Affiliation:
1. Department of Philosophy University of Colorado Boulder Colorado USA
Abstract
AbstractPhilosophers ponder on how to do philosophy and how to do it well. This pondering has divided metaphilosophers' concern about philosophical methodology into two groups, which we could label “pro‐history” and “pro‐intuition.” The claim (and belief) of philosophers who are in the “pro‐history” group can be found in this sentence by Robert Pasnau (2011): “The discipline of philosophy benefits from a serious, sustained engagement with its history.” Those in the “pro‐intuition” group believe that for philosophy not to slide into the realm of irrelevance it must rely on intuitions to make sense of our present ontologies, rather than study history of philosophy. This paper argues that both proponents of the pro‐history and those of the pro‐intuition approach are wrongheaded. It argues for what it calls protohistory. Protohistory here refers to the method of doing philosophy in which the intuitions of philosophers are informed by the history of philosophy (though not directly influenced by it but indirectly informed by it).
Reference46 articles.
1. Women's Epistemic Exclusion and the Question of Equitable and Sustainable Educational Empowerment;Adadevoh Irene;Philica,2011
2. Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70,000 participants
3. Barney Rachel.2012. “Why Study the History of Philosophy?”http://individual.utoronto.ca/rbarney/WhyStudy.pdf(accessed April 10 2023).
4. Is the Philosophy of Science Scientific?;Benjamin A. Cornelius;Philosophy of Science,1960
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献