I feel like this is something you can't really just say and need to prove. But I'd add that in general almost all philosophical traditions are anti-historical because philosophy as an activity is predicated on denial of historical contingency.https://twitter.com/MikeBenchCapon/status/1025434374844678144 …
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
Historicism is an activity predicated on the denial that it is a philosophical tradition
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marksholdice
Historical studies are like science, not so much a "a philosophical tradition" as a way of side-stepping pointless philosophical debates by doing something useful.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
The belief in the objectivity and utility of history, like scientism, is itself a historically-contingent belief or value. I'm a professional historian, but I won't claim our contemporary way of doing history is superior to other intellectual activities.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @marksholdice
Also, I think it's a mistake to conflate the activity of doing science with scientism or the activity of doing history with historicism.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HeerJeet
The denial of the philosophical basis of the contemporary historical approach is an element of historicism, just as the presumption that science's superiority over philosophy is based on utility is a part of scientism. History and science have more limited intellectual claims.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I would say historicism and scientism are both constructs -- maybe even strawmen -- of philosophers that have very little if anything to do with the practice of history or of science. But this isn't a matter that can be settled on twitter
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.