A Systematic Theory of Tradition

Datos Bibliográficos

ID4504584
AutoresJames Alexander (0000-0003-2432-6876, Bilkent University, autor de correspondencia)
Año2016
Volumen10
Número1
Páginas1-28
Fecha de publicación2016-03-11
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of the Philosophy of History (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1872-261X • E-ISSN: 1872-2636
EditorialWalter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1163/18722636-12341313
OpenAlexW2344139363
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas7
Referencias citadas10

We still lack a systematic or complete theory of tradition. By referring to the works of many major figures of the last century - Arendt, Boyer, Eisenstadt, Eliot, Gadamer, Goody, Hobsbawm, Kermode, Leavis, MacIntyre, Oakeshott, Pieper, Pocock, Popper, Prickett, Shils and others - I show that a theory of tradition must include insights taken not only from the study of sociology and anthropology, but also from the study of literature and religion (and, it goes without saying here, the study of philosophy and history). The proliferation of separate academic subjects does not make it any less necessary for us to attempt to say in general what we are talking about when we talk about tradition. In this article I distinguish three elements which are found in traditions. I call these continuity, canon, and core. The argument is that traditions can be distinguished in terms of whether there is a core in addition to canon and continuity, a canon in addition to continuity, or only mere continuity. Together these form a theory of tradition which enables us to see what is necessary to all traditions and also what it is which distinguishes different types of tradition from each other

Argument (complex analysis · Canon · Medieval history · Historical and Linguistic Studies · Medieval Literature and History · Reformation and Early Modern Christianity