Save

Leibniz and the Philosophical Criticism of Historiography

In: Journal of the Philosophy of History
Author:
Daniel Fairbrother Warwick University D.J.Fairbrother@warwick.ac.uk

Search for other papers by Daniel Fairbrother in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$34.95

I begin here by discussing the role of Leibniz in historical thought, particularly in Frank Ankersmit’s representationalist philosophy of historiography. I then discuss Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen’s recent criticism of Ankersmit’s commitment to holism about the semantics of historiography. I argue that the criticism fails because Kuukkanen is not sufficiently sensitive to the Leibnizian foundation of Ankersmit’s holism. Ankersmit can absorb Kuukkanen’s criticisms into his Leibnizism. I conclude by suggesting that the philosophy of historiography needs to be connected to substantial projects in the philosophical criticism of historiography.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 344 73 2
Full Text Views 209 6 1
PDF Views & Downloads 58 21 3