The limits of certainty in the oral history of philosophy: the problem of memory




interview, cognitive bias, memory, philosophy, philosophical text


The article argues that the oral history of philosophy (OHP) will not produce reliable results unless it develops effective methods of counteracting cognitive biases related to human memory. So far, this problem has not even been raised.

I highlighted the main cognitive memory biases that affect the validity of the UIF: choice-supportive bias, hindsight bias, fundamental attribution error. Describing the nature of their detrimental effects on the interview, I suggested ways to counteract it: (1) multi-level verification of all actual data; (2) checking of the interview's previous judgment; (3) mandatory data validation for the potential impact of nostalgia; (4) co-creation interviewing; (5) a sequence of questions that will problematize the possible impact of bias during the interview itself.

As OHF is still a theoretically unspecified discipline, I have proposed a concept that includes (a) its definition, (b) its place among other historical and philosophical disciplines, (c) its main genres and their specificities; (d) the irreplaceability of its data for the history of philosophy as a science (the ability to engage the interviewer in an active non-self-reflection situation). Interviewer answers often cannot be obtained from traditional sources (articles, books, drafts, letters, margins, etc. ).

In the end, I outlined five main arguments in favor of the broad involvement of students of the philosophical faculties in organizing and conducting interviews within the OHF.

Author Biography

Vsevolod Khoma

undergraduate  student,  Faculty  of  Philosophy, Taras  Shevchenko  National  University of Kyiv (Ukraine).


Brandom, R. (1999). Interview [with Carlo Penco]. Retrieved from

Brandom, R. B. (1994). Making it explicit : reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, Mass : Harvard University Press.

Mather, M., Shafir, E., & Johnson, M. K. (2000). Misrememberance of options past: Source monitoring and choice. Psychological Science , 11(2), 132–138.

Myers, D. G. (2009). Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nora K., Hösle, V. (2000). The Dead Philosophers' Café: an exchange of letters for children and adults. [In Ukrainian]. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. [= Нора К., Гьосле, 2019]

Priend, B., Schweicard, D. P. (Eds.). (2008). Robert Brandom. Analytic pragmatist. Frankfurt a. Main: Ontos Verlag.

Ritchie, D. A. (2015). Doing oral history: a practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Roese, N. J., Vohs, K. D. (2012). Hindsight bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7(5): 411–426.

Rorty, R. (1984). The Historiography of Philosophy: Four Genres. In R. Rorty, J. B. Schneewind, & Q. Skinner. (Eds.). Philosophy in history: essays on the historiography of philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wanderer, J. (2008). Robert Brandom. Montreal, Kingston, & Ithaca : McGill-Queen's University Press.

Wilke, A., & Mata, R. (2012). Cognitive Bias. In: V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.) The Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (vol. 1, pp. 531-535). Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier.

Zabala, S. (2008). The Hermeneutic Nature of Analytic Philosophy: A Study of Ernst Tugendhat. New York: Columbia University Press.


Abstract views: 277



How to Cite

Khoma, V. (2020). The limits of certainty in the oral history of philosophy: the problem of memory. Filosofska Dumka, (4), 67–80.






Download data is not yet available.