Secada - - Philosophy Philosophy in History. Jonathan Ree , Richard Rorty , J. Richard Rorty: J. Schneewind and Quentin Skinner. Jan Golinski - - Radical Philosophy Secada - - Philosophy 61 Schneewind and Quentin Skinner , Ideas in Context. Review of J. Schneewind, Essays on the History of Moral Philosophy. Added to PP index Total views 29 , of 2,, Recent downloads 6 months 1 1,, of 2,, How can I increase my downloads?
- Tales You Never Suspected;
- Lin McLean.
- Routledge French Technical Dictionary Dictionnaire technique anglais: Volume 1 French-English/francais-anglais: Volume 2 (Routledge Reference);
- History, Philosophy of | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Radical Philosophy Philosophy in History: Essays on the Historiography of Philosophy Archive.
Sign in to use this feature. This article has no associated abstract. No keywords specified fix it. Applied ethics. History of Western Philosophy. Jean Paul Sartre , in particular, focused on the existential aspects of the past, which he conceives in terms of a blend of the Marxist material conditions for human action and a quasi psycho-analytic unfolding of the phenomenological self. Albeit in less existential terms, the Frankfurt School also founded their view of the subject and of the world in a combination of Marxist materialist historiography and psycho-analysis.
In the latter decades of the 20th century, continental philosophy of history turned its attention to epistemological questions about historical narrative.
Edited by Michael Beaney
As such, philosophy must concern itself with an historical investigation of how these truth practices function within and against the backdrop of their historical facticities. Michel Foucault characterized his own project as the historical investigation of the means of truth production. His History of Madness begins a series of works that denies a single fixed meaning for phenomena, but undertakes to show how meaning transmogrifies over time through a series of cultural practices. In The Order of Things , archeology is characterized as a description of the transitions between cultural discourses in a way that highlights their structural and contextual meaning while undermining any substantive notion of the author of those discourses.
Philosophy in History: Essays in the Historiography of Philosophy by Richard M. Rorty
The effort, again roughly Nietzschean, is to understand the past in terms of the present, to show that the institutions we find today are neither the result of teleological providence nor an instantiation of rational decision making, but emerge from a power play of discourses carried over from the past. History should instead concern itself with those moments when the contingencies of the past emerge or descend out of the conflict of its discourses, with how the past reveals a series of disparities rather than progressive steps.
The conception of history as a play of power-seeking discursive practices was reflected back upon the practices of the historian. This power play crystallizes in the meta-narrative structures grafted upon the world by the philosophers of history. Rather than a dialectical logic that would seek unity among past events, the postmodern condition drives us to see the disjointedness, dissimilarity, and diversity of events and people.
Required for that is a new way of writing history that embraces a multiplicity of perspectives and standards of judgment, and, by extension, a willingness to embrace the plurality of moral and political lessons that can be drawn absent conviction in a single correct narrative. Like analytic philosophy generally, analytic philosophy of history is partly characterized by its Anglophone heritage and partly by a propensity to treat individual problems rather than offering comprehensive interpretations of reality.
Anglophone philosophy of history is also marked by its conscious self-distancing from the teleological systems of the Hegelians. Concerning the former, Popper charged that the ideological impetus for the totalitarian regimes of the previous hundred years was their shared belief in a national or religious destiny that was both guaranteed and justified by a grand historical process.
Whether Bismarck, Communism, Fascism, or Nazism, all were confident that history was inexorably marching toward a global regime that would guarantee their way of life and justify the actions taken in their name. The Anglophone tradition was inspired to deny the grand teleological narrative partly as a political aversion to this way of thinking. The focus of philosophy of history in the Anglophone world after Popper turned away from attempts to provide grand narratives in order to deal with specific meta-historical problems. One problem, carried over from the 19th century scientific philosophers of history, was the logic of historical explanation.
Similar to their positivist counterparts, the earlier analytics held explanations to be justified insofar as they were able to render historical events predictable by means of deducing their particulars under a general law. The most well-known expression comes from C. Hempel In this respect, the logic of historical explanation is no different from the logic of scientific explanation. And while they may be more difficult to locate, once the laws of historical change have been discovered by psychology, anthropology, economics, or sociology, the predictive force of historiography should theoretically rival that of the natural sciences.
Attack also came from R. Collingwood, who denied the existence of covering laws in history and accordingly the applicability of scientific explanatory mechanisms.
For him, as well as for Michael Oakeshott, history is a study of the uniqueness of the past and not its generalities, and always for the sake of understanding rather than proving or predicting. It is the particular, especially the particular person, that history studies, and as such the attempt to predict their behavior nomothetically is not only impossible but misunderstands the very reason for historical inquiry in the first place.
Contrary to Aristotle, the unscientific character of history for Collingwood and Oakeshott renders it no less-worthy a course of study. The proper task of history, Collingwood thought, was not to address mere general naturalistic events but the rationality of specific actions.canmilipfi.tk
Philosophy of history
What marks the historian, by contrast, is her interest in the actions of the migrating individuals in terms of their intentions and decisions. In the latter half of the 20th century, a number of explanatory theories were proposed which walk a middle line between the nomothetic and idealist proposals. Here the effort is neither to demonstrate nor to predict, but to bring together various relevant events around a central unifying concept in order to make clear their interconnections:.
