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