ABSTRACT
Here we tie up a few loose strings pertaining to the topic of cognitive history. We first summarize the main thrust of this book as to how the cognitive historical method is justified and uniquely situated for understanding the mind of the creative tradition.
An inevitable question is the comparison of cognitive history with the older discipline of intellectual history (also called the history of ideas). Tracing briefly the origins of this discipline to A.O. Lovejoy’s classic work of the 1930s, we address its current interpretation according to which intellectual history is really the study of the history of words and texts and their meanings. Thus, intellectual history operates in judgment–textual space rather than cognitive space as does cognitive history. This means that intellectual history cannot address artificers and artifacts that are denizens primarily of the non-textual world. Craftspeople, filmmakers, artists, inventors, composers, performers, engineers and their works are not in the natural domain of intellectual history. In the final analysis, however, cognitive history and intellectual history can serve as complementary approaches in the domain of the creative tradition.
The final section of the Epilogue speaks to the newness of cognitive history as a genre of history writing. It is still relatively unknown as a potential discipline. I suggest that the time is ripe to introduce cognitive history as a discipline, especially to those interested in the mind of the creative tradition.
