First attempt at applying contemporary philosophy of science to the basic problems of the philosophy of historiography that culminated in "Our Knowledge of the Past: A Philosophy of Historiography" (Cambridge University Press 2004).

(1995). Innovation and change in the production of knowledge. Social Epistemology: Vol. 9, Knowledge (EX) Change, pp. 211-232. doi: 10.1080/02691729508578789.

In a recent paper, Luc Faucher and others have argued for the existence of deep cultural differences between ‘Chinese’ and ‘East Asian’ ways of understanding the world and those of ‘ancient Greeks’ and ‘Americans’. Rejecting Alison Gopnik’s speculation that the development of modern science was driven by the increasing availability of leisure and information in the late Renaissance, they claim instead—following Richard Nisbett—that the birth of mathematical science was aided by ‘Greek’, or ‘Western’, cultural norms that encouraged analytic, abstract and (...) rational theorizing. They argue that ‘Chinese’ and ‘East Asian’ cultural norms favoured, by contrast, holistic, concrete and dialectical modes of thinking. After clarifying some of the things that can be meant by ‘culture’ and ‘mentality’, the present paper shows that Faucher and his colleagues make a number of appeals—to the authority of comparative studies and history of science, to the psychological studies of Nisbett and his colleagues, and to a hidden assumption of strong cultural continuity in the West. It is argued that every one of these appeals is misguided, and, further, that the psychological findings of Nisbett and others have little bearing on questions concerning the origins of modern science. Finally, it is suggested that the ‘Needham question’ about why the birth of modern science occurred in Europe rather than anywhere else is itself multiply confused to the extent that it may express no significant query.Author Keywords: Nisbett; Needham; Gopnik; Modern science; Chinese science. (shrink)

The main purpose of this dissertation is to develop a specific perspective on the history of human thought. This goal can be achieved by critically reflecting on the dominant concept of modernity, linked with the idea of teleological and linear development, which underlies the common vision of history. The proposed approach is grounded in an in-depth analysis of the life and work of Michel de Montaigne, drawing on numerous achievements in intellectual history, conceptual history, and the history of philosophy, simultaneously (...) outlining a novel approach to the history of human thought. The first part of the dissertation revises the concept of modernity, surveys various philosophical interpretations of history (in dialogue with contemporary historiography), and finally outlines reworked notions of modernity and postmodernity. These considerations are based on discussions of history and historicity undertaken by various authors, especially Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. It is especially the latter’s contribution in this area that has been so far underestimated, especially in Poland. What emerges is an image of history as a nexus of changes, neither absolutely progressive nor regressive, occurring in three dimensions: material, linguistic, and mental. Consequently, it appears necessary to take their intertwining into account in all historical research. Contrary to what the dominant notion of modernity suggests, these intersections are in fact argued to facilitate non-dogmatic thinking in any period or moment in history. The second part of the dissertation turns to Montaigne’s Essais – a work whose publication was an exceptional event in intellectual history, which is argued to confirm the previously formulated theses. First, a theoretical construct is introduced, describing the structure of human reality, termed “the structure of authority.” It defines the system of relations that shape the existence of every human being: relations of power, knowledge, and faith. This system of relations is demonstrated using the example of the early modern era. Against this background, Montaigne appears as an author who questioned or at least attenuated the structure of authority in his time because he now appears as a modern or even postmodern writer who was ahead of his time. The first part of the thesis consists of five chapters, two directly addressing the concept of modernity (chapters 1 and 5), one discussing the concept of history (chapter 2), and two other dealing with specific concepts of history developed by Foucault and Derrida (chapters 3 and 4). The second part elaborates on the concept of the structure of authority (chapter 6), and applies it in practice to discuss the early modern period (chapter 7) when Montaigne lived and wrote. His thought is analysed in two subsequent chapters (8 and 9). The author of Essais is argued to be a coherent thinker despite the numerous contradictions found in his work, as well as the originator of the “essay” method. Discussion covers many of his concepts and ideas, as well as his political and religious views. The conclusion gathers all reflections and summarizes the results. (shrink)