Abstract

There is a bifurcation between philosophy and history, and in particular, between the interpretations in the writings of historians and in the conceptualizations of philosophers. Philosophers believe analysis to be a supremely rational activity, and they are right. But almost all interpretations are long, complex, and difficult to reduce to the manageable object of philosophical analysis, and philosophers sometimes conclude that what cannot be cut down to analytical size is not worthy of cognitive study, Historical interpretation, and therefore history itseif, has suffered grievously from this inclination and from the attendant temptation to shnplify at the expense of the subject