What is history for? Reply to critics of The Dawn of Analysis

Burgess. After that, I will take up the harsher criticism focused on matters of historical scholarship presented by Proops and Sainsbury. In addition to setting the historical record straight, I will locate the roots of the dispute in a conflict between the history-for-history’s-sake conception implicitly advocated by Proops and Sainsbury and my own philosophically and pedagogically motivated approach to the history of the subject. In doing so, I will articulate and defend the goals of philosophically oriented history, and use the resulting conception both to illuminate my discussions of individual philosophers, and to clarify how they contribute to what I take to be the leading achievements of the analytic tradition.