In this essay I reply to five friendly critics of my book The Logic of the History of Ideas—Martyn P. Thompson, Al P. Martinich, Sara R. Jordan, Amit Ron, and Daniel O’Neill. I want to comment on their amendments and extensions to my arguments, but also to suggest my ideas may have rougher edges than they recognize. The Logic described and defended a post-analytic historicism. As a historicist, I argued that human life was ineluctably historical, so explanations of ideas, texts, actions, and practices should rely on historical narratives, not appeals to formal classifications, correlations, systems, or models. As a post-analytic philosopher, I thought of my task as clarifying the implications of our concepts for historical reasoning.


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 657-665
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
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.