History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Editor-in-Chief:
Philipp Steinkrüger
Philipp Steinkrüger
Search for other papers by Philipp Steinkrüger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Philipp Steinkrüger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis (HPLA) holds that the goal of systematic philosophy of uncovering and substantiating philosophical truths should also be a central tenet when investigating the history of philosophy, especially considering that historical texts were written with this goal in mind, i.e., out of an interest in truth. For this reason we should read these texts as potential conveyors of truths, and if — despite benevolent interpretation — this proves to be unfeasible, then as conveyors of falsehoods. Only in this manner can a lively dialogue with our philosophical past be initiated, and only thus can we properly pay tribute to it. On the whole, this approach promises to shed new light on classical texts, making them even more fruitful in dealing with the controversial issues of modern philosophy.
HPLA provides a forum for articles in which texts from the history of philosophy are approached with the aim of offering a systematic reconstruction of theories concerning pertinent philosophical problems (often deploying the resources of modern logical analysis in the course of reconstruction). Discovered theories or fragments of such theories can be carefully elucidated and developed further. In this way, novel questions can be put to an historical author, and profitably pursued within the framework of the established system.
The works of the history of philosophy should not only be honoured as historical documents, but first and foremost be taken seriously from a philosophical point of view.
HPLA provides a forum for articles in which texts from the history of philosophy are approached with the aim of offering a systematic reconstruction of theories concerning pertinent philosophical problems (often deploying the resources of modern logical analysis in the course of reconstruction). Discovered theories or fragments of such theories can be carefully elucidated and developed further. In this way, novel questions can be put to an historical author, and profitably pursued within the framework of the established system.
The works of the history of philosophy should not only be honoured as historical documents, but first and foremost be taken seriously from a philosophical point of view.
Manufacturer information:
Koninklijke Brill B.V.
Plantijnstraat 2
2321 JC
Leiden / The Netherlands
productsafety@degruyterbrill.com
-
Print Only€158.00$186.00
-
Print + Online€167.00$190.00
-
Online only€134.00$146.00
-
To place an order, please contact customerservices@brill.com
-
Print Only€48.00$55.00
-
Online only€44.00$52.00
-
To place an order, please contact customerservices@brill.com
- External Indexers:
Editor-in-Chief
Philipp Steinkrüger (Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany)
Founding Editors
Uwe Meixner (Augsburg University, Augsburg, Germany)
Albert Newen (Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany)
Review Editor
David Hommen (Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany)
Editorial Board
Jonathan Barnes (Paris Sorbonne, Paris, France)
Kit Fine (University of New York, New York City, USA)
Paul Guyer (Brown University,Providence, USA)
Pieter Sjoerd Hasper (University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany)
Andreas Kemmerling (Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany)
Wolfgang Künne (Hamburg University, Hamburg, Germany)
Franz von Kutschera (Regensburg University, Regensburg, Germany)
Wolfgang Lenzen (Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany)
Kevin Mulligan (University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland)
Ulrich Nortmann (Saarbrücken University, Saarbrücken, Germany)
Christopher Peacocke (Columbia University, New York City, USA)
Dominik Perler (HU Berlin, Berlin, Germany)
Christof Rapp (LMU Munich, Munich, Germany)
Edmund Runggaldier (Innsbruck University, Innsbruck, Austria)
Mark Sainsbury (University of Texas, Austin, USA)
Alexandrine Schniewind (University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland)
Oliver Scholz (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany)
Peter Simons (Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland)
Barry Smith (University at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA)
Gisela Striker (Harvard University, Cambridge, USA)
Rainer Stuhlmann-Laeisz (Bonn University, Bonn, Germany)
Mark Textor (King's College London, London, UK)
Paul Thom (Sydney University, Sydney, Australia)
James Wilberding (HU Berlin, Berlin, Germany)
Michael Wolff (Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany)
Philipp Steinkrüger (Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany)
Founding Editors
Uwe Meixner (Augsburg University, Augsburg, Germany)
Albert Newen (Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany)
Review Editor
