An analysis of the discussion of the philosophical question of historical explanation
This may serve as a link to another definition to be considered later. He stipulates that all explanations are given relative to a set of instructions cf.
Dominick LaCapra brings the tools of interpretation theory and critical theory to bear on his treatment of the representation of the trauma of the Holocaust These are all questions of ontology, and the answers we give to them will have important consequences for how we conceptualize and explain the past.
Is it possible to arrive at justified interpretations of long-dead actors, their mentalities and their actions? A growing revolt took place against the metaphysical systems in philosophy.
Speculative philosophy of history
Collingwood, The Idea of History Oxford, The main difference between sense II and sense III of the term is that whereas in the practical sciences of nature the cause of an event is an antecedent state of affairs considered from the point of view of an interest in controlling and manipulating the natural environment, in the theoretical sciences of nature the causes of natural events are viewed independently of any impact that agents can have on the natural environment: a cause in sense III is unconditional. They are rather more like Kantian categories that are presupposed and implicit in ordinary judgments. What interpretive assumptions? Affinities with literature and anthropology came to eclipse examples from the natural sciences as guides for representing historical knowledge and historical understanding. Second, there are meta-philosophical disagreements. A mental model of a squirrel, then, can be described as an activation of rule iii. Van Fraassen's pragmatic account of explanation buttresses his anti-realist position, by showing that when properly analyzed there is nothing about the concept of explanation that demands a realistic interpretation of causal processes or unobservables. This has led to a tendency to look at other countries' development as non-standard or stunted. Even determinists do not rule that, from time to time, certain cataclysmic events occur to change course of history. Past epochs were not merely some preparatory ground on the way to the comfortably modern Hegelian or Marxist state, but stand on their own as inherently superior cultures and healthier models of culture life. According to Foucault, Marxists also seized this discourse and took it in a different direction, transforming the essentialist notion of "race" into the historical notion of " class struggle ", defined by socially structured position: capitalist or proletarian. This sentence is true. It certainly seems true to say that historians select — insofar as a map is itself not the road — and that their selection is a matter of what they personally esteem worth discussing, whether on the level of their general topic or in terms of which causes they consider relevant within an explanation. We can work our way carefully through this issue, by recognizing a distinction between the objectivity of past events, actions and circumstances, the objectivity of the contemporary facts that resulted from these past events, and the objectivity and fixity of large historical entities.
The idea of pooling the best element of each definition--known as eclecticism--has a certain appeal to the novice, but not much appeal to the philosophers. You did it by knocking over the ink.
They arise because of our implicit commitment to two concepts, that of mind and matter, which entail a radically different way of looking at the world and of explaining what occurs in it.
Thus, in the aftermath of the publication of The Idea of History, the re-enactment doctrine was widely associated with Dilthey's account of empathetic understanding and accused of ascribing to the historian telepathic powers of access to other minds Gardiner a and b.
based on 76 review