CfP: The Role of Philosophy of History
Conference at the University of Oulu, Finland
Hosted by the Centre for Philosophical Studies of History (http://www.oulu.fi/
5-7 October, 2017
Keynote speakers
Frank Ankersmit (Groningen)
Giuseppina D’Oro (Keele)
Jonathan Gorman (Belfast)
Allan Megill (Virginia)
Marek Tamm (Tallinn)
Aviezer Tucker (Harvard)
What is the role of the philosophy of history in current academia and more widely in contemporary culture? What
is the philosophy of history? And the philosophy of historiography? The conference
The Role of Philosophy of History is devoted to these questions.
One answer is simply that the
philosophy of history does not have much of a role in current academia,
having lost it since the heyday of analytic philosophy of history.
However, interest in the theoretical and philosophical
studies of history has increased in recent years, as evidenced by the
INTH conferences in the recent past, for example. Perhaps now could be
the time for the field to regain its place in academia and culture. If
so, what should
be the role of the philosophy of history?
The short history of this
discipline covers transitions from the analytic philosophy of history to
studying the narrative aspects of history writing in the 1970s and
1980s, and more recently the turn towards investigating
the role of memory and the ethical aspects of history writing. But
does the upward trend of the theory of history contribute to the
philosophy of history? And if so, in what way(s) exactly? Some might
naturally question this distinction altogether.
The increase of research
activity relevant to the philosophy of history has in any case not been
reflected in institutional structures. The old traditional departmental
profiles and subject distinctions in philosophy
have proved enduring. This reason only adds to the urgency to consider
the role and nature of the philosophy of history and historiography.
Should the philosophy of history emulate analytic philosophy of history?
Would this pave the way for greater institutional
respectability? Or should it attempt to formulate its own idiosyncratic
philosophical approach and risk becoming even more estranged from the
mainstream? What would be the main questions and problems of it? Should
the philosophy of history be characterized
by a certain style or treatment rather than by a specific substance?
The theory and philosophy of
history is in a privileged position in that it has a close relationship
with its object discipline, historiography. Many who write about
theoretical and philosophical aspects of history are
historians by education or at least know historiography well. Both the
research and writing of history are also more accessible for
philosophers than many other disciplines of science. But how intimate
should the link between the philosophy of historiography
and historiography be? Is it conceivable that the theoretical and
philosophical studies of history could be practiced more or less
autonomously without much regard to historiography and its actual
practice, as some have suggested?
It may also be argued that the
philosophy of history and historiography are, and perhaps should be,
uniquely placed with regard to the moral problems of contemporary
society. Historiography deals with issues that are
significant for the practical life of people in that it formulates
conceptions of the past, laying blame and responsibility for some actors
and proposing moral meaning for some events. How great a role should
these kinds of moral concerns be given in philosophical
studies?
The conference The Role of Philosophy of History
is linked to the editorial transition of the Journal of the Philosophy of History (http://www.brill.com/journal-
Please send an abstract of a maximum of 300 words to
Ilkka.O.Lahteenmaki@oulu.fi by 1st May, 2017. Notifications of acceptance will be sent by 1st June, 2017.