![]() ![]() Some philosophers of history are concerned explicitly with historiography, its methods, and presuppositions. speculative and critical philosophy of history), and at times indifferent to each other (as has long been the case with narrativist and epistemological philosophy of history). Its different currents are at times antagonistic (e.g. Du Bois, Mary Parker Follett, and Alain Locke.įor its part, philosophy of history has been split between several disciplinary fields, including philosophy, history, intellectual history, and political theory. Importantly, there are central figures whose contributions have been (until recently) written out of pragmatist history: e.g. There are Rorty and Brandom, who are called “neo-pragmatists” because they do not fit the strictures of classical pragmatism. There are those who are not really pragmatists at all, but are said to feature prominently some important pragmatist themes (e.g. Some thinkers associated with the movement are usually not considered pragmatists, such as Emerson, Royce, Santayana. Aside from a shared agreement on several canonical figures-Peirce, James, and Dewey-there is no consensus on what pragmatism is or on which contributions exemplify it best. Both pragmatism and philosophy of history are contested territories. To gain a general impression of the potential affinities (and conflicts) between pragmatism and philosophy of history is the general goal, although we must not underestimate the complexity of such an undertaking. ![]() Our hope for this issue is to collect a number of interesting and fresh contributions addressing questions of this sort. What could it mean to speak of a distinctively pragmatist stance in historiography, including intellectual history? What philosophical assumptions have been at work in the attempts of pragmatists to write their own history? How have these assumptions shaped, and perhaps distorted, our understanding of the movement? But it is unclear whether these affinities are merely generic-such as a shared commitment to fallibilism and pluralism-or indicative of a deeper conceptual bond. It has long been recognized that there are affinities between pragmatism and the philosophy of history. Please submit abstracts by e-mail to of the Issue The editors of this special issue are Serge Grigoriev ( and Robert Piercey ( Authors who are unsure of whether their abstracts are appropriate for this special issue are encouraged to contact one of the editors before submitting. The deadline for completed papers will be December 20, 2018. The deadline for the submission of abstracts is March 1, 2018. The authors of successful abstracts will be invited to write essays of approximately 6000 to 8000 words. The editors invite the submission of abstracts of roughly 300 to 500 words. Regardless of focus, all contributions to the issue will be assessed with an eye to their philosophical merit: that is, they should illuminate some philosophical aspect of the relation between pragmatism and the philosophy of history. More specifically, it will explore what it might mean to speak of a distinctively pragmatist approach to the task of philosophizing about history, and it will try to identify the philosophical assumptions that have been at work in the attempts of pragmatists to write their own history. The Journal of the Philosophy of History will publish a special issue on the topic of “Pragmatism and the Philosophy of History.” The issue will seek to clarify what pragmatism can contribute to the philosophy of history and historiography. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |