What do you think?
Rate this book
The Anatomy of Historical Knowledge
Mandelbaum follows up on his early work, The Problem of Historical Knowledge (1938), further developing and revising his analyses of causation, valid forms of explanation in history, and objectivity.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1977
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
August 8, 2024
MANDELBAUM'S FOLLOW-UP TO HIS 1938 ‘PROBLEM’ BOOK
Maurice Mandelbaum (1908-1987) was an American philosopher, who was professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. He also wrote 'The Problem of Historical Knowledge: An Answer to Relativism.'
He wrote in the Preface to this 1977 book, "Prior to 1938, when my first book, 'The Problem of Historical Knowledge,' appeared, there had been relatively little interest among British and American philosophers in the topics with which it dealt. That situation has changed... In the present work I have returned to the main issues with which my earlier work was concerned, but it is only natural that I should now treat these issues in a different way... My own conception of the problems has in some cases also changed. For example, I have become increasingly aware of the variety present in different kinds of historical inquiry. In what follows, I have attempted to focus attention on this fact, and to relate it to some of the problems with which philosophers dealing with history are concerned." (Pg. vii-viii)
He states early on, "History aims, and ought to aim... in laying claim to truth it must be able to advance external evidence that vouches for its truth; in default of this, it is not to be considered a historical study." (Pg. 8)
He suggests, "I merely wish to insist that insofar as the antagonisms one finds are based on radical differences in methods... one should not assume that it is in principle impossible to reach a substantial measure of agreement as to what occurred in given societies and how it happened that these events did occur." (Pg. 44) Later, he concludes, "To be sure, the advancement of historical knowledge is not smoothly continuous; there are many unexpected new starts as new issues arise out of chance discoveries and out of new interests, but these sudden shifts can occur only because there already is an accepted background of knowledge that they may challenge at points, but without which whatever is new in them would lack meaning." (Pg. 191)
He formulates the following principle: "While no single explanation will answer all causal questions that can be asked concerning any concrete occurrence, any well-formed question that is correctly answered will fit into a consistent pattern of explanation." (Pg. 79) He argues, "determinism... is not a necessary consequence of holding that all processes can be analyzed in causal terms, nor of holding that there are necessary connections among the factors upon which such processes depend." (Pg. 105) Later, he states, "It is my contention that even when historians dealing with general history deny the applicability of generalizations in their inquiries, they make tacit use of them just the same." (Pg. 181)
Mandelbaum's two books are of keen interest to the student of the philosophy of history.
Maurice Mandelbaum (1908-1987) was an American philosopher, who was professor of philosophy at Johns Hopkins University. He also wrote 'The Problem of Historical Knowledge: An Answer to Relativism.'
He wrote in the Preface to this 1977 book, "Prior to 1938, when my first book, 'The Problem of Historical Knowledge,' appeared, there had been relatively little interest among British and American philosophers in the topics with which it dealt. That situation has changed... In the present work I have returned to the main issues with which my earlier work was concerned, but it is only natural that I should now treat these issues in a different way... My own conception of the problems has in some cases also changed. For example, I have become increasingly aware of the variety present in different kinds of historical inquiry. In what follows, I have attempted to focus attention on this fact, and to relate it to some of the problems with which philosophers dealing with history are concerned." (Pg. vii-viii)
He states early on, "History aims, and ought to aim... in laying claim to truth it must be able to advance external evidence that vouches for its truth; in default of this, it is not to be considered a historical study." (Pg. 8)
He suggests, "I merely wish to insist that insofar as the antagonisms one finds are based on radical differences in methods... one should not assume that it is in principle impossible to reach a substantial measure of agreement as to what occurred in given societies and how it happened that these events did occur." (Pg. 44) Later, he concludes, "To be sure, the advancement of historical knowledge is not smoothly continuous; there are many unexpected new starts as new issues arise out of chance discoveries and out of new interests, but these sudden shifts can occur only because there already is an accepted background of knowledge that they may challenge at points, but without which whatever is new in them would lack meaning." (Pg. 191)
He formulates the following principle: "While no single explanation will answer all causal questions that can be asked concerning any concrete occurrence, any well-formed question that is correctly answered will fit into a consistent pattern of explanation." (Pg. 79) He argues, "determinism... is not a necessary consequence of holding that all processes can be analyzed in causal terms, nor of holding that there are necessary connections among the factors upon which such processes depend." (Pg. 105) Later, he states, "It is my contention that even when historians dealing with general history deny the applicability of generalizations in their inquiries, they make tacit use of them just the same." (Pg. 181)
Mandelbaum's two books are of keen interest to the student of the philosophy of history.
August 19, 2022
This is a great book on historical critical thinking. Mandelbaum effortlessly weaves together the thoughts of Hume, Hart and Honore, Hempel, Beard, Croce and Oakeshott. I appreciated the early distinction between history, story, myth, and chronicle. I really liked the language of facets to explain the historian's approach to particular events. The best chapter in this very useful book is Chapter 5 "On What and Why in History". Part 3 on objectivity and causation is also very good. Mandelbaum's discussion of why two historians might disagree about the explanatory heuristic for a series of events and neither is mistaken is priceless in our age of cultural canon wars.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews