Talk:History of ideas

Untitled

how is this field related to memetics?--74.229.34.227 05:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to "Great Chain of Being": Title of book or concept?

We should discuss what to do with the link to the article "Great Chain of Being": I removed the link from the title of Lovejoy's book because it doesn't link to an article about that book; rather, it links to the article about the concept of the Great Chain of Being. Perhaps we need to create a disambiguation page, with separate links to the book and the concept?

Kostatoronto3^(Talk) 22:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

possible addition of the Journal of the History of Ideas? and Lovejoy's role therein?

if no one else wants to do this, I will when I get a chance. I'm writing a paper on the subject, and it seems kind of central to this article.65.92.70.80 20:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to German-language article

There is a German-language page for the history of ideas titled "Ideengeschichte" that is unfortunately not accessible from the English-language one. Can anyone create this link? (I'm not familiar with the process enough to do so myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.207.39 (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. See Help:Interwiki linking for how to do this. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Followers

I think that Foucault wouldn't have to be indicated as a follower of the history of ideas. In fact, he said in The archaeology of knowledge that history should "exceed the worn ground of the history of ideas" and try some sort of an archaeologic method. Thus, including him in such list is a big mistake.Aruizi (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. Foucault should more correctly be described as an anti-historien of ideas. Also Pocock is probably a far stretch, as he shared Skinner's criticism of the Lovejoy approach to the history of ideas. 109.189.168.149 (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

While I do agree that Foucault should not be considered a historian of ideas in the traditional sense, I believe keeping him, along with adding writings by other academics and historians, will give a greater understanding of History of Ideas in its broader academic context. However, one should specify Foucault's thought pertaining to the discipline in greater detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieleGPalmer (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

New Dictionary of History of Ideas is not a revision of original Dictionary, but a distinct work

New Dictionary of the History of Ideas (NDHI) is listed in External Links after hyperlinked original 4-volume Dictionary of Ideas as a "revision." Not at all true: the only thing in common between the two sets is the nominal publisher (Scribners), now merely a distinguished name purchased by a multinational conglomerate. In any case, NDHI has no external link and doesn't belong in External Links.

From preface of NDHI (v. I, p. xxvii):

This six-volume set, which contains all new and original entries, addresses topics in the fields of history, anthropology, and women’s studies; philosophy and religion; politics, law and economics; area studies and ethnic studies; literature, performance, music, and the visual arts; communication studies and cultural studies; and science, engineering and medicine....The first Dictionary of the History of Ideas is known especially for the history of influential texts. Most significantly, while all articles of NDHI discuss influential texts and provide an up-to-date: bibliography, there are very few articles in the NDHI that are primarily the history of texts.

Not at all like fairly conservative second edition revisions of Paul Edward's Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Mircea Eliade's Encyclopedia of Religion; this is a new work, radically different in both content and conception of the history of ideas - not a bad thing in itself (I have both editions).

I'll add inline citation to NDHI when I have a chance to find something truly quote worthy. Perhaps a quote from each Dictionary, to highlight range (and/or change) of views. Paulscrawl (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)