What is the Objective of “Theory of History”?

História da Historiografia, 2019

This brief article is a discussion-starter on the question of the role and use of theories and philosophies of history. In the last few decades, theories of history typically intended to transform the practice of historical studies through a straightforward application of their insights. Contrary to this, I argue that they either bring about particular historiographical innovations in terms of methodology but leave the entirety of historical studies intact, or change the way we think about the entirety of historical studies merely by describing and explaining it in fresh and novel ways, without the need (and possibility) of application. In the former case, theories appear as internal to historical studies. In the latter case, they appear as theories about history. Such theories about history are no longer limited to study history understood as historical writing. In reflecting on the historical condition of the ever-changing world, they foster a more fruitful cooperative relationship with the discipline of history. Discussing the scope and use of such theories of history is inevitable today when a younger generation sets out to theorize history against the backdrop of the experiential horizon of their own times.

História da Historiografia: International Journal of Theory and History of Historiography, 2019

This brief article is a discussion-starter on the question of the role and use of theories and philosophies of history. In the last few decades, theories of history typically intended to transform the practice of historical studies through a straightforward application of their insights. Contrary to this, I argue that they either bring about particular historiographical innovations in terms of methodology but leave the entirety of historical studies intact or change the way we think about the entirety of historical studies merely by describing and explaining it in fresh and novel ways, without the need (and possibility) of application. In the former case, theories appear as internal to historical studies. In the latter case, they appear as theories abouthistory, and such theories are no longer limited to study history understood as historical writing. In reflecting on the historical condition of the ever-changing world, they foster a more fruitful cooperative relationship with the discipline of history. Discussing the scope and use of such theories of history is inevitable today when a younger generation sets out to theorize history against the backdrop of the experiential horizon of their own times. https://www.historiadahistoriografia.com.br/revista/article/view/1461/785

BMGN-Low Countries Historical Review, 2012

The Routledge Companion to the Frankfurt School, 2018

This chapter examines the philosophy of history that animates the work of Theodor W. Adorno and Walter Benjamin, two prominent figures in and for the Frankfurt School. Along the way, it compares and contrasts this philosophy of history to earlier moments in German philosophy, especially to Hegel and Marx, arguing that it shares much with these earlier moments, but ultimately moves beyond them due to a particular ethical—and thereby political—impulse.

Communication Theory, 1993

Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice

It has recently been argued that the philosophical study of professional history constitutes a subfield of epistemology. Consequently, the philosophy of history is cast as only one particular species of the general study of the relationship between evidence and theory in scientific practice. This view is based upon an absolute separation between substantive and critical philosophy of history. By such a separation, substantive philosophy of history is dismissed as speculative metaphysics, while critical philosophy of history is vindicated as a respectable branch of epistemology. The attempt to delineate a strictly epistemological realm of history was a central part of the programme for analytically styled philosophy of history in the 1950–1970s era. This programme has been resurrected by contemporary empiricist trends. In this essay, I will argue against the basic ideas of this programme through a reassessment of Hayden White’s so-called narrativist philosophy of history. As I will show, criticizing the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology in history is an essential and important feature of White’s contribution to the philosophy of history. This feature has, I claim, been overshadowed by formalist interpretations of White’s ‘narrativism’. In conclusion, I argue that White’s concept of prefiguration will fundamentally question the viability of current attempts to develop a purely epistemological philosophy of history.

2020

The age-old intellectual and 'pedestrian' controversy over the meaning and societal significance of history is bound to persist for yet a long time. However, the strong reliance on historical information, particularly in the Third World countries in recent times underscores the acceptance of history as reality and an outcome of objective research. Yet, the writing of history is beset with a legion of problems. Significantly, these problems to a large extent are domiciled in the nature of history itself. This paper is a critical discourse of the major challenges the historian of today encounters in his task of reconstructing the past. The study examines the nature of history as it relates to the problems of historical research, and concludes that the continued relevance of history and historians can only be guaranteed if the latter consistently and diligently address these challenges through appropriate measures.

There are several authors who claim that philosophy of history should focus more on actual historical work, because the usual philosophical discussions are of no real interest to historians. In this paper I first introduce some of the key points of this intuitively appealing position and focus mainly on the views of Jonathan Gorman. Second, I discuss two problems of Gorman’s proposal that philosophy of history should follow what historians think about their own discipline. Finally, I consider whether it is of any importance to ask who should characterize the nature of history. I conclude that we should try to avoid discussions examining which sources of information about the nature of history are authoritative. Instead, we should simply discuss particular proposals about how to view history.

Kant's Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim, 2009

Lively current debates about narratives of historical progress, the conditions for international justice, and the implications of globalization have prompted a renewed interest in Kant's Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim. The nine Propositions that make up this brief essay raise a set of questions that continue to preoccupy philosophers, historians, and social theorists. Does history, whether construed as a chronicle or as a set of explanatory narratives, indicate anything that can be characterized as meaningful? If so, what is its structure, its rationale and direction? How are we to understand the destructive and bloody upheavals that constitute so much of human experience? What connections, if any, can be traced between politics, economics, and morality? What is the relation between the rule of law in the nation state and the advancement of a cosmopolitan political order? Can the development of individual rationality be compatible with the need for the constraints of political order? Does the study of history convey any philosophical insight? Can it provide political guidance? Kant's nine propositions subtly and implicitly expressand recastsome of the philosophical sources of his views: the voices of the Stoics and Augustine are heard clearly; and although Kant had reservations about Grotius, Hobbes, Leibniz, and Rousseau, their contributions, along with those of Mandeville and Adam Smith, are manifest in the Idea for a Universal History. It is as if this essay were a crucible in which Kant sought to synthesize the purified and transformed views of his predecessors, condensing them into a comprehensive political and cultural history with a philosophical moral. It is itself an instance of the integration of history and philosophical reflection that it heralds. From the Stoics, Kant took the view that nature does nothing in vain, that its regularities are not accidental, but rather reveal a functional organization in which each part plays a necessary role, and that the exercise of rationality constitutes human freedom and finds its highest achievement in political cosmopolitanism. Kant followed Augustine in seeing a providential significance 1