ABSTRACT This review essay argues that the realist philosophy of history, as represented by Adam Timmins in Towards a Realist Philosophy of History , raises interesting questions about the nature of historical writing and challenges some of the foundations of idealist philosophy of history. A basic problem with Timmins's book is the conflation of “constructivism” with “idealism” when there are, indeed, quite a few “realists” who are also “constructivists.” After summarizing the main arguments of the book and critically examining them, this essay argues that realism, if combined with constructivism, is appealing for many practicing historians, but it also warns that there can be no foundationalism regarding the institutionalization of professional historiography. Furthermore, it emphasizes skepticism regarding trust in specialization, and it cautions that idealist philosophy of history has had more of an impact on practicing historians than Timmins's book suggests. Because I am not a philosopher of history, I must leave the finer points of philosophy to other reviewers; instead, I focus on the perspective of a practicing historian with an interest in historical theory.
Stefan Berger (Wed,) studied this question.