Abstract
ABSTRACT Over the last couple of years, several interesting books which formulate a realist approach to history appeared. Their authors, Tor Egil Førland, Branko Mitrović and Adam Timmins, are very critical of what they conceive as a widespread constructivist tendency in philosophy of history and they argue for realist accounts instead. In my text, I focus specifically on the views of Timmins. After briefly introducing some of the key points presented in his book I explore constructivist understanding he opposes and some of the tenets of his realist understanding of history. I dispute his claim that constructivists maintain the past does not exist and I argue that his examination of one version of constructivism, irrealism defended by Paul Roth, is incorrect.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