David Hommen (Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany)
Editorial Board
Jonathan Barnes (Paris Sorbonne, Paris, France)
Kit Fine (University of New York, New York City, USA)
Paul Guyer (Brown University,Providence, USA)
Pieter Sjoerd Hasper (University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany)
Andreas Kemmerling (Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany)
Wolfgang Künne (Hamburg University, Hamburg, Germany)
Franz von Kutschera (Regensburg University, Regensburg, Germany)
Wolfgang Lenzen (Osnabrück University, Osnabrück, Germany)
Kevin Mulligan (University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland)
Ulrich Nortmann (Saarbrücken University, Saarbrücken, Germany)
Christopher Peacocke (Columbia University, New York City, USA)
Dominik Perler (HU Berlin, Berlin, Germany)
Christof Rapp (LMU Munich, Munich, Germany)
Edmund Runggaldier (Innsbruck University, Innsbruck, Austria)
Mark Sainsbury (University of Texas, Austin, USA)
Alexandrine Schniewind (University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland)
Oliver Scholz (Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany)
Peter Simons (Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland)
Barry Smith (University at Buffalo, Buffalo, USA)
Gisela Striker (Harvard University, Cambridge, USA)
Rainer Stuhlmann-Laeisz (Bonn University, Bonn, Germany)
Mark Textor (King's College London, London, UK)
Paul Thom (Sydney University, Sydney, Australia)
James Wilberding (HU Berlin, Berlin, Germany)
Michael Wolff (Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany)
ANVUR A-Class
Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science)
ERIH PLUS
International Philosophical Bibliography (IPB)
Philosopher's Index
Philpapers
Scopus
Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science)
ERIH PLUS
International Philosophical Bibliography (IPB)
Philosopher's Index
Philpapers
Scopus
Online submission: Articles for publication in History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis can be submitted online through Editorial Manager. To submit an article, click here.
For more details on online submission, please visit our EM Support page.
Download Author Instructions (PDF).
For more details on online submission, please visit our EM Support page.
Download Author Instructions (PDF).
If you are interested in reviewing a book, you will find here an overview of the books that are pending for review.
Call for Papers: Why and How Do We Study Early Modern Philosophy Today?
Special Issue of History of Philosophy and Logical Analysis 30.2 (2027)
Guest Editors: Laura Georgescu (University of Groningen) and Martin Lenz (FernUniversität in Hagen)
This special issue invites contributions that examine contemporary approaches to the study of early modern philosophy and reflect on the aims and methods that guide current scholarship. We welcome contributions on any text, topic, or figure of the period, provided that the paper explicitly highlights the aims or methods it employs.
We particularly encourage submissions that
1. use a case study to illustrate a distinctive methodological or interpretive approach, or
2. directly address debates concerning aims or methods in the field.
Possible questions include, but are not limited to:
• How should we theorize and clarify the relationship between historical and rational reconstruction?
• Which aims and criteria guide our decisions about including marginalized figures and traditions in the early modern canon?
• How do digital humanities tools reshape the study of early modern philosophy?
• Do traditional assumptions about contextualization, textual analysis, or intellectual genealogies still hold?
These themes do not need to be the exclusive focus of a paper; rather, they serve as an invitation to reflect on the methodological or interpretive commitments underlying your study.
Submissions
Articles up to 10,000 words can be submitted via Editorial Manager until August 31, 2026 and will be processed on a rolling basis. Accepted publications can be published early in online first mode.
Pre-Submission Inquiries
If you are unsure whether your contribution fits the issue, you may submit an abstract of 500–1000 words by January 31, 2026 to the guest editors:
• martin.lenz@fernuni-hagen.de
• l.georgescu@rug.nl
We look forward to receiving your contributions.
Call for Papers: From ex nihilo nihil fit to the Principle of the Sufficient Reason: On the Metaphysics of Ground in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period
Special Issue of History of Philosophy and Logical Analysis
Guest Editors: Clara Carus (Ruprecht Karls Universität Heidelberg), Stephan Schmid (Universität Hamburg)
We invite contributions on the history, development, and philosophical significance of the principle ex nihilo nihil fit (or NIF for short) in the Middle Ages and the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) in the early modern period. We particularly welcome papers that investigate the conceptual connections, transformations, and tensions between these two principles.
