Read PDF The Discipline of History and the History of Thought

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Discipline of History and the History of Thought file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Discipline of History and the History of Thought book. Happy reading The Discipline of History and the History of Thought Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Discipline of History and the History of Thought at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Discipline of History and the History of Thought Pocket Guide.

Hempel's essay provoked a prolonged controversy between supporters who cited generalizations about human behavior as the relevant general laws, and critics who argued that historical explanations are more akin to explanations of individual behavior, based on interpretation that makes the outcome comprehensible.

Donagan and others pointed out the difficulty that many social explanations depend on probabilistic regularities rather than universal laws. The most fundamental objections, however, are these: first, that there are virtually no good examples of universal laws in history, whether of human behavior or of historical event succession Donagan —45 ; and second, that there are other compelling schemata through which we can understand historical actions and outcomes that do not involve subsumption under general laws Elster These include the processes of reasoning through which we understand individual actions—analogous to the methods of verstehen and the interpretation of rational behavior mentioned above Dray —37 ; and the processes through which we can trace out chains of causation and specific causal mechanisms without invoking universal laws.

A careful re-reading of these debates over the covering-law model in history suggests that the debate took place largely because of the erroneous assumption of the unity of science and the postulation of the regulative logical similarity of all areas of scientific reasoning to a few clear examples of explanation in a few natural sciences.

This approach was a deeply impoverished one, and handicapped from the start in its ability to pose genuinely important questions about the nature of history and historical knowledge. Explanation of human actions and outcomes should not be understood along the lines of an explanation of why radiators burst when the temperature falls below zero degrees centigrade.

History of political thought: the state of the discipline

The insistence on naturalistic models for social and historical research leads easily to a presumption in favor of the covering-law model of explanation, but this presumption is misleading. Or are forms of bias, omission, selection, and interpretation such as to make all historical representations dependent on the perspective of the individual historian? Does the fact that human actions are value-laden make it impossible for the historian to provide a non-value-laden account of those actions? This topic divides into several different problems, as noted by John Passmore The most studied of these within the analytic tradition is that of the value-ladenness of social action.

Second is the possibility that the historian's interpretations are themselves value-laden—raising the question of the capacity for objectivity or neutrality of the historian herself. Does the intellectual have the ability to investigate the world without regard to the biases that are built into her political or ethical beliefs, her ideology, or her commitments to a class or a social group? And third is the question of the objectivity of the historical circumstances themselves.

Is there a fixed historical reality, independent from later representations of the facts?

There are solutions to each of these problems that are highly consonant with the philosophical assumptions of the analytic tradition. First, concerning values: There is no fundamental difficulty in reconciling the idea of a researcher with one set of religious values, who nonetheless carefully traces out the religious values of a historical actor possessing radically different values.

Edited by Robert E. Goodin

This research can be done badly, of course; but there is no inherent epistemic barrier that makes it impossible for the researcher to examine the body of statements, behaviors, and contemporary cultural institutions corresponding to the other, and to come to a justified representation of the other. One need not share the values or worldview of a sans-culotte , in order to arrive at a justified appraisal of those values and worldview. This leads us to a resolution of the second issue as well—the possibility of neutrality on the part of the researcher.

The set of epistemic values that we impart to scientists and historians include the value of intellectual discipline and a willingness to subject their hypotheses to the test of uncomfortable facts. Once again, review of the history of science and historical writing makes it apparent that this intellectual value has effect. There are plentiful examples of scientists and historians whose conclusions are guided by their interrogation of the evidence rather than their ideological presuppositions. Objectivity in pursuit of truth is itself a value, and one that can be followed.

Finally, on the question of the objectivity of the past: Is there a basis for saying that events or circumstances in the past have objective, fixed characteristics that are independent from our representation of those events? Is there a representation-independent reality underlying the large historical structures to which historians commonly refer the Roman Empire, the Great Wall of China, the imperial administration of the Qianlong Emperor? We can work our way carefully through this issue, by recognizing a distinction between the objectivity of past events, actions and circumstances, the objectivity of the contemporary facts that resulted from these past events, and the objectivity and fixity of large historical entities.

The past occurred in precisely the way that it did—agents acted, droughts occurred, armies were defeated, new technologies were invented. These occurrences left traces of varying degrees of information richness; and these traces give us a rational basis for arriving at beliefs about the occurrences of the past. In each of these instances the noun's referent is an interpretive construction by historical actors and historians, and one that may be undone by future historians. The underlying facts of behavior, and their historical traces, remain; but the knitting-together of these facts into a large historical event does not constitute an objective historical entity.

