Skip to main content
×
×
Home

CONTEXTUALIST VS. ANALYTIC HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY: A STUDY IN SOCRATES

Abstract

I here respond to James Warren and John Shand's replies to my paper ‘In Defence of Four Socratic Doctrines’ (all published in THINK 17) by questioning the supremacy of contextualist history of philosophy over the so-called ‘analytic’ approach.

Copyright
References
Hide All

Notes

1 Sandis ConstantineIn Defence of Four Socratic Doctrines’, Think 17/18, 2008, pp. 85-98.

2 Warren JamesOn Defending Socrates’ (Think 17/18, 2008, pp. 99-101) and Shand JohnSandis in Defence of Four Socratic Doctrines’, (Think 17/18, 2008, pp. 103-107).

3 Sandis (op. cit.), p. 85.

4 Ibid.

5 Warren (op. cit.), pp. 99-100.

6 Shand (op. cit.), p. 103.

7 Sandis (op. cit.), p. 90.

8 For an informative overview of various key issues surrounding this debate see the essays and introduction collected in (eds.) Sorell T. and Rogers G. A. J., Analytic Philosophy and History of Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

9 Cf. Anthony Kenny's ‘The Philosopher's History and the History of Philosophy’ in T. Sorell and G. A. J. Rogers (op. cit., p. 13).

10 Ibid, p. 23.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Think
  • ISSN: 1477-1756
  • EISSN: 1755-1196
  • URL: /core/journals/think
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 13 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 185 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 18th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.