Abstract
This chapter considers models for the historiography of philosophy that have been proposed by Beaney , Soames and Rorty . It argues that a fourth model, inspired by recent work of Normore and Panaccio , provides a better account of the methodological pluralism exhibited in much of the best scholarship on the history of philosophy. The authors go on to consider the different tasks that fall under this pluralistic approach. This chapter concludes with brief summaries of the remaining chapters in this volume.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Beaney, Michael. 2006. “Soames on philosophical analysis”. Philosophical Books 47: 255–271.
Beaney, Michael. 2013a. “Analytic philosophy and the history of philosophy: The development of the idea of rational reconstruction”. In The Historical Turn in Analytical Philosophy, ed. E. Reck, 231–260. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Beaney, Michael. 2013b. “What is analytic philosophy?”. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy, ed. M. Beaney, 3–29. New York: Oxford.
Beaney, Michael. 2013c. “The historiography of analytic philosophy”. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of Analytic Philosophy, ed. M. Beaney, 30–60. New York: Oxford.
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1984. “The relationship of philosophy to its past”. In Philosophy in History: Essays in the Historiography of Philosophy, eds. R. Rorty, J. B. Schneewind, and Q. Skinner, 31–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. [1887]1997. On the Genealogy of Morality. K. Ansell-Pearson (ed.). C. Diethe (trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Normore, Calvin. 1990. “Doxology and the history of philosophy”. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume 16: 203–226.
Normore, Calvin. 2006. “What is to be done in the history of philosophy?”. Topoi 25: 75–82.
Normore, Calvin. 2016. “The methodology of the history of philosophy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology, eds. H. Cappelen, T. Szabo Gendler, and J. Hawthorne, 27–48. New York: Oxford University Press.
Panaccio, Claude. In progress. Narratives and Reconstructions: The Foundations of Methodology in the History of Philosophy.
Proops, Ian. 2006. “Soames on the metaphysics and epistemology of Moore and Russell”. Philosophical Studies 129: 627–635.
Rorty, Richard. 1979. Philosophy and Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rorty, Richard. 1984. “The historiography of philosophy: four genres”. In Philosophy in History: Essays in the Historiography of Philosophy, eds. R. Rorty, J. B. Schneewind, and Q. Skinner, 49–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, Bertrand. [1900]1992. A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy of Leibniz. London: Routledge.
Scholz, Heinrich. 1931. Abriss der Geschichte der Logik. Berlin: Junker & Dünnhaupt.
Soames, Scott. 2003. Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century. Two volumes. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Soames, Scott. 2006. “What is history for? Reply to critics of The Dawn of Analysis”. Philosophical Studies 129: 645–665.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lapointe, S., Pincock, C. (2017). Introduction. In: Lapointe, S., Pincock, C. (eds) Innovations in the History of Analytical Philosophy. Palgrave Innovations in Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40808-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-40808-2_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-40807-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-40808-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)