Matija Vlačić Ilirik was one of the pillars of Luther’s Reformation. In a special way, he dedicated himself to one of its most important issues – the understanding of the Scriptures, and can, therefore, be considered a significant instigator of the founding of modern hermeneutics. As an excellent connoisseur of classical languages (Hebrew, Greek and Latin) he recognized the importance and dealt with many issues of language, grammar, logic, and dialectic, as essential prerequisites for understanding everything which exists, and hence (...) of the written text also. In this connection, his skepticism towards philosophy is apparent, since the main source of theological cognition, for him, is revelation, and not the human reason, which was principally destroyed by Original Sin. He found the confirmation of his ideas in the current debates with both proponents and opponents of the Reformation, as well as in his research into church history, wherein he incessantly tried to find the witnesses of the truth, as he perceived it. (shrink)

In this text we offer an overview of Festini’s works on history of Croatian philosophy. The article is divided in five parts in which we discuss Festini’s attitude towards Croatian Renaissance philosophers, eighteenth and nineteenth century Croatian philosophers, and two philosophers from the twentieth century (Vladimir Filipović and Marija Brida). Majority of Festini’s texts were published in the journal Prilozi za istraživanje hrvatske filozofske baštine.

Different forms and transformations of philosophy in the modern world are analyzed according to the view of the Croatian philosopher Vanja Sutlić (1925-1989). A key aspect is the "realization of philosophy" in "work science", which encompasses the entire "world of work" established in modern times. This universal and real science is also an important precondition for "historical thinking". The uniformity of this science, problematized by Sutlić, can be found today in refined logical and semantic structures, which allow for a (...) renewed and richer articulation of philosophical concepts than was traditionally possible. (shrink)

How can we take history seriously as real and relevant? Despite the hazards of politically dangerous or misleading accounts of the past, we live our lives in a great network of cooperation with other actors; past, present, and future. We study and reflect on the past as a way of exercising a responsibility for shared action. In each of the chapters of Full History Smith poses a key question about history as a concern for conscious participants in the sharing of (...) action, starting with “What Is Historical Meaningfulness?” and ending with “How Can History Have an Aim?” Constructing new models of historical meaning while engaging critically with perspectives offered by Ranke, Dilthey, Rickert, Heidegger, Eliade, Sartre, Foucault, and Arendt, Smith develops a philosophical account of thinking about history that moves beyond postmodernist skepticism. Full History seeks to expand the cast of significant actors, establishing an inclusive version of the historical that recognizes large-scale cumulative actions but also encourages critical revision and expansion of any paradigm of shared action. (shrink)

The investigation of a method for postulating counterfactual histories of science has led to the development of a theory of science based on general units of knowledge, which are called “advances”. Advances are passed on from scientist to scientist, and may be seen as “causing” the appearance of other advances. This results in networks which may be analyzed in terms of probabilistic causal models, which are readily encodable in computer language. The probability for a set of advances to give rise (...) to another advance is taken to be invariant through history, but depends on a typical time span which is an inverse function of the degree of development of science. Examples are given from the early science of magnetism and from the 19th century physics. (shrink)

In this chapter, the authors engage in a dialogue on what constitutes mathematical practice from pre-Socratic Greeks onto the advent of natural philosophy. The conversation occurred through dialogues between the authors over the period 2016–2019. A coda with relevant content from the Origins section is provided.

Bahle, 13, 25 n. 1. Ballinger, 108 n. 3. Borchard, 58 n. 1. Burckhardt, 16 n. 1. Bardach, 495. Bnrgeaa, 611. Buridan, 256*. ...

Feng Youlan's "History of Chinese Philosophy" is at present still the most well-known introduction to Chinese philosophy in any Western language. During the 1980s Feng Youlan published a seven-volume new version of his "History" in which he further developed his view on history so that the work itself can be considered part of the history of Chinese philosophy in this century. This paper presents a preliminary analysis and comparison of the different versions of the "History.".

Originally published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich in 1979, this volume offers a cross-disciplinary portrait of a fascinating period in modern European history and culture, 1750ó1850. It presents a philosophically contentious thesis about the nature of history and "human nature".

