Where should one start in the study of history?
Most people recognize that a general history is the best place to start when studying the past. Getting the "big picture" helps one grasp the context for more intensive studies. But where does one get such an overview?
It's common for students of history to encounter encyclopedic sources such as Durant's multi-volume Story of Civilization, and to attempt to read such massive texts--to their ultimate disillusionment. More fortunate readers might find a single tome history such as the Columbia History of the World, or Palmer & Colton's History of the Modern World. Even such superior works, however, fail to condense the story of history into a manageable sum.
Any student of conventional works of history can be excused for feeling that there are simply too many facts. This leads to the adoption of strategies such as rote memorization to try to compensate for the plethora of persons, events, and dates that one encounters. But this approach can never render a satisfying end product. Memorizing history means treating its facts as separate units. It means failing to integrate.
And if a proper base isn't properly established, then further gains are simply aborted. It is not possible to profitably read advanced works of history without the requisite context (leaving aside the fact that most advanced works are so steeped in intrinsicism as to make them virtually unreadable).
Historical knowledge, like all knowledge, must be constructed in an orderly fashion. Or, to put the matter in more philosophical language, history exhibits hierarchy. A First History for Adults takes the issue of hierarchy seriously as a guide to its pedagogical framework. The goal of the course is to provide a true foundation for further studies.
An objective presentation of history means the recognition that, just as in philosophy, where broad abstractions require the prior grasp of more readily available knowledge, not all historical knowledge is available with the same directness. Some historical information is inappropriate for first time learners because it is too far removed from the present in temporal terms. Metaphysically speaking, this means that it is too causally remote. Epistemologically speaking, this renders it non-essential to cognitive growth. Psychologically, the result is either boredom or frustration.
Similarly, most intellectual history, which focusses on the fundamental undercurrents of the basic causal narrative, is also inappropriate as first history. It simply cannot serve its purpose without that narrative having been grasped as a sum beforehand.
What is needed for a first history is a complete picture, consisting of only those facts which are necessary to create a causally integrated narrative. Such a narrative respects hierarchy by presenting only the key facts that are most apparently relatable to the present (the perceptual level). It respects the need for integration by seemlessly tying these facts into one story. It creates a "knowledge web" that empowers students in their learning by generating a genuine context for further knowledge acquisition and more abstract reasoning about history.
That's A First History for Adults™!