The History of Political and Social Concepts: A Critical Introduction by Melvin Richter History of Concepts: Comparative Perspectives by Iain Hampsher-Monk; Karin Tilmans; Frank van Vree History and Theory.

Was leistete der Gedanke der selbstandigen Auswahl (Eklektik) in der Geschichte der Philosophie von Aristoteles bis zum 20. Jahrhundert, wo liegen die Anwendungsgebiete, wo seine Grenzen und warum kam der Begriff der Eklektik schon im 18. Jahrhundert zur Bezeichnung unselbstandiger Vermischung herunter? Der Schwerpunkt der umfangreichen Arbeit liegt in der Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft des 17. Jahrhunderts; sie reicht aber bis zur eklektischen Psychotherapie der Gegenwart.

Interpretative horizons, which determine the position of a concept within a given philosophical context open up a broader issue of linguistic expression and culture. Begriffsgeschichte therefore cannot be limited to a special philosophical discipline, since its relevance comes to the front primarily on the interdisciplinary level of humanities, in general. (edited).

The History of Political and Social Concepts: A Critical Introduction by Melvin Richter History of Concepts: Comparative Perspectives by Iain Hampsher-Monk; Karin Tilmans; Frank van Vree History and Theory.

The increasing cultural significance of the natural sciences presents conceptual history with the task of reorganising its categories and methods. The greatest challenge here is the merging of conceptual history and the history of science and the integration of the natural sciences in the project of an interdisciplinary cultural history. The present volume is the first to tackle this desideratum in a systematic manner. The contributions by renowned representatives of the most disparate disciplines bear witness both to the diversity of (...) the new perspectives and to the difficulties of such an undertaking. (shrink)

What do we mean, when we claim that something is »refuted«? The present essay deals with the evolution of the notion of refutation. Nowadays, refutations do not enjoy that high estimation in intellectual life as formerly – a lost of credit that is due to the removal of the Aristotelian pattern of refutation and its having been replaced by a more demanding pattern during the 16th – 18th centuries. On the one hand, the modern pattern pushed the Enlightenment culture, on (...) the other hand, it ended up in a sceptical crisis. At first, this crisis concerned only philosophy. Finally, even the conclusiveness of empirical refutations was disputed. The philosophical way of doing Begriffsgeschichte, whereof the present essay is a specimen, centers on the long-term impact of definitions and distinctions. From this point of view, special attention is called to the contribution of the 18th-century Wolffianism. (shrink)

The essay explores the exchange between Otto Brunner and Reinhart Koselleck about the use of historical sources in Begriffsgeschichte. Criticizing historicism in Brunner, who asserts the difference between ancient Europe and modernity starting from the idea of a strong epochalization of modern politics as linked to the short time of the State, Koselleck assumes the idea of transformation of political and juridical concepts insisting on their continuity between ancient and modern time. The comparison between the two historians questions the (...) very limits of Western modern political experience. (shrink)

_ Source: _Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 76 - 97 This article presents an account of those works, related to conceptual history and historiographical issues, written by the American historian of political thought Melvin Richter. The attention is primarily directed toward the reception of the German historiographical style called “_Begriffsgeschichte_”, and especially on its reception among Anglophone scholars. Therefore, the main objective of the article is to throw light on Richter’s understanding of _Begriffsgeschichte_, and to sum up his efforts to (...) put in contact Koselleck’s “history of concepts” with the works of authors such as Quentin Skinner and John G. A. Pocock, who are associated with the so-called “_Cambridge school contextualists_”. Thus, the aim is to point out their direct thought about _Begriffsgeschichte_, and consequently, to see how they’ve reacted to Richter’s proposals concerning the possibility of adopting that “history of concepts” as the frame for future historical researches. By doing so, and relying mainly on the extensive contributions appeared on the pages of the specialized periodicals, this article highlights some of the principal reactions to the theoretical and practical implications of “conceptual history”; in particular as they are emerging in the midst of what is indeed a recent and still ongoing international debate. Furthermore, the article tries to compare Koselleck’s _Begriffsgeschichte_ with some works of “analytical bibliography”. It is also interesting to note that these bibliographical studies are associated with Cambridge University as well as the historical researches of Skinner and Pocock. (shrink)