History and philosophy complement and overlap each other in subject matter, but the two disciplines exhibit conflict over methodology. Since Hempel's challenge to historians that they should adopt the covering law model of explanation, the methodological conflict has revolved around the respective roles of the general and the particular in each discipline. In recent years, the revival of narrativism in history, coupled with the trend in philosophy of science to rely upon case studies, joins the methodological conflict anew. So long (...) as contemporary philosophy of science relies upon history's methodology to construct its case studies, it subjects itself to a paradoxical situation: the better the history, the worse the philosophy. An example of the methodological conflict is presented in the case of Antoine Lavoisier. This example also serves our ultimateconclusion, which is that distinctively philosophical methods of case-study design promise enhanced prescriptive powers for philosophy of science. (shrink)

The text intends to examine the question about the relationship between history of philosophy, philosophy and formation as a liberation of conscience. The starting point is an obvious idea, thought not always remembered: history of philosophy founds its legitimation on philosophy as historical cultural fact. The idea of formation is implicated in every system, which, before being a specific conception of reality, is a synthesis of real conditions that have influenced all aspects of human life, includingly reflexive work. Some of (...) Bergson's and Sartre's ideas about process, form and praxis can help us to elucidate the engagement in the present included in the relationship between philosophy and history of philosophy.A questão que se tenta construir neste texto é a da convergência entre filosofia, história da filosofia e formação. Tal pergunta se desdobra primeiramente na elucidação das relações entre história e historicidade da filosofia, que remonta à constatação óbvia, mas nem sempre lembrada, de que o fundamento da história da filosofia é o caráter histórico da própria filosofia. A idéia de formação está presente em toda filosofia, já que, antes de ser sistema ou concepção cristalizada da realidade, cada filosofia é sempre um exercício de síntese das possibilidades e das circunstâncias da vida humana, inclusive sob o aspecto do trabalho da reflexão. Nesse sentido, o texto remete a algumas idéias de Bergson acerca de formação e processo, e à noção sartriana de práxis como formação e superação contínua dos momentos estruturais do curso da história. Assim compreendida, a relação entre história da filosofia e filosofia contém inevitavelmente o compromisso com a atualidade, isto é, com a formação atual do pensamento. (shrink)

Contemporary experimental philosophers sometimes use versions of an argument from the history of philosophy to defend the claim that what they do is philosophy. Although experimental philosophers conduct surveys and carry out what appear to be experiments in psychology, making them methodologically different from most analytic philosophers working today, techniques like theirs were not out of the ordinary in the philosophy of the past, early modern philosophy in particular. Or so some of them argue. This paper disputes the argument, citing (...) important differences between early modern philosopher-scientists – Descartes, Hobbes and Boyle – and their supposed modern counterparts. Although there is some continuity between early modern philosopher-scientists and the contemporary experimentalists, it is mostly a continuity of interest in empirically informed philosophy, not a distinctively experimental philosophy. (shrink)

Contemporary experimental philosophers sometimes use versions of an argument from the history of philosophy to defend the claim that what they do is philosophy. Although experimental philosophers conduct surveys and carry out what appear to be experiments in psychology, making them methodologically different from most analytic philosophers working today, techniques like theirs were not out of the ordinary in the philosophy of the past, early modern philosophy in particular. Or so some of them argue. This paper disputes the argument, citing (...) important differences between early modern philosopher-scientists – Descartes, Hobbes and Boyle – and their supposed modern counterparts. Although there is some continuity between early modern philosopher-scientists and the contemporary experimentalists, it is mostly a continuity of interest in empirically informed philosophy, not a distinctively experimental philosophy. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be (...) preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Voltaire's reform program for history-writing emerges when his scattered utterances on method are collected under three headings: I. Details. Voltaire objects to tedious details, but characterizing detail can be used. There must be selection, and its criterion is significance to large-scale trends. II. Falsehoods. Most historians are to be distrusted. Falsehoods arise from relating very ancient or mythical elements, a matter Voltaire comprehends only superficially; also from partisanship, exaggerations, and traditions. Criteria of probability and for the evaluation of testimony are (...) explained. III. The new history. Unlike crude, pedantic historiography of dynastic and political affairs, the new history must deal with leading ideas, cultural, ethnographic, and economic factors. Voltaire's universalism, his stress on humanity and mankind, is limited by his patriotic and monarchical bias and by polemical and stylistic concerns. - Other Voltairean observations are assembled under judgments on his predecessors ; and under his evaluation of historical figures and events in ancient, medieval, and modern history , marked by correct insights but also by occasional naivety and credulity. (shrink)

What are the methodological consequences of the fact that Philosophy has a history and that Philosophy incorporates the products of the history of Philosophy into its current practice? Is an internal ‘philosophical’ history of Philosophy possible and desirable or is the history of Philosophy best approached as a branch of Intellectual History and/or Cultural History. This chapter first sketches some of the history of the study of philosophy’s past and contrasts some widely employed ‘doxological’, ‘anthropological’, and sociological approaches to that (...) study with the approaches employed in a particular, historically recent discipline, History of Philosophy. It argues that History of Philosophy has a distinctive methodological structure which poises it interestingly between the disciplines of History and Philosophy and which can be usefully compared with, but is quite distinct from, that of the History of Science. (shrink)