Abstract
Abstract In this essay I reply to the comments by Daniel Fairbrother, Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen, Chiel van den Akker, Martin Jay, Hans Kellner and Jacques Bos on things I wrote on philosophy of history in the last few decades. The reply’s main claim is that not my frequent appeals to Leibniz are surprising, but the total neglect of Leibniz by all philosophers of history since 1945. If only, because in the very first treatise on so-called ‘critical philosophy of history’ – Chladenius’s Allgemeine Geschichtswissenschaft of 1752 – Leibniz was central already. Think of his notion of the ‘Sehepunckt’ (point of view) that he had taken from Leibniz. Moreover, each practicing historian will recognize straightaway that the notion of the point of view goes to the heart of his work.