Why Study History? On Its Epistemic Benefits and Its Relation to the Sciences

Philosophy 92 (3):399-420 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
I try to return the focus of the philosophy of history to the nature of understanding, with a particular emphasis on Louis Mink’s project of exploring how historical understanding compares to the understanding we find in the natural sciences. On the whole, I come to a conclusion that Mink almost certainly would not have liked: that the understanding offered by history has a very similar epistemic profile to the understanding offered by the sciences, a similarity that stems from the fact that both are concerned with grasping how the objects of their study are structured, or how the various elements of the things they study depend upon and relate to one another. At the same time, however, I claim that historical inquiry naturally puts us in a position to acquire further epistemic goods, including the old-fashioned epistemic good of wisdom, which is plausibly constituted by knowledge of how to live well. This is something the natural sciences cannot offer, and it is part of the reason why history is such an important form of inquiry.
Categories
PhilPapers/Archive ID
GRIWSH
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-12-04
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
A Theory of Causal Learning in Children: Causal Maps and Bayes Nets.Gopnik, Alison; Glymour, Clark; Schulz, Laura; Kushnir, Tamar & Danks, David
Understanding.Grimm, Stephen R.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Procedures, Products and Pictures.Harré, Rom & Llored, Jean-Pierre

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2016-12-04

Total views
132 ( #19,819 of 39,634 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
32 ( #15,281 of 39,634 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.