For while other political science areas are able to revert to a sublimely developed “methodological foundation”, the truly significant deficiency of all history of idea related research emerges rather quickly: namely the methodological aporia that is inherent to it. Not even hermeneutics which often is considered the most appropriate heuristics procedure “for” the profession has by any means its origins in political science. Otherwise false interpretations and anachronisms result and to confront this lack effectively, Quentin Skinner called for a More in historical context interpretations. According to Skinner, one should not exclusively examine „what“ a particular author says in the text but one should recognize in particular with „what purpose“ he does this. Hermeneutics itself can by no means be placed at our disposal despite its dominating character in the history of ideas. Though, the question arises whether Quinner didn’t actually feign an obvious direction by including each author’s intent in the methodological procedure for his research approach. Because it is subject to discussion whether by virtue of a broad methods pluralism, which is fed by neighboring disciplines (for example, sociology, psychology, history, and philosophy), an eclecticised heuristic is generated which is made to fit the particular research subject-matter. One could thus achieve through a “multi-perspective” a broader and thus possibly also more valid interpretation result which would, in turn, enable a more complex parallelization adapted to the specific case. As a result a sophisticated method pluralism is provided with an opportunity possibly in the sense of an eclecticised heuristic.
