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 -