「理解」から「説明」へ : 歴史的認識の一問題として
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
One of the crucial problems in contemporary philosophy of history is to determine which is more relevant-historical explanation or historical understanding. Writers on this question may be divided into three types- (1) Idealists, (2) Covering-law theorists, and (3) Reactionists, as M. Mandelbaum has summed them up. I think the only possible approach, in current theoretical arguments, is the third one, which accepts, besides explanation by covering-law, some sort of understanding, especially when it is concerned with a more complicated account of human actions. It does not neccessarilly follow, however, that understanding is a peculiar way of historical inquiry rather than a kind of provisionary account which has still to be 'filled out' by some more rigorous explanation. Historians surely try not just to describe the given events, but to explain them. Thus, 'understanding' might be said to lie in the middle of 'description' and 'explanation'; historians would first describe the events as they were given, and then by attempting to answer the 'why' of these events they would proceed to 'understand' them, and finally when this 'why' could be answered objectively such an 'understanding' might be replaced by an 'explanation.' This, is basically the same in all areas of scientific inquiry of which history may be a rather incomplete one. Thus, the other several kinds of historical explanations, which are supposed to be peculiar to history according to W. Dray and others, would be after all reduced to the Hempelian model of explanation. It is true that historians may seldom succeed in giving explanations as satisfactory as those of physicists, but this does not preclude historians from filling out their explanations. I suppose that the very process of this 'filling out' constitutes progress in the field of historical studies. Scientific explanation is merely a logical instrument of our historical thinking, and need not be extended to a problem of, say, historical perspective, which is surely open to the philosophy of history.
- 慶應義塾大学の論文
著者
関連論文
- 『比較文明と歴史哲学』
- 草創期の三田史学-1-歴史観の視点から (三田史学の100年を語る) -- (第1回座談会(1990年6月16日(土)))
- 福沢諭吉と田中萃一郎の歴史観
- 西洋史の先学たち(一)(第一回座談会,三田史学の百年を語る)
- 草創期の三田史学(一) : 歴史観の視点から(第一回座談会,三田史学の百年を語る)
- 慶応義塾と歴史哲学(文学部創設百周年記念論文集I)
- 刊行のことば
- 「理解」から「説明」へ : 歴史的認識の一問題として
- A. Donagan and B. Donagan, Philosophy of History, A Macmillan Series, 1965 / G. H. Nadel (ed.), Studies in the Philosophy of History, Harper Torchbooks, 1965(REVIEW)
- 事態の論理をこえて
- 歴史哲学の二つのアンソロジー(批評と紹介)
- 事実の客観性と関係の客観性 : E. H. Carrの歴史哲学批判(間崎万里先生頌寿記念)
- 「歴史主義」の意味の混亂(史學科開設五十周年記念)
- 歴史事象の一回限り性について
- Joseph Lortz, Geschichte der Kirche, in ideengeschichtlicher Betrachtung, Munster Westfalen, 17 und 18 Auflage, 1953
- 歴史の科學性の限界
- ランケ史學の根柢に對する歴史哲學的一考察
- ボナヴェントゥラの類比的直觀
- 新プラトン的『流出説』の一問題
- 歴史的説明の論理の問題(橋本孝先生古希記念論文集)