東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Two rival versions of historical inq...

Noland, James R. L.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Two rival versions of historical inquiry and their application to the study of the Sixteenth Amendment.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Two rival versions of historical inquiry and their application to the study of the Sixteenth Amendment./
作者:	Noland, James R. L.
面頁冊數:	176 p.
附註:	Adviser: John J. McDermott.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International67-05A.
標題:	History, General. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3219176
ISBN:	9780542716997

Two rival versions of historical inquiry and their application to the study of the Sixteenth Amendment.
Noland, James R. L.

Two rival versions of historical inquiry and their application to the study of the Sixteenth Amendment. - 176 p.

Adviser: John J. McDermott.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Texas A&M University, 2006.

In this dissertation I identify the philosophy of Giambattista Vico and Karl Marx as representing, broadly, two rival versions of historical inquiry. Put simply, these rival versions endorse either reasons or causes, respectively, as the proper objects of study for historians. After introducing the study of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as an example of the type of historical event towards which these versions of inquiry might by directed, I then outline the arguments Vico and Marx give for these rival versions. Paying special attention to the assumptions about human nature, reason, and freedom at work in these arguments, I propose that comparing the plausibility and feasibility of these assumptions might allow a means of adjudicating between these comprehensive and mutually incompatible methods of historical study. I proceed to draw on the work of John Rawls and Alasdair MacIntyre, among others, to show that Marx's conceptions of human nature, reason, and freedom are ultimately flawed and therefore untenable. I conclude by arguing that Vico's version of historical inquiry relies on an understanding of these concepts that is more plausible than Marx's and withstands the objections to which Marx's understanding succumbs. Finally, I return my focus to the study of the Sixteenth Amendment and consider how Vico's version of historical inquiry might inform this project.

ISBN: 9780542716997Subjects--Topical Terms:

1017448
History, General.

Two rival versions of historical inquiry and their application to the study of the Sixteenth Amendment.
LDR:02377nam 2200301 a 45 001 974458
005 20110929
008 110929s2006 eng d
020 $a 9780542716997
035 $a (UnM)AAI3219176
035 $a AAI3219176
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Noland, James R. L. $3 1067540
245 1 0 $a Two rival versions of historical inquiry and their application to the study of the Sixteenth Amendment.
300 $a 176 p.
500 $a Adviser: John J. McDermott.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-05, Section: A, page: 1760.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Texas A&M University, 2006.
520 $a In this dissertation I identify the philosophy of Giambattista Vico and Karl Marx as representing, broadly, two rival versions of historical inquiry. Put simply, these rival versions endorse either reasons or causes, respectively, as the proper objects of study for historians. After introducing the study of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as an example of the type of historical event towards which these versions of inquiry might by directed, I then outline the arguments Vico and Marx give for these rival versions. Paying special attention to the assumptions about human nature, reason, and freedom at work in these arguments, I propose that comparing the plausibility and feasibility of these assumptions might allow a means of adjudicating between these comprehensive and mutually incompatible methods of historical study. I proceed to draw on the work of John Rawls and Alasdair MacIntyre, among others, to show that Marx's conceptions of human nature, reason, and freedom are ultimately flawed and therefore untenable. I conclude by arguing that Vico's version of historical inquiry relies on an understanding of these concepts that is more plausible than Marx's and withstands the objections to which Marx's understanding succumbs. Finally, I return my focus to the study of the Sixteenth Amendment and consider how Vico's version of historical inquiry might inform this project.
590 $a School code: 0803.
650 4 $a History, General. $3 1017448
650 4 $a History, United States. $3 1017393
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
650 4 $a Political Science, Public Administration. $3 1017438
690 $a 0337
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0578
690 $a 0617
710 2 0 $a Texas A&M University. $3 718977
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 67-05A.
790 $a 0803
790 1 0 $a McDermott, John J., $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2006
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3219176