-
Reply by Margaret J. Osler and Richard A. Watson
- Journal of the History of Philosophy
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- Volume 41, Number 3, July 2003
- p. 407
- 10.1353/hph.2003.0036
- Article
- Additional Information
- Purchase/rental options available:
Journal of the History of Philosophy 41.3 (2003) 407
[Access article in PDF]
Reply By Margaret J. Osler and Richard A. Watson
In his comments on our historiographical Notes in the October 2002 issue of JHP, A. P. Martinich misrepresents our position by erroneously claiming that we presume a sharp dichotomy between the analytic history of philosophy and the historical history of philosophy. Neither of us accepts such a premise. Once that misreading is eliminated there are few disagreements between each of us and Martinich.
We agree that any meaningful history of philosophy must be both philosophically sophisticated and historically grounded. History without philosophy would be nothing but chronicle; history of philosophy without historical context would describe a series of moves, but explain nothing. A desideratum of both history and philosophy is careful reading, exposition, and analysis of texts.
...