Journal of the Philosophy of History
Editor-in-Chief:
Chiel van den Akker
Chiel van den Akker
Search for other papers by Chiel van den Akker in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Chiel van den Akker in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
For Brill's Open Access policy, please click here.
The Journal of the Philosophy of History (JPH) is devoted to the philosophical examination of history as a mode of thought and our existence in time.
The journal assumes that epistemology, philosophy of mind and language, philosophy of science, and moral philosophy are incomplete if they ignore history. Once we historicize the relationship of mind and world, we raise a number of philosophical problems that call for a deeper analysis and that are of the greatest significance for an adequate understanding of how knowledge and self-understanding are possible.
The journal covers a wide range of questions: questions concerning the nature of historical knowledge, the metaphysics of historical existence, the intelligibility of the historical process, and questions concerning the value, ethics and politics of history-writing.
The Journal of the Philosophy of History is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal and welcomes contributions from all the branches of philosophy. It also welcomes the writing of history in so far as it elucidates and possibly solves philosophical problems.
The Journal of the Philosophy of History (JPH) is devoted to the philosophical examination of history as a mode of thought and our existence in time.
The journal assumes that epistemology, philosophy of mind and language, philosophy of science, and moral philosophy are incomplete if they ignore history. Once we historicize the relationship of mind and world, we raise a number of philosophical problems that call for a deeper analysis and that are of the greatest significance for an adequate understanding of how knowledge and self-understanding are possible.
The journal covers a wide range of questions: questions concerning the nature of historical knowledge, the metaphysics of historical existence, the intelligibility of the historical process, and questions concerning the value, ethics and politics of history-writing.
The Journal of the Philosophy of History is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal and welcomes contributions from all the branches of philosophy. It also welcomes the writing of history in so far as it elucidates and possibly solves philosophical problems.
Manufacturer information:
Koninklijke Brill B.V.
Plantijnstraat 2
2321 JC
Leiden / The Netherlands
productsafety@degruyterbrill.com
-
Print Only€379.00$441.00
-
Print + Online€405.00$470.00
-
Online only€332.00$385.00
-
To place an order, please contact customerservices@brill.com
-
Print Only€85.00$100.00
-
Online only€81.00$96.00
-
To place an order, please contact customerservices@brill.com
- External Indexers:
Editor-in-Chief
Chiel van den Akker, the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Frank R. Ankersmit, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Editors
Giuseppina D’Oro, Keele University, UK
Allan Megill, University of Virginia, VA, USA
Marek Tamm, Tallinn University, Estonia
Verónica Tozzi Thompson, University of Buenos Aires, National Council for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICET)
Review Editor
Eugen Zeleňak, Catholic University, Ruzomberok, Slovakia
Advisory Board
Berber Bevernage, University of Ghent, Belgium
Mark Bevir, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
David Carr, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Jonathan Gorman, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK
Nicholas Jardine, Cambridge University, UK
Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen, University of Oulu, Finland
Jeff Malpas, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Herman Paul, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Joe Rouse, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA
Quentin Skinner, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
Hans Sluga, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Karsten Stueber, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, USA
Georgia Warnke, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA
John H. Zammito, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
Chiel van den Akker, the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Founding Editor-in-Chief
Frank R. Ankersmit, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Editors
Giuseppina D’Oro, Keele University, UK
Allan Megill, University of Virginia, VA, USA
Marek Tamm, Tallinn University, Estonia
Verónica Tozzi Thompson, University of Buenos Aires, National Council for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICET)
Review Editor
Eugen Zeleňak, Catholic University, Ruzomberok, Slovakia
Advisory Board
Berber Bevernage, University of Ghent, Belgium
Mark Bevir, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
David Carr, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
Jonathan Gorman, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK
Nicholas Jardine, Cambridge University, UK
Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen, University of Oulu, Finland
Jeff Malpas, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Herman Paul, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Joe Rouse, Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT, USA
Quentin Skinner, Queen Mary, University of London, UK
Hans Sluga, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Karsten Stueber, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA, USA
Georgia Warnke, University of California, Riverside, CA, USA
John H. Zammito, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA
Arts and Humanities Citation Index
Current Contents/Arts & Humanities
Current Abstracts
ERIH PLUS
Humanities International Complete
Humanities International Index
Humanities Source
Humanities Source Ultimate
International Philosophical Bibliography (IPB)
International Review of Biblical Studies
PhilPapers
Scopus
TOC Premier (Table of Contents)
Web of Science
Current Contents/Arts & Humanities
Current Abstracts
ERIH PLUS
Humanities International Complete
Humanities International Index
Humanities Source
Humanities Source Ultimate
International Philosophical Bibliography (IPB)
International Review of Biblical Studies
PhilPapers
Scopus
TOC Premier (Table of Contents)
Web of Science
Online submission: Articles for publication in Journal of the Philosophy of History can be submitted online through Editorial Manager, please click here.
