« the moment of doom | Main | pod people »

January 23, 2006



"Counterfactuals seem to be a speciality of conservative historians, leading to the suspicion that they don’t like actual factuals." For me it leads to the suspicion that they are sceptical about the Whig interpretation of history.


Zizek and Lenin's Tomb both go for the counterfactuals as conservatism thing. Me, I'm sceptical on this equation, I tend to see counterfactuals as a necessary part of thinking about history (in short: what is the significance of event/person/object X? Well, let's imagine as if it never happened/existed.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

friends blogs


Blog powered by Typepad

my former home