A third important set of issues that received attention from analytic philosophers concerned the role of causal ascriptions in historical explanations. Is causation established by discovering a set of necessary and sufficient conditions? Can we identify causal connections among historical events by tracing a series of causal mechanisms linking one to the next? This topic raises the related problem of determinism in history: are certain events inevitable in the circumstances? Was the fall of the Roman Empire inevitable, given the configuration of military and material circumstances prior to the crucial events?

Analytic philosophers of history most commonly approached these issues on the basis of a theory of causation drawn from positivist philosophy of science. This theory is ultimately grounded in Humean assumptions about causation: that causation is nothing but constant conjunction. So analytic philosophers were drawn to the covering-law model of explanation, because it appeared to provide a basis for asserting historical causation. As noted above, this approach to causal explanation is fatally flawed in the social sciences, because universal causal regularities among social phenomena are unavailable.

So it is necessary either to arrive at other interpretations of causality or to abandon the language of causality. And it is evident that there are causal circumstances in which no single factor is necessary for the occurrence of the effect; the outcome may be overdetermined by multiple independent factors. The convergence of reasons and causes in historical processes is helpful in this context, because historical causes are frequently the effect of deliberate human action Davidson So specifying the reason for the action is simultaneously identifying a part of the cause of the consequences of the action.

It is often justifiable to identify a concrete action as the cause of a particular event a circumstance that was sufficient in the existing circumstances to bring about the outcome , and it is feasible to provide a convincing interpretation of the reasons that led the actor to carry out the action. What analytic philosophers of the s did not come to, but what is crucial for current understanding of historical causality, is the feasibility of tracing causal mechanisms through a complex series of events causal realism.

Historical narratives often take the form of an account of a series of events, each of which was a causal condition or trigger for later events. English-speaking philosophy of history shifted significantly in the s, beginning with the publication of Hayden White's Metahistory and Louis Mink's writings of the same period ; Mink et al. Whereas analytic philosophy of history had emphasized scientific analogies for historical knowledge and advanced the goals of verifiability and generalizability in historical knowledge, English-speaking philosophers in the s and s were increasingly influenced by hermeneutic philosophy, post-modernism, and French literary theory Rorty Affinities with literature and anthropology came to eclipse examples from the natural sciences as guides for representing historical knowledge and historical understanding.

The richness and texture of the historical narrative came in for greater attention than the attempt to provide causal explanations of historical outcomes. Frank Ankersmit captured many of these themes in his treatment of historical narrative ; Ankersmit and Kellner ; see also Berkhofer It emphasizes historical narrative rather than historical causation. It is intellectually closer to the hermeneutic tradition than to the positivism that underlay the analytic philosophy of history of the s.

  • Geometry, particles and fields.
  • Knowledge and Knowledge Systems: Learning from the Wonders of the Mind.
  • The Perfect Photo: 71 Tips from the Top (Rocky Nook)?
  • Can history be a science? | Eurozine?

It highlights features of subjectivity and multiple interpretation over those of objectivity, truth, and correspondence to the facts. Another important strand in this approach to the philosophy of history is a clear theoretical preference for the historicist rather than the universalist position on the status of human nature—Herder rather than Vico. The prevalent perspective holds that human consciousness is itself a historical product, and that it is an important part of the historian's work to piece together the mentality and assumptions of actors in the past Pompa Significantly, contemporary historians such as Robert Darnton have turned to the tools of ethnography to permit this sort of discovery Another important strand of thinking within analytic philosophy has focused attention on historical ontology Hacking , Little The topic of historical ontology is important, both for philosophers and for practicing historians.

Ontology has to do with the question, what kinds of things do we need to postulate in a given realm? Historical ontology poses this question with regard to the realities of the past.

What is Social History?

Or should we treat these ideas in a purely nominalistic way, treating them as convenient ways of aggregating complex patterns of social action and knowledge by large numbers of social actors in a time and place? Are there social kinds that recur in history, or is each historical formation unique in important ways?

These are all questions of ontology, and the answers we give to them will have important consequences for how we conceptualize and explain the past. We should begin by asking the basic question: what is historiography? In its most general sense, the term refers to the study of historians' methods and practices.

