosophers can see, that we are all made of various mixtures of often impure metals which determine our purpose, that children ought to be taken at birth and put in a communal creche and so on! It had some interesting stuff in it too, but mostly pretty crazy things we had to memorise as it was the set text :blink: Neat to write essays about, it's easy to be critical of that brand of mental-ness xP

I think you take everything very personal Proletariat. I do not regret saying "Crazy stuff" because in fact, there are many, MANY things in philosophy which are actually this. I am not taking their true value out of them, in fact, I think they've developed the knowledge we have in the modern days like no other area has done it before but there's a certain difference between "narrow-mindedness" and saying how the course is in IB. I am advising Peiayo from personal experience as I take both, History and Philosophy. I am not saying that philosophy is anything but "an opportunity for personal growth, both intellectually and spiritually" as Russel defined it. Let me make my point clear and take into account what Sandwich said about the actual course, there is some "crazy stuff" in the syllabus, depending on which theories you choose to study.

As far as I am concerned, I do acknowledge the relevance a that some of this ideas have, but some others don't really mean anything to the society. Let me put an example in here, of many you can find in philosophy, Kant's classes of judgements, a priori, a posteriori, analytical and synthetical don't really represent a change in a determined culture and it lacks of trascendence that some other theories have. In fact, this ethical area of philophy, even though shares with you an opportunity to reflect upon your actions, is really crazy, as if Kant would have just said that judgements are divided that way only for the pure reason of his will. I don't really consider calling "crazy stuff" some of the existant philosophical material may give you the chance to deduct that I am narrow-minded. I guess peiyao made its desicion and I'm sure he didn't commited a mistake choosing philosophy because it was relatively easier and less time consuming because in first place, as he clearly stated, he was not interested in neither History or Philosophy which results in the same effect.

Edited by Procrastination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your "rebuttal" makes me wonder who's really the one taking posts personally here. Perhaps "narrow-minded" was the wrong word for me to use; I intended to merely point out that your personal opinion presented a very narrow viewpoint in regards to Philosophy. Both you and the OP have acknowledged that he has zero interest in either. You defended the merit of History while deriding that of Philosophy, and I merely came to the defence of the latter. Please tell me if this offends you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...