What we want from historians is […] an account which brings out their connections and bearing on one another. Walsh , Just as the pedagogical value of a narrative is not reducible to what it can demonstrate, so the value of history rests in its ability to make sense of various features of the lives and times of others. William Dray , too, argued that historical explanation does not require the sufficient conditions for why something happened, but only the necessary conditions for describing how what did happen could possibly have happened.
A second problem addressed by 20th century Anglophone philosophers of history concerned the nature and possibility of objectivity. While all would agree with Ranke that historiography should endeavor to expunge overt biases and prejudices, the question remains to what extent this could or even should be done. Along these lines Charles Beard had a series of arguments against the Rankean ideal of objectivity.
Nevertheless, Beard would not come to endorse the sort of relativistic narrativism of his post-modern continental counterparts. It certainly seems true to say that historians select — insofar as a map is itself not the road — and that their selection is a matter of what they personally esteem worth discussing, whether on the level of their general topic or in terms of which causes they consider relevant within an explanation. But selectivity of itself does not imply prejudice; and a careful reader is more often than not able to distinguish overtly prejudiced accounts from one whose selections are balanced and fair.
Moreover, the fact that they are selective would not serve as a prima facie principle of discernment between historians and scientists, since the latter are every bit as selective in the topics under their purview. Isaiah Berlin considered the problem of historiographical objectivity from the perspective of the objects written about rather than exclusively the writer. While the scientist has little emotional commitment to the chemicals or atoms under examination, historians often have strong feelings about the moral consequences of their subjects.
Yet to write about the holocaust or slavery in a purposefully detached way misses the intensely personal character of these events and thus fails to communicate their genuine meaning, even if doing so detracts from their status as objective records in a way scientific history would disallow. What precisely that minimal degree is, however, and how a working historian can navigate moral gray areas without falling back into inherited biases, remains difficult to account for.
For a constructivist like Leon Goldstein , this does not imply an ontological anti-realism wherein none but perceptible objects are considered real. For Goldstein, it would be senseless for historians to doubt that the world they study ever existed; constructivists are equally constrained by evidence as their objectivist counterparts. And for both the evidence with which the historian works concerns a genuinely past state of affairs outside their own minds.
- PySide GUI Application Development - Second Edition;
- Opportunities and Challenges for Next-Generation Applied Intelligence.
- Wife in the North.
- The Historiography of Analytic Philosophy.
Were the viewer of the coin wholly oblivious to either Rome or the natural environment, the coin would not cease to exist, of course; but it would cease to evidence either of these topics. In that sense at least, even non-postmodern Anglophone philosophers of history admit the necessarily interpretive and constructive aspects of historiography. Peter Novick and Richard Evans have recently taken up the limits of constructivism on behalf of professional historians.
How causes function within historical accounts was the third major question for 20th century Anglophone philosophers of history. For philosophers generally and for philosophers of history specifically, causation presents a multifaceted set of problems.
History and Historiography of Philosophy
According to the positivist theory of explanation, an adequate causal account explicates the sum total of necessary and sufficient conditions for an event to take place. This ideal bar is acknowledged as having been set too high for practicing historians, since there is perhaps a near infinity of necessary causes for any historical event. That the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was a cause of the First World War is clear; but necessary, too, was an indescribably myriad set of other economic, social, political, geographical, and even personal factors that led to such a wide-reaching and complex phenomenon to take place precisely as it did: had Gavrilo Princip not associated with the Young Bosnian movement, had gravity failed that day causing bullets to float harmlessly upward, had the Austro-Hungarian alliance not held the southern Slavic provinces, had Franz Ferdinand decided to stay at home on June 28 th , — were any of these conditions actual, the course of history would have been altered.
Thus, their contraries were necessary for having produced the exact outcome that obtained. Collingwood was again influential in overturning the positivist view by distinguishing causes and motives. Physical causes such as properly working guns or the presence of gravity are necessary for assassination in a strictly physical sense. But no historian would bother mentioning them. Only motives, the reasons agents have for conducting their actions, are typically referenced: what motives Princip had for firing and what motives the leaders of Germany, France, and Russia had to mobilize their armies.
A proper explanation, for Collingwood, involves making clear the reasons why the key actors participated in an event as they did. One is that Collingwood presumes a freedom of choice that relies upon an outmoded notion of cognitive agency. The same reasons that are purported to have been causally efficacious are often enough retrospective justifications supplied by agents who in reality acted without conscious deliberation.
Collingwood often appeals to a particular motive as what a reasonable being would elect to do in a certain situation. The third is that, as historians themselves often note, many actions do not result from the motives of their agents but from the confluence of several motives whose outcome is unpredictable. Both actions were nevertheless crucial causes of consequences whose main actors could not have foreseen them, much less have willed.
Following the conception of causation in legal theory promulgated by H. Just as in legal cases, where conditions in history are normalized the abnormal or untypical decision or event is assigned responsibility for what results. In our example of the causes of WWI, the long history of constant political bickering between the great powers was of course part of the story, but the assassination of the Archduke is assigned responsibility since it stands so untypically out of its context.
To adapt our previous example, one might justifiably think the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the sufficient cause of WWI if and only if one thinks WWI would not have happened in its absence. Yet whereas counterfactuals are easily enough tested in science by running multiple experiments that control for the variable in question, the unrepeatability of historical events renders traditional counterfactual statements little more than interesting speculations.
Related Philosophy in History: Essays in the Historiography of Philosophy
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved