Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 594-614 |
Number of pages | 21 |
Journal | British Journal for the History of Philosophy |
Volume | 28 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 20 Jan 2020 |
DOIs | |
Accepted/In press | 4 Nov 2019 |
E-pub ahead of print | 20 Jan 2020 |
Additional links |
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.
King's College London - Homepage
© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454