So one task we always have in considering an expert activity is to attempt to identify these standards and criteria of good performance. This is true for theatre and literature, and it is true for writing history. Historiography is at least in part the effort to do this work for a particular body of historical writing. Several handbooks contain a wealth of recent writings on various aspects of historiography; Tucker , Bentley , Breisach Historians normally make truth claims, and they ask us to accept those claims based on the reasoning they present.

So a major aspect of the study of historiography has to do with defining the ideas of evidence, rigor, and standards of reasoning for historical inquiry. We presume that historians want to discover empirically supported truths about the past, and we presume that they want to offer inferences and interpretations that are somehow regulated by standards of scientific rationality. Simon Schama challenges some of these ideas in Dead Certainties Schama There are other desiderata governing a good historical work, and these criteria may change from culture to culture and epoch to epoch.

Discerning the historian's goals is crucial to deciding how well he or she succeeds. So discovering these stylistic and aesthetic standards that guide the historian's work is itself an important task for historiography. This means that the student of historiography will naturally be interested in the conventions of historical writing and rhetoric that are characteristic of a given period or school.

What models of explanation? What paradigm of presentation? What standards of style and rhetoric? What interpretive assumptions? Historiography becomes itself historical when we recognize that these frameworks of assumptions about historical knowledge and reasoning change over time. On this assumption, the history of historical thinking and writing is itself an interesting subject. How did historians of various periods in human history conduct their study and presentation of history? Under this rubric we find books on the historiography of the ancient Greeks; Renaissance historiography; or the historiography of German romanticism.

Arnaldo Momigliano's writings on the ancient historians fall in this category Momigliano In a nutshell, Momigliano is looking at the several traditions of ancient history-writing as a set of normative practices that can be dissected and understood in their specificity and their cultural contexts. A second primary use of the concept of historiography is more present-oriented and methodological. It involves the study and analysis of historical methods of research, inquiry, inference, and presentation used by more-or-less contemporary historians.

How do contemporary historians go about their tasks of understanding the past? Here we can reflect upon the historiographical challenges that confronted Philip Huang as he investigated the Chinese peasant economy in the s and s Huang , or the historiographical issues raised in Robert Darnton's telling of the Great Cat Massacre Darnton Sometimes these issues have to do with the scarcity or bias in the available bodies of historical records for example, the fact that much of what Huang refers to about the village economy of North China was gathered by the research teams of the occupying Japanese army.

Sometimes they have to do with the difficulty of interpreting historical sources for example, the unavoidable necessity Darnton faced of providing meaningful interpretation of a range of documented events that appear fundamentally irrational. This has led to a tendency to look at other countries' development as non-standard or stunted. So global history is, in part, a framework within which the historian avoids privileging one regional center as primary and others as secondary or peripheral.

Bin Wong makes this point very strongly in China Transformed Wong Second is the related fact that when Western historical thinkers—for example, Hegel, Malthus, Montesquieu—have turned their attention to Asia, they have often engaged in a high degree of stereotyping without much factual historical knowledge. The ideas of Oriental despotism, Asian overpopulation, and Chinese stagnation have encouraged a cartoonish replacement of the intricate and diverse processes of development of different parts of Asia by a single-dimensional and reductive set of simplifying frameworks of thought.

This is one of the points of Edward Said's critique of orientalism Said So a historiography that takes global diversity seriously should be expected to be more agnostic about patterns of development, and more open to discovery of surprising patterns, twists, and variations in the experiences of India, China, Indochina, the Arab world, the Ottoman Empire, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Variation and complexity are what we should expect, not stereotyped simplicity. A global history needs to free itself from Eurocentrism.

This step away from Eurocentrism in outlook should also be accompanied by a broadening of the geographical range of what is historically interesting. So a global history ought to be global and trans-national in its selection of topics—even while recognizing the fact that all historical research is selective. A globally oriented historian will recognize that the political systems of classical India are as interesting and complex as the organization of the Roman Republic.

An important current underlying much work in global history is the reality of colonialism through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and the equally important reality of anti-colonial struggles and nation building in the s and s. So there was a specific interest in gaining certain kinds of knowledge about those societies—in order to better govern them and exploit them.

And post-colonial states had a symmetrical interest in supporting global historiography in their own universities and knowledge systems, in order to better understand and better critique the forming relations of the past. A final way in which history needs to become global is to incorporate the perspectives and historical traditions of historians in non-western countries into the mainstream of discussion of major world developments.

