The Autonomy of Historical Understanding

Classical philosophy of history, which claimed to disclose the secret of human progress or to discover the overarching meaning of universal history, was consumed in the holocaust of two world wars, but it has latterly arisen from its own ashes in the guise of the theory of historical knowledge. It would be misleading, however, to refer to a renaissance of interest in the philosophy of history. It is plain that there are two revivals, not one, and that they suffer from a lack of mutual communication even more remarkable -because prima Jacie less justified -than the general breakdown of a community of discourse in a world of increasing intellectual specialization. Yet although each of these revivals can be fairly clearly identified and characterized, and although each is represented by a large and growing literature, neither seems to take account of the other or even to be curious about its existence and direction. Moreover, one is represented entirely by professional historians and the other entirely by professional philosophers. It would be surprising if there were not differences of problems and points of view between two groups, each with much training in and constant exposure to the subtler nuances of guildsmanship. But even so it is surprising to find no community of interest among at least sub-groups; and the fact seems to be that there is an absence of either agreement or controversy between philosophers and historians who devote some thought to problems of historical knowledge. One symptom of the absence of discourse is the extraordinary difference, in writing by representatives of the philosophical revival and of the historical revival, between footnotes and bibliographies. The latter invariably cover both revivals with at least quantitative fairness; the former infallibly reveal the hermetic limits of each. For example, the latest report of the Social Science Research Council's Committee on Historiography' contains an extensive bibliography with many pages devoted to the category of "Philosophical Discussions"; and most, although not all, of the books and articles comprising the recent debate among philosophers on the logic of historical explanation are