This essay criticizes Bevir’s account of the logic of the history of ideas by comparing it with Oakeshott’s account of the logic of historical enquiry. It concludes that Bevir’s account is deficient in two main respects. First, his account neglects to identify the logical status of the historical pasts which historians create. Second, his account is guided by a misleading conception of the relationship between philosophical analysis and historical practice.


Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.