This issue of Philosophy Today presents of papers from the International Workshop on the Historiography of Philosophy: Representations and Cultural Constructions, held in September 2012 at the West University of Timic oara, Romania. This meeting was organized under the Romanian Funding Authority for the Higher Education and Scientific Research (UEFISCDU), Bucharest, and resulted in the papers published here. The organizing committee included Gyo rgy Gere by, Associate Professor at the Department of Medieval Studies, Central European University, Budapest; Claudiu Mesaroc, from the Department of Philosophy and Communication Studies, West University, Timijoara; Florin Lobonf, fellow at the Royal Holloway, London; Robert Lazu, researcher at New Europe College, Bucharest; and Teodora Artimon, Central European University, Budapest.The project began from the idea that an innovative exploration of recent calls for an updated public image of philosophy was necessary and of interest.1 We therefore aimed to investigate trends regarding possible reconfigurations in the methodology used in the History of Philosophy. Moreover, our main ambition was to investigate these trends in a comparative manner with respect to the history of ideas and images, within the framework of an interdisciplinary set of investigation methods.We granted that it is nowadays difficult to decide (or, it is a matter of taste) what the constitutive problems of philosophy are. On one hand, many hold that philosophical problems are no longer canonical but rather are reconstructed meanings and acts. On the other hand, philosophy has for a long time been practiced as Geistesgeschichte or as canon-formation meant to further the development of meaningful vocation. From this perspective, the external public of philosophy depended on accepting these canons as inescapable material to study and understand. But such debates on the identity and the legitimate object of philosophy will always depend on the so-called schools and, ultimately, on tastes and cultural context of the philosophers.Jorge E. Gracia, for example, responding to Richard Rorty's emphasis on the problem-solving mission of Philosophy, in an attempt to recover the gap between incompatibilists and continentalists, has said that solutions and arguments built by philosophers are not obtainable by any alternative means; therefore philosophy has its own scientific and cultural monopoly.2 But on the very same basis we can claim the right to interdisciplinarity for philosophy itself. Charles Taylor, too, has argued that philosophy must be understood as the reinterpretation or rewriting of its own fundamental texts, authors, concepts, and ideas.' Yet one may link this thesis to Gracia's further claim that the product of this re-phrasing is a part of the text itself*-therefore, the philosophical text (even the historical text) and philosophical practice are not separable. We do philosophy to the extent that we rephrase or rewrite; it is consequently not legitimate to think that once the meaning or context was lost, reading the text remains useless-to hold, for example, that since Kant or Aristotle do not solve contemporary problems, it is not worth reading them. In fact, the philosopher as the historical author, and the general or specialized public that interacts with the text and alters its form, are equally authors according to Gracia's ontology of text.5 The two categories are parts of the same ontological structure; therefore, the ontological question of a text's audience will include subjects like identity (types, composi- tion), function, necessity, character (subversive and repressive), and subjectivity. Gracia's model, in this sense, presents a position that endorses the authorship of interpretative communities of readers. But it is then questionable whether the so-called historical author is the only one responsible for the ideas signified by his/her text or whether this responsibility dissipates and becomes something like a shared vision between the historical author and the different types of public. …