Abstract
ABSTRACT: The article argues for a distinction between standard “historical thinking”, which aims at interpreting theories, views and concepts by considering them in their historical or cultural context, and a more sophisticated “thinking of historicity”, which attempts to uncover the historical nature of human understanding in general. The latter kind of thinking is exemplified, in different ways, by Husserl, Heidegger and Gadamer, who all strongly opposed the trend to “historicize” ideas and knowledge. It is pointed out that the notion of historicity resembles the notion of path-dependence, which has gained prominence in contemporary philosophy of science. It is further argued that precisely because historicity turns out to be a generic and fundamental phenomenon, a part of the human condition, it does not by itself allow one to discriminate between more or less authentic or genuinely historical styles or genres of thinking or research.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
