King's College London

Research portal

Two dogmas of analytic historiography

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)594-614
Number of pages21
JournalBritish Journal for the History of Philosophy
Issue number3
Early online date20 Jan 2020
Accepted/In press4 Nov 2019
E-pub ahead of print20 Jan 2020

King's Authors


Starting from an analogy with Quine’s two dogmas of empiricism, I offer a (neo-Kantian) critique of two dogmas of analytic historiography: the belief in a cleavage between the justification of a philosophical claim and an account of its genesis and the belief in rational reconstructionism. I take Russell’s rational reconstruction of Leibniz’s philosophy as my detailed example.

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454