Gadamer’s Logic of Question and Answer and the Difference Between the History of Philosophy and the History of Ideas

2014 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 360-379
Author(s):  
David Vessey
Keyword(s):  
Historical Context ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
History Of Ideas ◽  
Philosophical Practice ◽  
Current Discussion ◽  
History Of ◽  
Principle Of Charity ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hans Georg Gadamer

The key difference between the history of ideas and the history of philosophy is that philosophers always consider their historical studies as potentially contributing to contemporary philosophical practice. Such presentism risks anachronistic readings of texts, but a too narrow focus on the historical context of the text risks limiting its ability to contribute to contemporary philosophizing. The current discussion of the history of philosophy focus entirely on how to understand, and what we can learn from, a philosopher’s claims and arguments. Hans-Georg Gadamer offers a different focus, arguing instead that it is the questions that the text answers that generate insights for contemporary philosophical practice. His focus on questions cuts across the standard ways of thinking about the relation between the history of philosophy and the history of ideas and provides novel answers to some central issues in the philosophy of history, for example how to best articulate a principle of charity.

History of Ideas

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick Beiser
Keyword(s):  
Historical Context ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
History Of Ideas ◽  
History Of ◽  
Cambridge School

This article is a defense of the history of ideas as traditionally understood. The history of ideas, as originally conceived, attempted to be both historical and philosophical. Its historical dimension consisted in placing ideas in their historical context and understanding the intentions behind the author; its philosophical dimension consisted in criticism, the internal critique of an author according to his own aims. Modern intellectual or philosophical history has separated these two components. There is the analytical history of philosophy which aims to be primarily critical or philosophical (viz., the approach advocated by Strawson and Bennet), and the historical Cambridge school which aims to be chiefly historical (viz., Skinner and Tully). The article argues that the history of philosophy is best pursued by joining the philosophical and historical approaches; it attempts to show how the attempt to pursue history without philosophy, or philosophy without history, breaks down and suffers from inevitable shortcomings.

scholarly journals Гермотим из Клазомен и начало афинской философии

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-148
Author(s):  
О.А. Матвейчев
Keyword(s):  
Ancient Greece ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Greek Philosophy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Classical Greek Philosophy ◽  
Available Information ◽  
Greek World

Гермотим из Клазомен – фигура в истории греческой философии, можно сказать, маргинальная. В современной литературе он появляется разве что в ряду других колдунов и мистиков VII–VI вв. до н.э. В таком статусе он включается и в собрание Дильса. Анализируя сведения о Гермотиме, автор ставит перед собой цель найти ему место среди малоазийских философов первой величины, которых считают основателями греческой философии. Различение духа (души) и материи (тела) станет основополагающим принципом греческой философии, понятие Ума (нуса) выступит фундаментом для системы Анаксагора, первого афинского философа, с которого, собственно, и начнется история классической греческой философии. Автор разделяет точку зрения Э. Доддса и др., что появление нового для Греции представления о различии души и тела коренится в северной (гиперборейской?) ментальности, привнесенной в греческий мир во времена колонизации VII–VI вв. до н.э., а возможно – и в более ранние. Ключевые слова: история философии, Древняя Греция, Гиперборея, Гермотим из Клазомен, Анаксагор, шаманизм, нус, душа, тело Hermotimus of Clazomenae can be called a marginal figure in the history of Greek philosophy. In modern literature he is mentioned only among other sorcerers and mystics of the VIIth–VIth centuries BC. The collection of Hermann Diels describes him in the same manner. Analyzing available information about Hermotimus, the author makes an attempt to place him among the primary Anatolian philosophers who are considered the founders of Greek philosophy. The distinction between spirit (soul) and matter (body) will become the fundamental principle of Greek philosophy; the concept of Nous (cosmic Mind) will be the foundation for the system of Anaxagoras, the first Athenian philosopher, from which, in fact, the history of classical Greek philosophy begins. The author shares the point of view of E. Dodds and others that the emergence of a new concept about the difference between soul and body in Greece is rooted in the northern (Hyperborean?) mentality introduced into the Greek world during the colonization of the VIIth–VIth centuries BC or possibly in earlier times. Keywords: history of philosophy, Ancient Greece, Hyperborea, Hermotimus of Clazomenae, Anaxagoras, shamanism, nous, soul, body

scholarly journals M. Mandelbaum and Historiography of Philosophy

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-244
Author(s):  
Marina N. Volf
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Intellectual History ◽  
Critical Realism ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
History Of Ideas ◽  
Philosophical Methodology ◽  
Philosophical Position ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Holistic Approaches ◽  
History Of

The views of M. Mandelbaum on the historiography of philosophy have undergone a certain evolution. The paper shows the epistemological foundations of Mandelbaum’s historical and philosophical position. From the standpoint of critical realism and its application to social sciences Mandelbaum shows the advantages and disadvantages of the monistic or holistic approaches, partial monisms and pluralism. He considers A. O. Lovejoy's history of ideas to be the most reasonable pluralistic conception, although its use as a historical and philosophical methodology is limited. Intellectual history, which replaced it, should be called a partial monism, however, according to Mandelbaum, it gets a number of advantages if it begins to use a pluralistic methodology. In this version of methodology, the history of philosophy and intellectual history can be identified. The paper also presents some objections of analytic philosophers against this identification.

