Talk:Intellectual history

---

Wow

I don't have the time or resources to edit right now, but is EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL on the prominent thinkers list male? Seriously? Seriously??? (I didn't have time to click on all the names but I'm guessing an overwhelming majority is also white)??? Seriously? Wow. Y'all couldn't think of a SINGLE WOMAN to put on this list. No one's ever heard of Simone De Bouvoir or Mary Wollstonecraft or Gayatri Spivak. Wow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.237.240.193 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC) your list does not contain even one individual of African ancestry eg Gladys West,Katherine Johnson,Annie Easley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alnpete (talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

' Martin Heidegger Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, Albert Camus, Husserl, Hannah Arendt, Hans Jonas, Karl Löwith, Herbert Marc, Claude Levi-Strauss, Martin Buber, Edmund Husserl, religious and cultural values that allowed Nazism to achieve intellectual prominence in Germany and France in the 1930s and 1940s.'

I found that in the article. Does that make sense? It's not really a complete sentance, and the arkward way it is worded almost implies that Nazism was supported by the Exitentialists, which im fairly certain it was not. On the contrary, most of the people listed above fought against the Nazis during WW2, right?

It seems like meaningless jargon to me. It's also worth noting that Husserl and a few others in that list had little to nothing to do with existentialism, aside from being important for subsequent generations of intellectuals. --Tedpennings 04:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Removed: "religious and cultural values that allowed Nazism to achieve intellectual prominence in Germany and France in the 1930s and 1940s" as the idea that existentialism "allowed" the rise of Nazism (as if the few existential thinkers had anywhere near that kind of power - especially before WW2, when they were largely unknown). Perhaps a case can be made for the statement, but it is at least extraordinarily loaded.124.197.9.131 13:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Under "Modernism," "Beard" leads to the article about the facial hair. I assume the writer means someone named "Beard," such as perhaps Charles A. Beard. If it were obvious, I would make the alteration myself, but I do not know who was supposed to have been indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.214.138 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems a likely choice; he and his wife are the only Beards in List of historians. Fixed. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Fraught with anti-intellectualism"

"This is also fraught with the sentiment of hostility towards, or mistrust of, intellectuals and intellectual pursuits known as anti-intellectualism."

I find this sentence confusing. Is it intended to mean that the discipline of intellectual history is hostile to intellectual pursuits, as with certain extreme post-modernists? Or conversely, that anti-intellectualism poses a threat to the study of intellectual history? What's the idea? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I do support the charge of anti-intellectualism in the definition given above. Anti-intellectualism is referred primarily to the way intellectual history and history of ideas are mistrusted or fought against as socially irrelevant. In this case, it refers to how this article has being construed, as it clearly aims at portraying intellectual pursuits such as those of Lovejoy and others, as irrelevant because not socially involved. --Xandreios (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)--Xandreios (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose merging the article History of ideas into this article. A section of this article states that "However, the discipline of intellectual history as it is now understood emerged in the immediate postwar period, in its earlier incarnation as "the history of ideas" under the leadership of Arthur Lovejoy, the founder of the Journal of the History of Ideas. Since that time, Lovejoy's formulation of "unit-ideas" has been developed in different and often diverging directions, some of which more historically sensitive accounts of intellectual activity as historically situated (contextualism), and this shift is reflected in the replacement of the phrase history of ideas by intellectual history", clearly suggesting that the concepts are essentially the same. Furthermore, the history of ideas article mainly talks about Lovejoy's scholarship and would work as part of the history section here. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Since there have been no objections, I take it that this is a non-controversial move, and will proceed with it. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Lovejoy didn't coin the phrase “history of ideas”

Lovejoy didn't coin the phrase “history of ideas”. It seems it was coined by Marcelino Pérez Pelayo in 1883. See: this entry and this other. NikaZhenya (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Idea not fit for a 5th-grader?

"is one of the flagship journals".--Please make that text simple, while I am working on other challenging articles. 2001:2020:311:B3FF:8825:F948:6437:2817 (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Problem

This article is, like many others on the English-language Wikipedia, inaccurate because it is ethnocentric: "History of Ideas" is a concept and a discipline created in the Spanish language (Menéndez Pelayo: Historia de las Ideas Estéticas (1883). "History of Culture" and "History of Concepts" are German-language creations. "Intellectual history" is a concept of French and Central European origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antifrasis (talk • contribs) 11:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Ginzburg

Carlo Ginzburg is famously a cultural historian not an intellectual historian. Whoever wrote this article, knows very little of intellectual history. 86.6.148.125 (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)