Indian and Chinese historians have their own intellectual traditions in conducting historical research and explanation; a global history is one that pays attention to the insights and arguments of these traditions. So global historiography has to do with a broadened definition of the arena of historical change to include Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas; a recognition of the complexity and sophistication of institutions and systems in many parts of the world; a recognition of the trans-national interrelatedness that has existed among continents for at least four centuries; and a recognition of the complexity and distinctiveness of different national traditions of historiography.

Dominic Sachsenmaier provides a significant recent discussion of some of these issues Sachsenmaier He wants to take this idea seriously and try to discover some of the implications of different national traditions of academic historiography. As should be clear from these remarks, there is a degree of overlap between historiography and the philosophy of history in the fact that both are concerned with identifying and evaluating the standards of reasoning that are used in various historical traditions.

That said, historiography is generally more descriptive and less evaluative than the philosophy of history. And it is more concerned with the specifics of research and writing than is the philosophy of history. There is another current of thinking about the philosophy of history that deserves more attention from philosophers than it has so far received.

It is the work of philosophically minded historians and historical social scientists treating familiar but badly understood historical concepts: causation, historical epoch, social structure, human agency, mentality, and the like. These writings represent a middle-level approach to issues having to do with the logic of historical discourse.

This aspect of current philosophy of history brings the discipline into close relation to the philosophy of the special sciences biology, sociology, archaeology. Philosophically reflective historians ask critical questions about the concepts and assumptions that are often brought into historical thinking, and they attempt to provide more adequate explication of these concepts given their own encounters with the challenges of historical research and historical explanation.

Charles Tilly challenges a common assumption that causal reasoning depends on identifying background causal regularities; he argues instead for an approach to causal reasoning that emphasizes the role of concrete causal mechanisms McAdam, Tarrow, and Tilly Simon Schama questions the concept of an objective historical narrative that serves to capture the true state of affairs about even fairly simple historical occurrences Charles Sabel casts doubt on the idea of fixed patterns of historical development, arguing that there were alternative pathways available even within the classic case of economic development in western Europe Sabel and Zeitlin As these examples illustrate, there is ample room for productive exchange between philosophers with an interest in the nature of history and the historians and social scientists who have reflected deeply on the complexities of the concepts and assumptions we use in historical analysis.

It may be useful to close with a sketch of a possible framework for an updated philosophy of history. Any area of philosophy is driven by a few central puzzles. In the area of the philosophy of history, the most fundamental questions remain unresolved: 1 What is the nature of the reality of historical structures and entities states, empires, religious movements, social classes? Can we provide a conception of historical and social entities that avoids the error of reification but gives some credible reality to the entities that are postulated?

Historical causation is not analogous to natural necessity in the domain of physical causation, because there are no fixed laws that govern historical events. So we need to provide an account of the nature of the causal powers that historical factors are postulated to have. Is it possible to arrive at justified interpretations of long-dead actors, their mentalities and their actions? How does this phenomenological reality play into the account of historical causation?

Or does all historical knowledge remain permanently questionable? A new philosophy of history will shed light on these fundamental issues. It will engage with the hermeneutic and narrativist currents that have been important in the continental tradition and have arisen in recent years in Anglo-American philosophy.

It will incorporate the rigorous epistemic emphasis that is associated with analytic philosophy of history, but will separate itself from the restrictive assumptions of positivism. A new philosophy of history will grapple with issues of social explanation that have been so important for the current generation of social-science historians and will incorporate the best current understandings of the philosophy of social science about social ontology and explanation. A handful of ontological assumptions can be offered. History consists of human actions within humanly embodied institutions and structures.

There is no super-human agency in history. There is no super-human meaning or progress in history; there is only a series of events and processes driven by concrete causal processes and individual actions. Following Davidson and Taylor , there is no inconsistency between reasons and causes, understanding and explanation. Historical explanation depends on both causal-structural reasoning and interpretation of actions and intentions; so it is both causal and hermeneutic. There are no causal laws or universal generalizations within human affairs.

However, there is such a thing as social causation, proceeding through the workings of human agency and the constraints of institutions and structures. A legitimate historiographical goal is to identify causal mechanisms within historical processes, and these mechanisms invariably depend on the actions of historical actors situated within concrete social relations.

Likewise, a basic epistemology of historical knowledge can be described. Historical knowledge depends on ordinary procedures of empirical investigation, and the justification of historical claims depends on providing convincing demonstration of the empirical evidence that exists to support or invalidate the claim. There is such a thing as historical objectivity, in the sense that historians are capable of engaging in good-faith interrogation of the evidence in constructing their theories of the past.

