Mark Bevir

This is a hopelessly dry discussion of methodology in the history of ideas. The author's analytic approach does not suit this topic. He strives for rigorous analysis by making frequent reference to about two dozen different "isms", but then exemplifies his arguments with annoyingly simple thought-experiments. It is all much too abstract and detached from the practical aspects of historical study to be of interest. His basic premise is that historians of ideas should explain why a given author held a certain belief, which seems like a completely misguided starting point. In any case, I struggled to stay awake with this book.… (altro)