ABSTRACT
Two sorts of defense of narrative realism predicated on the determinacy of "the object of understanding" can be found in the literature. These theories couch their metaphysics of understanding either in terms of the constraints the world imposes on our efforts at systematic understanding or with regard to claims about the structural interrelation of intention, action, and narrative. Regarding the former, Michael Levine and Jeff Malpas take it that events are like natural kinds, and true histories are true because they depict these and how they are connected. The latter view, found in the work of David Carr, takes a more explicitly idealist position with regard to the object of understanding. Both types of theories presume that the understanding of historical actions is right or wrong. The chapter shows that their accounts of understanding are not made plausible either through appeal to historical practice or a priori argument.