Whereas many early modern philosophers endorsed some version of the PSR, they tended to disagree about its scope and force. Is the PSR contingent or necessary? Does a sufficient reason have to necessitate its consequent? By what does something qualify as a reason – simply by making something intelligible at least to God, or to us humans? What kind of principle is the PSR – epistemological, metaphysical, or both? Can it be demonstrated?
Medieval thinkers, in turn, frequently appealed to the ancient maxim “nothing comes from nothing” – but its meaning and implications were equally contested. How does the NIF relate to the four Aristotelian causes? Does the principle require efficient causes, or can other causes supply the relevant somethings, from which some things come too? And how does the NIF function in contexts involving divine mysteries, including creation, and in the context of free action?
This special issue seeks to bring medieval debates on the NIF into conversation with early modern discussions of the PSR, exploring both continuities and discontinuities in the metaphysics of explanation, causation, and grounding.
Possible questions include, but are not limited to:
• How did medieval and early modern authors understand the NIF or the PSR, and what did they take these principles to entail?
• To what extent can the early modern PSR be regarded as a successor principle to the medieval NIF?
• What arguments were offered for or against accepting the NIF or the PSR?
• How did theological, scientific, or epistemological assumptions shape debates about these principles?
• Which considerations motivated changes or refinements of NIF or the PSR? Is there a philosophical lineage connecting the various historical versions of the NIF and/ or the PSR?
• Which versions of NIF or of the PSR remain philosophically attractive today, and why?
Submissions
Articles of up to 10,000 words (including footnotes and references) may be submitted via the journal’s submission system (https://www.editorialmanager.com/hpla/) by April 30, 2027. Papers will be reviewed on a rolling basis, and accepted papers may appear online first.
Pre-Submission Inquiries
If you are unsure whether your contribution fits the special issue, you may send an abstract of 500–1000 words to the guest editors:
• claracarus@fas.harvard.edu
• stephan.schmid@uni-hamburg.de
We look forward to receiving your submissions.
Call for Papers: Why and How Do We Study Early Modern Philosophy Today?
Special Issue of History of Philosophy and Logical Analysis 30.2 (2027)
Guest Editors: Laura Georgescu (University of Groningen) and Martin Lenz (FernUniversität in Hagen)
This special issue invites contributions that examine contemporary approaches to the study of early modern philosophy and reflect on the aims and methods that guide current scholarship. We welcome contributions on any text, topic, or figure of the period, provided that the paper explicitly highlights the aims or methods it employs.
We particularly encourage submissions that
1. use a case study to illustrate a distinctive methodological or interpretive approach, or
2. directly address debates concerning aims or methods in the field.
Possible questions include, but are not limited to:
• How should we theorize and clarify the relationship between historical and rational reconstruction?
• Which aims and criteria guide our decisions about including marginalized figures and traditions in the early modern canon?
• How do digital humanities tools reshape the study of early modern philosophy?
• Do traditional assumptions about contextualization, textual analysis, or intellectual genealogies still hold?
These themes do not need to be the exclusive focus of a paper; rather, they serve as an invitation to reflect on the methodological or interpretive commitments underlying your study.
Submissions
Articles up to 10,000 words can be submitted via Editorial Manager until August 31, 2026 and will be processed on a rolling basis. Accepted publications can be published early in online first mode.
Pre-Submission Inquiries
If you are unsure whether your contribution fits the issue, you may submit an abstract of 500–1000 words by January 31, 2026 to the guest editors:
• martin.lenz@fernuni-hagen.de
• l.georgescu@rug.nl
We look forward to receiving your contributions.
Call for Papers: From ex nihilo nihil fit to the Principle of the Sufficient Reason: On the Metaphysics of Ground in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period
Special Issue of History of Philosophy and Logical Analysis
Guest Editors: Clara Carus (Ruprecht Karls Universität Heidelberg), Stephan Schmid (Universität Hamburg)
We invite contributions on the history, development, and philosophical significance of the principle ex nihilo nihil fit (or NIF for short) in the Middle Ages and the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) in the early modern period. We particularly welcome papers that investigate the conceptual connections, transformations, and tensions between these two principles.