  • The Mayflies of North and Central America.
  • Falling For Your Madness!
  • Eric Evans.
  • Ultraculture Journal One (2007)!
  • Navigation menu!
  • Recommended For You.
  • Navigation menu.

But this should not be understood to imply that there is one uniquely true interpretation of historical processes and events. Rather, there is a perfectly ordinary sense in which historical interpretations are underdetermined by the facts, and there are multiple legitimate historical questions to pose about the same body of evidence. Historical narratives have a substantial interpretive component, and involve substantial construction of the past. Finally, a new philosophy of history will be sensitive to the variety of forms of presentation of historical knowledge.

The discipline of history consists of many threads, including causal explanation, material description, and narrative interpretation of human action. Historical narrative itself has several aspects: a hermeneutic story that makes sense of a complicated set of actions by different actors, but also a causal story conveying a set of causal mechanisms that came together to bring about an outcome.

But even more importantly, not all historical knowledge is expressed in narratives. Rather, there is a range of cognitive structures through which historical knowledge is expressed, from detailed measurement of historical standards of living, to causal arguments about population change, to comparative historical accounts of similar processes in different historical settings.

A new philosophy of history will take the measure of synchronous historical writing; historical writing that conveys a changing set of economic or structural circumstances; writing that observes the changing characteristics of a set of institutions; writing that records and analyzes a changing set of beliefs and attitudes in a population; and many other varieties as well. These are important features of the structure of historical knowledge, not simply aspects of the rhetoric of historical writing.

History and its representation 1. Continental philosophy of history 2. Anglo-American philosophy of history 3. Historiography and the philosophy of history 5. Topics from the historians 6. History and its representation What are the intellectual tasks that define the historian's work? Continental philosophy of history The topic of history has been treated frequently in modern European philosophy. He describes this activity of re-enactment in the context of the historical problem of understanding Plato's meanings as a philosopher or Caesar's intentions as a ruler: This re-enactment is only accomplished, in the case of Plato and Caesar respectively, so far as the historian brings to bear on the problem all the powers of his own mind and all his knowledge of philosophy and politics.

It is not a passive surrender to the spell of another's mind; it is a labour of active and therefore critical thinking. Collingwood 2. Anglo-American philosophy of history The traditions of empiricism and Anglo-American philosophy have also devoted occasional attention to history. So global historiography has to do with a broadened definition of the arena of historical change to include Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the Americas; a recognition of the complexity and sophistication of institutions and systems in many parts of the world; a recognition of the trans-national interrelatedness that has existed among continents for at least four centuries; and a recognition of the complexity and distinctiveness of different national traditions of historiography Dominic Sachsenmaier provides a significant recent discussion of some of these issues Sachsenmaier Topics from the historians There is another current of thinking about the philosophy of history that deserves more attention from philosophers than it has so far received.

Rethinking the philosophy of history It may be useful to close with a sketch of a possible framework for an updated philosophy of history. Bibliography Abbott, Andrew Delano, Anderson, Benedict R. Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism , London: Verso. Ankersmit, F. Language and historical experience , Bielefeld: ZiF. A new philosophy of history , Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Avineri, Shlomo, Hegel's theory of the modern state Cambridge studies in the history and theory of politics , London: Cambridge University Press.

Bentley, Michael ed. Companion to historiography , London; New York: Routledge. Berkhofer, Robert F. Berlin, Isaiah, Hardy ed. Bouton, Christophe, History and Theory 55 2 : Breisach, Ernst ed. Historiography: ancient, medieval, and modern , 3rd ed. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Collingwood, R. The idea of history , Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Condorcet, Jean-Antoine-Nicolas de Caritat, Sketch for a historical picture of the progress of the human mind , Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Cronon, William, Danto, Arthur Coleman, Analytical philosophy of history , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Darnton, Robert, Davidson, Donald, Journal of Philosophy , 60 23 : — Dawson, Christopher, Progress and religion, an historical enquiry , New York: Sheed and Ward.

De Vries, Bert, and Johan Goudsblom, Mappae mundi: humans and their habitats in a long-term socio-ecological perspective: myths, maps and models , Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Diamond, Jared M. Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies , 1st edition, New York: W. Dilthey, Wilhelm, Introduction to the human sciences , R.

