Abstract

In this text I analyze Frank Ankersmit’s, Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen’s, and Paul Roth’s responses to my claim that anti-realism in the philosophy of history entails that the past did not happen. I conclude that Ankersmit has failed to understand the argument I presented, Kuukkanen de facto agrees with my view, while Roth has addressed my earlier criticism of the view that the past can be changed and not the argument that is currently under discussion.