Abstract
No doubt most philosophers who spend time on the history of philosophy are familiar with that question asked to embarrass (and liable to be asked by scientists in particular) why the history of the subject should be thought a significant part of the subject itself. Either there is progress in philosophy, it is said, or there is not. If there is progress, why the laborious backward glances? How can the past be so important? Why aren’t philosophers like psychologists, given perhaps a short historical orientation before being brought up to the nitty-gritty of the present? If, on the other hand, there is no progress, if we might as well be discussing Locke as Quine, doesn’t that imply that philosophy consists in a set of questions for which there is no way of establishing even that some answers are better than others? Wouldn’t it be more profitable to pursue questions to which at least provisional answers can be established, approximating to the truth? Wouldn’t it be better to be a scientist?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
R. Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature ( Oxford: Blackwell, 1980 ).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1985 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ayers, M.R. (1985). ‘The End of Metaphysics’ and the Historiography of Philosophy. In: Holland, A.J. (eds) Philosophy, its History and Historiography. Royal Institute of Philosophy Conferences, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5317-8_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5317-8_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-7661-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-5317-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive