Two dogmas of analytic historiography

Michael Beaney

doi:10.1080/09608788.2019.1693959

Two dogmas of analytic historiography

Michael Beaney^* (Corresponding Author)

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Starting from an analogy with Quine’s two dogmas of empiricism, I offer a (neo-Kantian) critique of two dogmas of analytic historiography: the belief in a cleavage between the justification of a philosophical claim and an account of its genesis and the belief in rational reconstructionism. I take Russell’s rational reconstruction of Leibniz’s philosophy as my detailed example.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	594–614
Number of pages	21
Journal	British Journal for the History of Philosophy
Volume	28
Issue number	3
Early online date	20 Jan 2020
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2019.1693959
Publication status	Published - 2020

Keywords

Justification and genesis
Kant
Leibniz
rational reconstruction
Russell
PHILOSOPHY
KANT

Access to Document

10.1080/09608788.2019.1693959Licence: Unspecified

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Two dogmas of analytic historiography'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@article{83264231292041d2b13ce2adf4e000f1,

title = "Two dogmas of analytic historiography",

abstract = "Starting from an analogy with Quine{\textquoteright}s two dogmas of empiricism, I offer a (neo-Kantian) critique of two dogmas of analytic historiography: the belief in a cleavage between the justification of a philosophical claim and an account of its genesis and the belief in rational reconstructionism. I take Russell{\textquoteright}s rational reconstruction of Leibniz{\textquoteright}s philosophy as my detailed example.",

keywords = "Justification and genesis, Kant, Leibniz, rational reconstruction, Russell, PHILOSOPHY, KANT",

author = "Michael Beaney",

year = "2020",

doi = "10.1080/09608788.2019.1693959",

language = "English",

volume = "28",

pages = "594–614",

journal = "British Journal for the History of Philosophy",

issn = "0960-8788",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Two dogmas of analytic historiography

AU - Beaney, Michael

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Starting from an analogy with Quine’s two dogmas of empiricism, I offer a (neo-Kantian) critique of two dogmas of analytic historiography: the belief in a cleavage between the justification of a philosophical claim and an account of its genesis and the belief in rational reconstructionism. I take Russell’s rational reconstruction of Leibniz’s philosophy as my detailed example.

AB - Starting from an analogy with Quine’s two dogmas of empiricism, I offer a (neo-Kantian) critique of two dogmas of analytic historiography: the belief in a cleavage between the justification of a philosophical claim and an account of its genesis and the belief in rational reconstructionism. I take Russell’s rational reconstruction of Leibniz’s philosophy as my detailed example.

KW - Justification and genesis

KW - Kant

KW - Leibniz

KW - rational reconstruction

KW - Russell

KW - PHILOSOPHY

KW - KANT

UR - https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/two-dogmas-of-analytic-historiography(13b9c08c-c7d6-4fd7-affe-7e8fdfa292bd).html

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85078399959&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09608788.2019.1693959

DO - 10.1080/09608788.2019.1693959

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 594

EP - 614

JO - British Journal for the History of Philosophy

JF - British Journal for the History of Philosophy

SN - 0960-8788

IS - 3

ER -