Agency and the objectivity of historical narratives
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Judging from the contemporary debate in the philosophy of history, philosophers seem to think of history as an important but also as a very peculiar discipline. They cannot make up their minds on how exactly to describe the epistemic status of historical knowledge or how exactly to situate history among human activities ranging from the arts to the natural sciences.1 The difficulty of philosophically accounting for the character of history goes back to the very beginning of history as a professional discipline within academia in the 19th century. In order to be given the title of a science history had to prove that its knowledge is as objective and rigorous as the knowledge gained by the natural sciences. Yet philosophers and historians recognized that its domain of human agency and human institutions was particularly ill suited to fit the model of methodological monism demanded by the ruling positivist conception of the natural sciences. They nevertheless suggested that history should still be regarded as a worthy member of the scientific community, because its own method of empathetic reenacting or "reliving" the experiences and thoughts of past agents allows it to acquire objective knowledge of the past.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
N. Tosh (2003). Anachronism and Retrospective Explanation: In Defence of a Present-Centred History of Science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (3):647-659.
James Leach (1968). Historical Objectivity and Value Neutrality. Inquiry 11 (1-4):349 – 367.
Franklin M. Fisher (1960). On the Analysis of History and the Interdependence of the Social Sciences. Philosophy of Science 27 (2):147-158.
Karsten Stueber, Empathy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Karsten R. Stueber (2008). 2. Reasons, Generalizations, Empathy, and Narratives: The Epistemic Structure of Action Explanation. History and Theory 47 (1):31–43.
Jon A. Levisohn (2010). Negotiating Historical Narratives: An Epistemology of History for History Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education 44 (1):1-21.
Larry Arnhart (2007). The Behavioral Sciences Are Historical Sciences of Emergent Complexity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30 (1):18-19.
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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #142,973 of 1,780,974 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #291,797 of 1,780,974 )
How can I increase my downloads?