“Historical Perspectives on Erklären and Verstehen: Introduction”
In Uljana Feest (ed.), Historical Perspectives on Erklären and Verstehen (2010)
|Abstract||The conceptual pair of "Erklären" and "Verstehen" (explanation and understanding) has been an object of philosophical and methodological debates for well over a century. Discussions – to this day – are centered around the question of whether certain objects or issues, such as those dealing with humans or society, require a special approach, different from that of the physical sciences. In the course of such philosophical discussions, we frequently find references to historical predecessors, such as Dilthey’s discussion of the relationship between "Geisteswissenschaft" and "Naturwissenschaft", Windelband’s distinction between nomothetic and idiographic methods, or Weber’s conception of an interpretative sociology. However, these concepts are rarely placed in the historical contexts of their emergence. Nor have the shifting meanings of these terms been analyzed. The present volume considers a variety of intellectual, social, and material factors that contributed to the debate. Far from reducing the debates to their cultural and institutional contexts, however, the volume also offers careful systematic reconstructions of the arguments at hand, thereby enabling the reader to not only appreciate the situatedness of this exciting period of intellectual history, but also to reflect upon the current relevance of the various interpretations of the dichotomy between explanation and understandin|
|Keywords||explaining and understanding history and philosophy of the human sciences|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Paul Redding (2011). “The Relevance of Hegel’s “Absolute Spirit” to Social Normativity”. In Heikki Ikäheimo & Arto Laitinen (eds.), Recognition and Social Ontology. Brill.
Uljana Feest (2007). 'Hypotheses, Everywhere Only Hypotheses!': On Some Contexts of Dilthey's Critique of Explanatory Psychology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 38 (1):43-62.
D. Ginev (forthcoming). Diltheyan Varieties of Double Hermeneutics in the Human Sciences. Philosophy of the Social Sciences.
Karsten R. Stueber (2012). Understanding Versus Explanation? How to Think About the Distinction Between the Human and the Natural Sciences. Inquiry 55 (1):17 - 32.
Paul A. Roth (2008). Varieties and Vagaries of Historical Explanation. Journal of the Philosophy of History 2 (2):214-226.
Rolf Gruner (1967). Understanding in the Social Sciences and History. Inquiry 10 (1-4):151 – 163.
Larry Arnhart (2007). The Behavioral Sciences Are Historical Sciences of Emergent Complexity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (1):18-19.
Mark Bevir & Karsten Stueber (2011). Empathy, Rationality, and Explanation. Journal of the Philosophy of History 5 (2):147-162.
Uljana Feest & Thomas Sturm (2011). What (Good) is Historical Epistemology? Editors' Introduction. Erkenntnis 75 (3):285-302.
Kenneth B. McIntyre (2008). Historicity as Methodology or Hermeneutics: Collingwood's Influence on Skinner and Gadamer. Journal of the Philosophy of History 2 (2):138-166.
Theodore R. Schatzki (2000). Simulation Theory and the Verstehen School: A Wittgensteinian Approach. In K. R. Stueber & H. H. Kogaler (eds.), Empathy and Agency: The Problem of Understanding in the Human Sciences. Boulder: Westview Press.
Neil Cooper (2000). Understanding People. Philosophy 75 (3):383-400.
Birger Siebert (2005). Prospects for a Cultural-Historical Psychology of Intelligence. Studies in East European Thought 57 (3-4):305 - 317.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-02-20
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?