Abstract

This sub Introduction, Theory, points on the four parts and conclusions. In the "Introduction", the author first introduces the history of philosophy of Kant and Hegel's views, but the authors believe that two views have a certain problem is that Kant's philosophy of history to look too lightly, and Hegel the history of philosophy was too close. In the "General Theory", in order to explore the significance of the history of philosophy essays for the fundamental, the author lists a number is supplied, as a reflection of the base, including: Kant on the "School of the meaning of philosophy" and "philosophy of world significance," the difference between philosophy and activities of the "situation" question, the history of philosophy essays for the situation involving the gap between philosophy and history of past and future-oriented philosophy, history and progress of the initiative problems, history of philosophy and the various phases and the mark of the complexity of the philosophical history and context of development issues, and so on. In the "sub-theory", in order to illustrate the history of the Yao Mu essays on philosophy and understanding for the profound impact, the authors cited the history of Western philosophy, the most representative of the various phases and standard names to show which may involve the all the complexity and make the initial critical reflection. In the "conclusion", the authors bring out the "real" and "Spirit of the Void" two essays for the history of philosophy the difference between style , and that must be further developed in the former over the latter , historian of philosophy to the essays in the history of philosophy as a method to obtain the initiative and make sense of the history of philosophy to open up space to be creative. This paper consists of four sections. In section one, it starts with a criticism of the Kantian and Hegelian views of the history of philosophy, which the author considers both problematic, as they render the historiography of philosophy an intellectual undertaking which is either too trivial or too rigid. in section two, in order to secure for the historiography of philosophy a more meaningful basis, a number of features pertinent to the issue were outlined, such as: Kant's own distinction between philosophy in scholastic sense and in cosmic sense, the problem of "situation", the discrepancies of situations in the historiography of philosophy, past and future orientations, the question of activeness and progress, simplicity and complexity in periodization and nomenclature, the notion of development and of context, etc. In the third section , to exemplify how these features merit our serious attention, the various phases or periods of the history of Western philosophy are discussed so that the complexities of their possible reinterpretation are exposed for critical reflection. In the last section, the paper concludes with a brief demarcation between the historiography of facts and the historiography of meaning, and suggests that only by developing the latter on top of and beyond the former can a more comprehensive programme be attempted, so that historiography of philosophy can become methodologically active on the one hand and thematically open to innovative reflections and reinterpretations on the other