莫顿·怀特是美国杰出的哲学家、思想史家，曾于哥伦比亚大学、宾夕法尼亚大学、哈佛大学哲学系，以及普林斯顿高等研究院历史研究所任职。怀特的学术兴趣和研究范围涵盖实用主义哲学、分析哲学、美国思想史、城市史等诸多领域；同时，他也是分析派历史哲学的代表人物之一。关于怀特的历史哲学，国内学界在涉及分析的历史哲学时多有提及，但尚无深入研究；国外学界对其个别观点的回应颇为深入，却也暂无较为系统的研究成果问世。怀特是分析的历史哲学在二十世纪的兴衰的见证者和亲历者，其哲学研究与史学研究之间始终保持着张力——这是我们在当下研究怀特历史哲学的价值之所在。 本文首先探究了怀特背后的思想谱系。怀特的历史哲学思想一方面来自分析哲学,另一方面来自美国思想史中杜威、霍姆斯、凡勃伦、比尔德等学者“对形式主义的反叛”。在怀特看来，这一“反叛”带来的积极因素之一即为援引前事来解释后事的“历史主义”思想。本文进一步认为，分析的历史哲学并非学界通常认为的那样，是分析哲学的旁支。大多数二十世纪中叶的分析派历史哲学家，都延续着十九世纪历史哲学的传统命题，“分析”只是其借鉴的方法。 接下来，本文剖析了怀特在历史解释问题上的持中取径。怀特提出的“存在性规律主义”不但对覆盖律模型和合理行动原则进行了有效的整合，还弥合了科学“解释”和人文“理解”两大传统。怀特成功地证明，关于事实之间因果联系的陈述，并不必然比关于事件本身的陈述缺乏客观性。同时，历史解释的“升格”问题为历史学家的道德判断和价值判断赋予了合法性，怀特的“反常主义”这一标准虽然不能确保“升格”的客观性，却能保证其合理性。 随后，本文考察了怀特的历史叙事观点。为了论证的清晰晓畅，怀特将历史叙事简化为了由无数解释性单称陈述前后相续所构成的“因果巨链”。在此基础上，怀特否认存在一个单一标准来评价两部题材相同的且都为真的历史作品之优劣，必须采用“评价”与“综合”相结合的多元论视角。 最后，本文通过两个案例来探析怀特思想史研究与历史哲学研究之间的张力，一窥他在历史学、哲学与历史哲学之间建立纽带的困难与实践。赫克斯特与丹托、怀特在《纽约书评》上的论战表明，分析的历史哲学家与历史学家们对对方的工作存在着不同程度的误解，较“硬”的科学解释链条与较“软”的文学修辞在许多学者看来是难以共存的，这是阻碍两方沟通的重要原因。而怀特与以赛亚·伯林的友谊则表明，历史学与哲学是可以互通的，只要承认科学哲学不是哲学的全部，逻辑分析就能构成两者共同的基底。 结语部分认为，实用主义是怀特历史哲学研究的隐性特征。实用主义观点辐射下的历史哲学研究成为了学界的一大热点，分析的历史哲学近来也重新得到关注，这是进一步研究可以着力之处。

Morton White was one of America’s most distinguished philosophers and historians of ideas, who worked in the department of philosophy at Columbia University, University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and in the school of historical studies at IAS. White’s academic interests and fields of research cover a wide range of subjects including pragmatism, analytical philosophy, American intellectual history and urban history. Moreover, he is known as one of the representative scholars of analytical philosophy of history. With regard to White’s philosophy of history, domestic scholars roughly mentioned his points of view from time to time, and foreign scholars have discussed and responded to White's views in depth, but no systematic research work has ever occurred. White was the witness and participant of the rise and fall of analytical philosophy of history in the twentieth century and there is always a tension between White’s philosophical research and historical research. That is the reason why the study of White’s philosophy of history is of great importance nowadays. This paper first explores the intellectual lineage behind White’s thoughts. White's philosophy of history was inspired by analytic philosophy on the one hand, and came from “the revolt against formalism” of Dewey, Holmes, Veblen, Beard and other scholars in American intellectual history. In White's opinion, this attack on formalism leads to two important positive elements “historicism”, “cultural organicism”. By "historicism" White shall mean the attempt to explain facts by reference to earlier fact. The paper further argues that the analytical philosophy of history is not what the scholars commonly believes that it is a sideline of analytic philosophy. Most of the analytical philosophers of history in the mid-twentieth century have continued the traditional proposition of philosophy of history in the nineteenth century. “Analysis” serves merely as their method or tool. Next, this paper analyzes middle course White steered when research on the problem of historical explanation. The “existential regularism” White applied not only effectively integrated the covering law theory and the rationale of actions，but also bridge the gap between two traditions of explanation and understanding. White successfully proved that the statements about causality are not inevitably lack of objectivity than the statements about basic historical facts. Meanwhile, the select of “the cause” gives legitimacy to the moral judgment and value judgment of historians. Although the criterion of “abnormalism” cannot guarantee the objectivity, it can guarantee its rationality. Subsequently, this paper examines White's view about historical narration. In order to make the argument clear, White simplified the historical narration into a "great chain of causation" composed of a good number of singular explanatory statements. On this basis, White denies the existence of a singular standard to evaluate the merits and demerits of two historical works that are of the same central subject and both true. One must apply a pluralistic view combining colligation and evaluation together. Finally, through two cases, this paper explores the tension between White's study of the history and the study of the philosophy of history, and gives a glimpse of the difficulties and practices White faced in building bridges between history, philosophy and philosophy of history. The controversy between J. H. Hexter and White appeared in New York Review of Books shows that the analytical philosophers of history and historians misunderstand each other's work to varying degrees. The “hard” chain of scientific explanation and the “soft” literary rhetoric cannot coexist in the eyes of many scholars, which is an important reason for hindering the communication between the two sides. The friendship between White and Isaiah Berlin shows that history and philosophy can be bridged. As long as we admit that philosophy of science is not philosophy enough, logical analysis can form the common base of both history and philosophy. In conclusion part, I believe that pragmatism is the implicit feature of White's philosophy of history. The philosophy of history under the influence of pragmatism has become a hot topic in recent years. Scholars like Paul A. Roth called for a revival of analytical philosophy of history. which is the focus of further research. So, this is what further research can focus on.