Abstract
ABSTRACTStarting from an analogy with Quine’s two dogmas of empiricism, I offer a (neo-Kantian) critique of two dogmas of analytic historiography: the belief in a cleavage between the justification of a philosophical claim and an account of its genesis and the belief in rational reconstructionism. I take Russell’s rational reconstruction of Leibniz’s philosophy as my detailed example.
Full Text
Published Version
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 call