Abstract
Abstract Few philosophers of history ever recognized the profundity of Peter Munz’s The Shapes of Time that came out in 1977. In this book Munz upheld the view that no part or aspect of the past itself provides us with the solid fundament of all historical knowledge. For him, the historian’s most fundamental logical entity is what he calls the Sinngebild. The Sinngebild consists of two events defined and held together by a covering law. These CL’s can be anything from simple truisms, the regularities we know from daily life to truly scientific laws. But ‘underneath’ these Sinngebilde there is nothing. Hence, Munz’s bold assertation: ‘the truth of the matter is that there is no ascertainable face behind the various masks every story-teller is creating’ and his claim that his philosophy of history is ‘an idealism writ small’. Next, Munz distinguishes between ‘explanation’ and ‘interpretation’. We ‘explain’ the past by taking seriously the historical agent’s self-description and ‘interpret’ it by stating what it looks like from our present perspective. ‘Explanation’ and ‘interpretation’ may ‘typologically’ be more or less similar. Relying on a number of very well-chosen examples from his own field (Munz was a medievalist), this enables Munz to argue why one historical interpretation may be superior to another. In his later life Munz developed a speculative philosophy of history inspired by Popper’s fallibilism.
Highlights
The name of Peter Munz (1921–2006) will not ring a bell with many historical theorists nowadays.[1]
In this book Munz upheld the view that no part or aspect of the past itself provides us with the solid fundament of all historical knowledge
The Sinngebild consists of two events defined and held together by a covering law
Summary
The name of Peter Munz (1921–2006) will not ring a bell with many historical theorists nowadays.[1] Not surprisingly so He wrote only one book on philosophy of history: The Shapes of Time published in 1977.2 It did not defend some catchy thesis like Collingwood’s re-enactment theory or White’s tropology. The review will have discouraged most of its readers from having a look at the book for themselves.[4] Munz never returned to philosophy of history again after The Shapes of Time. All this may explain why Munz’s book was only rarely referred to, if at all, in the subsequent literature in the field. Journal of the Philosophy of History 15 (2021) 37D8o–wn3lo9a4ded from Brill.com01/17/2022 10:22:05AM
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
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.