Download Author Instructions (PDF).
Download Author Instructions (PDF).
Special Issue: Tradition in the Philosophy of History
Guest Editor: Tyson Retz
The concept of tradition has been a key theme in the work of several influential philosophers. To Hans-Georg Gadamer, tradition is the background against which all understanding takes place, the very means for understanding anew. Similarly, to Alasdair MacIntyre, it is only within the context of a ‘living tradition’ that claims about truth and rationality can hope to be justified. Robert Brandom advocates de traditione interpretations of philosophical texts. Rather than identify what authors intended to say (de dicto), or whether what they say is correct (de re), readers of philosophical texts should approach their task as intellectual historiography, inferring the meaning of philosophical texts from the traditions of reasoning in which they participate. For Gadamer, MacIntyre and Brandom, tradition is a philosophical commitment to remain open to what came before. Applied to the study of history, it is a commitment that to Mark Bevir obliges historians to presume that past beliefs were sincerely, consciously and rationally held. Individual viewpoints belong to ‘webs of beliefs’ by reference to which agents reasoned against the backdrop of their inherited traditions.
The concept of tradition brings attention to what constitutes the background of our inquiries. For example, in the philosophy of history, the question arises why the Netherlands has made a disproportionately large contribution to the field. The question implies that there is a Dutch tradition of philosophy of history, but it is unclear to what extent that national tradition is at the same time a particularized intellectual tradition. Familiar compounds such as ‘Italian Hegelianism’, ‘British idealism’, ‘Chinese Marxism’ or ‘American pragmatism’ are also complex fusions of national and intellectual traditions. Hegelians, idealists, Marxists and pragmatists exist in possibly every country, but the use of a national qualifier denotes a particular variety of place-bound intellectual tradition. More straightforward, seemingly, are the examples of ‘French theory’, ‘Russian theory’ or ‘Estonian theory’, but even then, it may be asked to what extent they are truly French, Russian or Estonian. This use of a national qualifier has been widespread. It organizes investigation within recognizable boundaries, ones that demarcate linguistic and cultural differences, and allows properties distinct to them to be seen in their own light and comparatively. Think, for example, of the pervasiveness of the German historicist tradition in accounts of the development of academic history worldwide, or the books stacked alongside each other on the ‘British idea of progress’ as compared with the ‘French idea of progress’.
With these examples as a guide, this special issue invites critical examination of the concept of tradition in the philosophy of history. It aims to shed new light on the role that tradition plays in shaping agendas in the philosophy of history, on what traditions hold promise for future research, and on the conceptual integrity of tradition in the broadest sense. The focus may be on national traditions and the validity of defining traditions in terms of the nation. Alternatively, the focus may be on intellectual traditions and their composition and function. Above all, the special issue welcomes proposals that aim to bring new insight into the relations between different conceptions of tradition, including but not limited to the relation between national and intellectual traditions in the philosophy of history.
Prospective contributors should send a 700-word proposal that explicitly addresses the concept of tradition and its relation to the philosophy of history. The proposal should outline two questions that will guide the study, provide a list of key texts, and it should indicate the line of argument the writer intends to follow.
Proposals should be sent to the guest editor, Tyson Retz (tyson.retz@uis.no), by 1 August 2025.
Guest Editor: Tyson Retz
The concept of tradition has been a key theme in the work of several influential philosophers. To Hans-Georg Gadamer, tradition is the background against which all understanding takes place, the very means for understanding anew. Similarly, to Alasdair MacIntyre, it is only within the context of a ‘living tradition’ that claims about truth and rationality can hope to be justified. Robert Brandom advocates de traditione interpretations of philosophical texts. Rather than identify what authors intended to say (de dicto), or whether what they say is correct (de re), readers of philosophical texts should approach their task as intellectual historiography, inferring the meaning of philosophical texts from the traditions of reasoning in which they participate. For Gadamer, MacIntyre and Brandom, tradition is a philosophical commitment to remain open to what came before. Applied to the study of history, it is a commitment that to Mark Bevir obliges historians to presume that past beliefs were sincerely, consciously and rationally held. Individual viewpoints belong to ‘webs of beliefs’ by reference to which agents reasoned against the backdrop of their inherited traditions.
