What do you think?
Muslims Christians, And Jews in the Crusader Kingdom Of Valencia: Societies in Symbiosis
This book is an analysis of historical thought and language, presented as a systematic network of arguments and clarifications, the conclusions of which compose a descriptive metaphysic of historical existence. The arguments are technical, but the language in which they are presented is reasonably plain, so that the book can be used with profit by undergraduates and laymen, a well as by the professional philosophers, historians and social scientists for whom it is primarily intended.
- GenresPhilosophyHistory
318 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1968
About the author
Robert Ignatius Burns
54 books7 followers Robert I. Burns, entered the Society of Jesus in August 1940.
PhD medieval history, summa, 1958 at Johns Hopkins University.
Author of some 30 books on history.
PhD medieval history, summa, 1958 at Johns Hopkins University.
Author of some 30 books on history.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 1, 2024
THE FAMED PHILOSOPHER OF ART LOOKS AT HISTORY
Arthur Coleman Danto (born 1924) is an American philosopher and art critic (he was a long-time art critic for The Nation). He wrote in the Preface to this 1965 book, "This book is an analysis of historical thought and language, presented as a systematic network of arguments and clarifications, the conclusions of which compose a descriptive metaphysic of historical existence." (Pg. vii)
He begins by stating, "This book is an exercise in analytical philosophy of history." (Pg. 1) He points out, "There are... many gaps in our account of the past. But just suppose that ... that we know everything that ever happened; that we have some Ideal Chronicle of the whole past. This would still not be the whole of history with which I said that substantive philosophers of history are concerned. Such an ideally complete account of the whole past would at best furnish DATA for a substantive philosophy of the whole of history." (Pg. 2)
He observes, "the substantive philosophers of history... are clearly concerned with what I shall term prophecy. A prophecy is not merely a statement about the future, for a prediction is a statement about the future. It is a certain KIND of statement about the future, and I shall say ... that it is an HISTORICAL statement about the future. The prophet is one who speaks about the future in a manner which is appropriate only to the past, or who speaks of the present in the light of a future treated as a fait accompli." (Pg. 9)
He argues, "substantive philosophy of history is a mis-conceived activity... It is a mistake... to suppose that we can write the history of events before the events themselves have happened..." (Pg. 14) He suggests, "substantive philosophy of history ... consists in making projections, which I regard as illegitimate, into the future, of the same sorts of structures, which historians employ in organizing the events of the past... any account of the past is ESSENTIALLY incomplete... my thesis [is] that a complete account of the past would require a complete account of the future." (Pg. 17)
He suggests that even an Ideal Chronicler "capable of seeing all at once everything that happens... is not enough. For there is a class of descriptions of any event under which the event cannot be witnessed . and these descriptions are necessarily and systematically excluded from the [Ideal Chronicler]. The whole truth concerning an event can only be known after, and sometimes only LONG after the event itself has taken place, and this part of the story historians alone can tell." (Pg. 151)
He concludes, "Philosophies of history attempt to capture the future without realizing that if we knew the future, we could control the present, and so falsify statements about the future, and so such discoveries would be useless. We capture the future only when it is too late to do anything about the relevant present, for IT is then past and beyond our control. We can but find out what its significance was, and this is the work of historians: history is made by them." (Pg. 284)
Danto's book is essential reading for anyone studying modern interpretations of the philosophy of history.
Arthur Coleman Danto (born 1924) is an American philosopher and art critic (he was a long-time art critic for The Nation). He wrote in the Preface to this 1965 book, "This book is an analysis of historical thought and language, presented as a systematic network of arguments and clarifications, the conclusions of which compose a descriptive metaphysic of historical existence." (Pg. vii)
He begins by stating, "This book is an exercise in analytical philosophy of history." (Pg. 1) He points out, "There are... many gaps in our account of the past. But just suppose that ... that we know everything that ever happened; that we have some Ideal Chronicle of the whole past. This would still not be the whole of history with which I said that substantive philosophers of history are concerned. Such an ideally complete account of the whole past would at best furnish DATA for a substantive philosophy of the whole of history." (Pg. 2)
He observes, "the substantive philosophers of history... are clearly concerned with what I shall term prophecy. A prophecy is not merely a statement about the future, for a prediction is a statement about the future. It is a certain KIND of statement about the future, and I shall say ... that it is an HISTORICAL statement about the future. The prophet is one who speaks about the future in a manner which is appropriate only to the past, or who speaks of the present in the light of a future treated as a fait accompli." (Pg. 9)
He argues, "substantive philosophy of history is a mis-conceived activity... It is a mistake... to suppose that we can write the history of events before the events themselves have happened..." (Pg. 14) He suggests, "substantive philosophy of history ... consists in making projections, which I regard as illegitimate, into the future, of the same sorts of structures, which historians employ in organizing the events of the past... any account of the past is ESSENTIALLY incomplete... my thesis [is] that a complete account of the past would require a complete account of the future." (Pg. 17)
He suggests that even an Ideal Chronicler "capable of seeing all at once everything that happens... is not enough. For there is a class of descriptions of any event under which the event cannot be witnessed . and these descriptions are necessarily and systematically excluded from the [Ideal Chronicler]. The whole truth concerning an event can only be known after, and sometimes only LONG after the event itself has taken place, and this part of the story historians alone can tell." (Pg. 151)
He concludes, "Philosophies of history attempt to capture the future without realizing that if we knew the future, we could control the present, and so falsify statements about the future, and so such discoveries would be useless. We capture the future only when it is too late to do anything about the relevant present, for IT is then past and beyond our control. We can but find out what its significance was, and this is the work of historians: history is made by them." (Pg. 284)
Danto's book is essential reading for anyone studying modern interpretations of the philosophy of history.
May 11, 2026
fakt zaujimave fakt. aj ked neviem ci je nevyhnutne castami pisat v zmysle "x is F at t-1 and is G at t-3" co asi analyticky je zjednodusenie ig, ale pre humble citatela mi to pride len confusing. nevertheless, pozerania sa na dejiny z perceptie narativnych viet je (asi) dost inovativne a nechava to miesto historii byt nieco unikatne ine nez hocaka (ne)prirodna veda.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews