Two dogmas of analytic historiography
Two dogmas of analytic historiography
M. Beaney
2020 · DOI: 10.1080/09608788.2019.1693959
1 Citations
Abstract
ABSTRACT Starting from an analogy with Quine’s two dogmas of empiricism, I offer a (neo-Kantian) critique of two dogmas of analytic historiography: the belief in a cleavage between the justification of a philosophical claim and an account of its genesis and the belief in rational reconstructionism. I take Russell’s rational reconstruction of Leibniz’s philosophy as my detailed example.