Whereas many early modern philosophers endorsed some version of the PSR, they tended to disagree about its scope and force. Is the PSR contingent or necessary? Does a sufficient reason have to necessitate its consequent? By what does something qualify as a reason – simply by making something intelligible at least to God, or to us humans? What kind of principle is the PSR – epistemological, metaphysical, or both? Can it be demonstrated?
Medieval thinkers, in turn, frequently appealed to the ancient maxim “nothing comes from nothing” – but its meaning and implications were equally contested. How does the NIF relate to the four Aristotelian causes? Does the principle require efficient causes, or can other causes supply the relevant somethings, from which some things come too? And how does the NIF function in contexts involving divine mysteries, including creation, and in the context of free action?
This special issue seeks to bring medieval debates on the NIF into conversation with early modern discussions of the PSR, exploring both continuities and discontinuities in the metaphysics of explanation, causation, and grounding.
Possible questions include, but are not limited to:
• How did medieval and early modern authors understand the NIF or the PSR, and what did they take these principles to entail?
• To what extent can the early modern PSR be regarded as a successor principle to the medieval NIF?
• What arguments were offered for or against accepting the NIF or the PSR?
• How did theological, scientific, or epistemological assumptions shape debates about these principles?
• Which considerations motivated changes or refinements of NIF or the PSR? Is there a philosophical lineage connecting the various historical versions of the NIF and/ or the PSR?
• Which versions of NIF or of the PSR remain philosophically attractive today, and why?
Submissions
Articles of up to 10,000 words (including footnotes and references) may be submitted via the journal’s submission system (https://www.editorialmanager.com/hpla/) by April 30, 2027. Papers will be reviewed on a rolling basis, and accepted papers may appear online first.
Pre-Submission Inquiries
If you are unsure whether your contribution fits the special issue, you may send an abstract of 500–1000 words to the guest editors:
• claracarus@fas.harvard.edu
• stephan.schmid@uni-hamburg.de
We look forward to receiving your submissions.
History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis
Editor-in-Chief:
Philipp Steinkrüger
Philipp Steinkrüger
Search for other papers by Philipp Steinkrüger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Philipp Steinkrüger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
History of Philosophy & Logical Analysis (HPLA) holds that the goal of systematic philosophy of uncovering and substantiating philosophical truths should also be a central tenet when investigating the history of philosophy, especially considering that historical texts were written with this goal in mind, i.e., out of an interest in truth. For this reason we should read these texts as potential conveyors of truths, and if — despite benevolent interpretation — this proves to be unfeasible, then as conveyors of falsehoods. Only in this manner can a lively dialogue with our philosophical past be initiated, and only thus can we properly pay tribute to it. On the whole, this approach promises to shed new light on classical texts, making them even more fruitful in dealing with the controversial issues of modern philosophy.
HPLA provides a forum for articles in which texts from the history of philosophy are approached with the aim of offering a systematic reconstruction of theories concerning pertinent philosophical problems (often deploying the resources of modern logical analysis in the course of reconstruction). Discovered theories or fragments of such theories can be carefully elucidated and developed further. In this way, novel questions can be put to an historical author, and profitably pursued within the framework of the established system.
The works of the history of philosophy should not only be honoured as historical documents, but first and foremost be taken seriously from a philosophical point of view.
HPLA provides a forum for articles in which texts from the history of philosophy are approached with the aim of offering a systematic reconstruction of theories concerning pertinent philosophical problems (often deploying the resources of modern logical analysis in the course of reconstruction). Discovered theories or fragments of such theories can be carefully elucidated and developed further. In this way, novel questions can be put to an historical author, and profitably pursued within the framework of the established system.
The works of the history of philosophy should not only be honoured as historical documents, but first and foremost be taken seriously from a philosophical point of view.
-
Print Only€158.00$186.00
-
Print + Online€167.00$190.00
-
Online only€134.00$146.00
-
To place an order, please contact customerservices@brill.com
-
Print Only€48.00$55.00
-
Online only€44.00$52.00
-
To place an order, please contact customerservices@brill.com
- External Indexers: