Nominalism and History

Cody Franchetti

Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University, New York, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2013.33060                

Abstract

The paper focuses on Nominalism in history, its application, and its historiographical implications. By engaging with recent scholarship as well as classic works, a survey of Nominalism’s role in the discipline of history is made; such examination is timely, since it has been done but scantily in a purely historical context. In the light of recent theoretical works, which often display aporias over the nature and method of historical enquiry, the paper offers new considerations on historical theory, which in the author’s view may solve some of the contradictions that have surfaced in recent times. The Nominalistic stance is argued against by disputing theorists such as Paul Veyne, who has made a strong defense for Nominalism in history. A brief philosophical section introduces Nominalism in its metaphysical dimension and the discussion is speedily brought to its significance for history. The paper also proposes a solution to the misconstrued yet too often vague application of scientism in history, and offers theoretical grounds that might solve some of the ‘stormy grounds’ historiography finds itself in today. Articles by Marcel Gauchet and History and Theory’s Anton Froeyman and Bert Leuridan are engaged with, as well as Murray Murphy’s books on the philosophy of history. Works by Georg Gadamer, Marc Bloch, Benedetto Croce, Hyppolite Taine, and Anthony Grafton crucially inform the discussion and brace the consequential conclusion.

Keywords

Nominalism; Particulars & Universals in History; Nomothetic History; Empiricism;Hermeneutics; History as Humanity vs Science; Historical Narrative

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Acton, J. E. E. (2000). Lectures on the French Revolution. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
[2]	Aristotle (1946). Poetics. The works of Aristotle translated into English. Vol. XI. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[3]	Armstrong, D. M. (1978). Universals & scientific realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[4]	Armstrong, D. M. (1989). Universals: An opinionated introduction. London: Westview Press.
[5]	Bloch, M. (1953). The historian’s craft. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
[6]	Bloch, M. (2005). Scritti sulla storia come scienza. Rome: Centro di Ricerca.
[7]	Braudel, F. (1995). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the age of Philip II. Berkley: University of Califorina Press.
[8]	Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. London: Oxford Uni versity Press.
[9]	Croce, B. (1923). History, its theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.
[10]	Dilthey, W. (2002). Selected works. Vol. 3. Princeton: Princeton UP.
[11]	Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage Press.
[12]	Franchetti, C. (2011). Did foucault revolutionize history? Open Journal of Philosophy, 1, 84-89. doi:10.4236/ojpp.2011.12014
[13]	Franchetti, C. (2013). Anticipations of Hans Georg Gadamer’s episte mology of history in Benedetto Croce’s philosophy of history. Open Journal of Philosophy, 3, 273-277. doi:10.4236/ojpp.2013.32043
[14]	Fraassen, B. van. (1980). The scientific image. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/0198244274.001.0001
[15]	Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method. London: Continuum.
[16]	Gauchet, M. (1986). La nominalisme historien. A propos de “Foucault Revolutionne l’histoire”, De Paul Veyne. Social Science Information, 25, 401-419. doi:10.1177/053901886025002005
[17]	Gooch, G. P. (1952). History and historians in the nineteenth century. London: Longmans, Green & Company.
[18]	Grafton, A. (1997). The footnote: A curious history. Cambridge: Har vard University Press.
[19]	Helmholz, H. (1873). Popular lectures on scientific subjects. London: Longmans, Green & Co.
[20]	Huizinga, J. (1996). The autumn of the middle ages. Chicago: Univer sity of Chicago Press.
[21]	Hume, R. J. (1999). Reconstructing contexts: The aims and principles of Archeao-historicism. Oxford: Clarendon Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198186328.001.0001
[22]	Kelley, D. R. (1970). Foundations of modern historical scholarship. New York: Columbia University Press.
[23]	Leuridan, B., & Froeyman, A. (2012). On lawfulness in history and historiography. History and Theory, 51, 172-192. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2303.2012.00620.x
[24]	Murphy, M. G. (1994). Philosophical foundations of historical knowl edge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
[25]	Murphy, M. G. (2009) Truth and history. Albany: State University New York Press.
[26]	Nadel, G. (1964). Philosophy of history before historicism. History and Theory, 3, 291-315. doi:10.2307/2504234
[27]	Piganiol, A. (1947). L’Empire Chrétien. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
[28]	Plato (1961). The collected dialogues of Plato. New York: Bollingen.
[29]	Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226713519.001.0001
[30]	Russell, B. (2007). A history of western philosophy. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
[31]	Taine, H. (1986). Les origines de la France contemporaine: L’ancien régime. Paris: Robert Laffont.
[32]	Valla, L. (2007). On the donation of constantine. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[33]	Veyne, P. (1984). Writing history. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.
[34]	Veyne, P. (1997) Foucault revolutionizes history. Foucault and his interlocutors. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[35]	Veyne, P. (2010). Foucault: His thought, his character. Cambridge: Polity.
[36]	Yates, F. (1975). Astraea: The imperial theme in the sixteenth century. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.