Does the death of Hayden White mark the end of an era in philosophy of history? Although White’s personal presence is sorely missed, White’s work is unlikely soon to lose its prominent position in philosophy of history. This is because no other author occupies a position in the field that is remotely as central as White’s. His oeuvre serves as a shared reference point for scholars working on issues ranging from explanation and representation to deconstruction and presence. From whatever school or persuasion they are, philosophers of history relate to White’s work, either by building upon it or by dissociating themselves from it. In explaining this unique position of White’s work, this essay reflects as much on the field called philosophy of history as on White’s interventions in it. It argues that philosophy of history is not a discipline in a recognizable sense of the word, but a loosely knit network of scholars working on different “questions about history.” Only when this network status of the field is taken into account, it becomes possible to see why White’s work has such a central place in current philosophy of history.

海顿·怀特之死是否标志着历史哲学时代的终结？尽管怀特非常怀念他的个人存在，但怀特的作品不太可能很快失去其在历史哲学中的突出地位。这是因为没有其他作者在该领域中占据与怀特一样遥不可及的位置。他的作品为学者们提供了一个共同的参考点，他们致力于解决从解释和表示到解构和存在的问题。无论是在学校还是在说服力方面，历史哲学家都通过建立在怀特的作品上或与之分离来与怀特的作品联系起来。在解释怀特作品的这种独特地位时，本文在反映历史哲学领域以及怀特对其所作的干预中反映了同样多的内容。它认为，历史哲学不是一词可以识别的学科，而是一个松散的联系网络从事不同“历史问题”研究的学者 只有考虑到这一领域的网络地位，才有可能看到怀特的作品为何在当前历史哲学中如此重要。