Makkreel and F. Rodi eds. Hermeneutics and the study of history , R. The formation of the historical world in the human sciences , R. Makkreel, F. Rodi and W. Dilthey eds. Donagan, Alan. Dray ed. Dray, William, Laws and explanation in history , London: Oxford University Press. Elster, Jon, Foucault, Michel, The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences , 1st American edition, World of man , New York: Pantheon Books.

Gardiner, Patrick L. The nature of historical explanation , London: Oxford University Press. Geertz, Clifford, Greenblatt, Stephen, Hacking, Ian, The Social Construction of What? Hart, H. Causation in the law , Oxford: Clarendon Press. Social mechanisms: an analytical approach to social theory , Studies in rationality and social change , Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, a. Reason in history, a general introduction to the philosophy of history , New York: Liberal Arts Press, The philosophy of history , New York: Dover Publications, The Philosophy of Right , T.

Knox ed. Lectures on the Philosophy of World History , translated by H. Nisbet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Phenomenology of spirit , translated by A. Miller, edited by J. Findlay, Oxford: Clarendon Press, Herder, Johann Gottfried, Reflections on the philosophy of the history of mankind , F.

Manuel ed. On world history: an anthology , H. Adler and E. Menze eds. Sharpe, Hinton, William, Huang, Philip C. Hume, David, — The History of England , W. Todd ed. Kammen, Michael G. Mystic chords of memory: the transformation of tradition in American culture , 1st edition, New York: Knopf.

Kant, Immanuel, —6. On history , L. Beck ed. Foundations of the metaphysics of morals and, What is enlightenment , 2nd revised edition, The Library of liberal arts , New York: Macmillan, Introduction to the reading of Hegel , R. Queneau ed.

Philosophy of History (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Koselleck, Reinhart, []. LaCapra, Dominick, Lattimore, Owen, Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, Theodicy: essays on the goodness of God, the freedom of man, and the origin of evil , A. Farrer ed. Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel, Little, Daniel, Livi-Bacci, Massimo, Mackie, J. Causes and Conditions. American Philosophical Quarterly , 2: — The cement of the universe; a study of causation , Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mandelbaum, Maurice, Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power.

A history of power from the beginning to A. Maritain, Jacques, On the philosophy of history , New York: Scribner. Marx, Karl, Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels, Fernbach ed. Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, — The German ideology , 3rd revised edition. Moscow: Progress Publishers, McAdam, Doug, Sidney G. Tarrow, and Charles Tilly, McNeill, William, Plagues and Peoples , Garden City: Doubleday. Mink, Louis O. History and Theory , 5 1 : 24— Golob, and Richard T. Vann eds. Historical understanding , Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Momigliano, Arnaldo, If the latter—and this the historian p.

Burns, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Find this resource:. The Cambridge History of Political Thought, — Coleman, J. London: Athlone Press. Goldie, M. Palonen, K. Quentin Skinner: History, Politics, Rhetoric. Cambridge: Polity Press. Pocock, J. The history of political thought: a methodological enquiry. Laslett and W. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Introduction: the state of the art. Texts as events: reflections on the history of political thought. Sharpe and S. Berkeley: University of California Press. Schochet, G. Why should history matter? Political theory and the history of political discourse. Pocock, G. Schochet, and L. Skinner, Q. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Visions of Politics.

Tully, J. Meaning and Context: Quentin Skinner and his Critics. Pocock is Harry C. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice. Oxford Handbooks Online. Publications Pages Publications Pages. Search within my subject: Select Politics Urban Studies U. History Law Linguistics Literature. Music Neuroscience Philosophy Physical Sciences.

Theory in History Problems of Context and Narrative. The Oxford Handbook of Political Science. Read More. Subscriber sign in. Forgot password? Don't have an account? Sign in via your Institution.

  1. Sins of the FATHER.
  2. Epilegomena: 3: Historical Evidence.
  3. The Discipline of History and the History of Thought - M.C. Lemon - Google книги.
  4. Intellectual history | discipline |
  5. New Thoughts on Old Age.
  6. The Golden Age of Gay Fiction;
  7. Cambridge International AS and A Level Mathematics: Statistics;
  8. Sign in with your library card. Search within Theory in History Problems of Context and Narrative Abstract and Keywords This article examines the context and narrative problems associated with the study of the history of political theory. Find this resource: Google Preview WorldCat —— Find this resource: Google Preview WorldCat.

    Pocock J. All rights reserved.