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 3-8
Author(s):  
Michael Frede
Keyword(s):  
Modern Philosophy ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Ancient Philosophy ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Medieval Philosophy ◽  
Factual Question ◽  
History Of ◽  
Theoretical Question

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the study of the history of philosophy. In general, there is an enormous difference between those who concern themselves with ancient philosophy, those who concern themselves with medieval philosophy, and the students of the history of modern philosophy. And, across this distinction, there is a great variety of approaches. One should not forget that the historiography of philosophy itself in many ways is a product of history and reflects the historical context in which it is pursued. Nevertheless, what this book is interested in is not the factual question of why historians of philosophy do what they do, but the theoretical question, the question of how one ought to conceive of and explain what they do; though they themselves in this work may not in fact be guided by these assumptions and principles, there must be such principles to the extent that their activity is a rational activity. It is also important to note that philosophers tend to criticize historians of philosophy as being unduly historical and not sufficiently philosophical.

scholarly journals Acts, Events, and Stories. On the History of Danto’s Compatibilist Narrativism

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-79
Author(s):  
Thomas Uebel
Keyword(s):  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Developmental Trajectory ◽  
Analytical Philosophy ◽  
High Priest ◽  
History Of ◽  
Arthur Danto

Abstract The response given to C.G. Hempel’s well-known challenge by Arthur Danto in his Analytical Philosophy of History of 1965 – that deductive-nomological and narrative explanations are logically compatible yet employ incommensurable schemata – is here investigated from a historical perspective. It is shown that the developmental trajectory that emerges from an analysis of Danto’s previous writings – including not only a forgotten paper of 1958 but also his PhD dissertation of 1952 – contains distinctive step-changes with publications of 1953 and 1956 still prior to that of 1958–59 which enabled his subsequent discovery of narrative sentences. It is also argued that Danto’s developmental trajectory runs contrary to that presumed by some prominent commentators. Analytical History of Philosophy was not the midpoint of his ascent from mainstream philosopher of science to high priest of postmodern aesthetics, but represents a reasoned retreat from his early historical idealism.

Jan Patočka’s Philosophical Legacy

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Dodd
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Edmund Husserl ◽  
Philosophy Of History ◽  
History Of Philosophy ◽  
Philosophical Perspective ◽  
Phenomenological Philosophy ◽  
History Of

This chapter sketches the trajectory of Jan Patočka’s philosophical development against the background of the conflicts and crises that marked the history of the twentieth century, and which profoundly affected the Czech philosopher. The relevant period spans from the 1930s, when Patočka studied under Edmund Husserl in Freiburg, to the philosopher’s activities as a dissident in 1970s Czechoslovakia. Particular attention is paid to Patočka’s deep reading of the history of philosophy; the complexities of his appropriation of the phenomenological philosophies of Husserl and Heidegger; and the philosophy of history developed late in his career. The chapter ends with a consideration of Patočka’s influence on contemporary phenomenological philosophy, suggesting that his most promising contribution lies in his challenging engagement with the problem of Europe, above all his call for a post-European philosophical perspective.

Six theoretical paradigms of Eastern European Marxist aesthetics

Thesis Eleven ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 159 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-56
Author(s):  
Fu Qilin
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Theory ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
History Of Ideas ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Eastern European ◽  
Discursive Practices ◽  
General Survey ◽  
History Of ◽  
Eastern European Countries ◽  
Theoretical Paradigms

The conceptual and methodological contributions of Marxist aesthetics from Eastern European countries like Hungary, Yugoslavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and East Germany were productive and significant despite various hurdles faced concerning institutionalization, legitimization and differing theoretical abuses. In its mode of inquiry and discursive practices, Eastern European Marxist aesthetics is both similar and dissimilar to its Western, Soviet, Russian and Chinese counterparts. The specificity here is the function of a unique geographical and socio-historical context, as well as interaction with other contemporary paradigms of thought. The innovative impulses of Eastern European Marxist aesthetics affected six scholarly domains: aesthetics of praxis, theory of realism, critique of modernity, semiotics, theory of genre and cultural theory. This paper provides a general survey of the intellectual achievements of Eastern European Marxist aesthetics across these six domains and will show how this theoretical tradition has influenced the modern history of ideas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document