The concept of tradition brings attention to what constitutes the background of our inquiries. For example, in the philosophy of history, the question arises why the Netherlands has made a disproportionately large contribution to the field. The question implies that there is a Dutch tradition of philosophy of history, but it is unclear to what extent that national tradition is at the same time a particularized intellectual tradition. Familiar compounds such as ‘Italian Hegelianism’, ‘British idealism’, ‘Chinese Marxism’ or ‘American pragmatism’ are also complex fusions of national and intellectual traditions. Hegelians, idealists, Marxists and pragmatists exist in possibly every country, but the use of a national qualifier denotes a particular variety of place-bound intellectual tradition. More straightforward, seemingly, are the examples of ‘French theory’, ‘Russian theory’ or ‘Estonian theory’, but even then, it may be asked to what extent they are truly French, Russian or Estonian. This use of a national qualifier has been widespread. It organizes investigation within recognizable boundaries, ones that demarcate linguistic and cultural differences, and allows properties distinct to them to be seen in their own light and comparatively. Think, for example, of the pervasiveness of the German historicist tradition in accounts of the development of academic history worldwide, or the books stacked alongside each other on the ‘British idea of progress’ as compared with the ‘French idea of progress’.
With these examples as a guide, this special issue invites critical examination of the concept of tradition in the philosophy of history. It aims to shed new light on the role that tradition plays in shaping agendas in the philosophy of history, on what traditions hold promise for future research, and on the conceptual integrity of tradition in the broadest sense. The focus may be on national traditions and the validity of defining traditions in terms of the nation. Alternatively, the focus may be on intellectual traditions and their composition and function. Above all, the special issue welcomes proposals that aim to bring new insight into the relations between different conceptions of tradition, including but not limited to the relation between national and intellectual traditions in the philosophy of history.
Prospective contributors should send a 700-word proposal that explicitly addresses the concept of tradition and its relation to the philosophy of history. The proposal should outline two questions that will guide the study, provide a list of key texts, and it should indicate the line of argument the writer intends to follow.
Proposals should be sent to the guest editor, Tyson Retz (tyson.retz@uis.no), by 1 August 2025.
Chiel van den Akker is Associate Professor in Philosophy of History at the Department of Art and Culture, History and Antiquities at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He is the author of The Modern Idea of History and its Value. An Introduction (2020) and The Exemplifying Past. A Philosophy of History (2018).
Journal of the Philosophy of History
Editor-in-Chief:
Chiel van den Akker
Chiel van den Akker
Search for other papers by Chiel van den Akker in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Chiel van den Akker in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
For Brill's Open Access policy, please click here.
The Journal of the Philosophy of History (JPH) is devoted to the philosophical examination of history as a mode of thought and our existence in time.
The journal assumes that epistemology, philosophy of mind and language, philosophy of science, and moral philosophy are incomplete if they ignore history. Once we historicize the relationship of mind and world, we raise a number of philosophical problems that call for a deeper analysis and that are of the greatest significance for an adequate understanding of how knowledge and self-understanding are possible.
The journal covers a wide range of questions: questions concerning the nature of historical knowledge, the metaphysics of historical existence, the intelligibility of the historical process, and questions concerning the value, ethics and politics of history-writing.
The Journal of the Philosophy of History is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal and welcomes contributions from all the branches of philosophy. It also welcomes the writing of history in so far as it elucidates and possibly solves philosophical problems.
The Journal of the Philosophy of History (JPH) is devoted to the philosophical examination of history as a mode of thought and our existence in time.
The journal assumes that epistemology, philosophy of mind and language, philosophy of science, and moral philosophy are incomplete if they ignore history. Once we historicize the relationship of mind and world, we raise a number of philosophical problems that call for a deeper analysis and that are of the greatest significance for an adequate understanding of how knowledge and self-understanding are possible.
The journal covers a wide range of questions: questions concerning the nature of historical knowledge, the metaphysics of historical existence, the intelligibility of the historical process, and questions concerning the value, ethics and politics of history-writing.
The Journal of the Philosophy of History is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal and welcomes contributions from all the branches of philosophy. It also welcomes the writing of history in so far as it elucidates and possibly solves philosophical problems.
-
Print Only€379.00$441.00
-
Print + Online€405.00$470.00
-
Online only€332.00$385.00
-
To place an order, please contact customerservices@brill.com
-
Print Only€85.00$100.00
-
Online only€81.00$96.00
-
To place an order, please contact customerservices@brill.com
- External Indexers:
Some Notes on Approaching Historical Immortality and the Project of Reconciliation from a Look at Nineteenth-Century Straits Chinese Philosophy
Author: