THE PHILOSOPHICAL COMPONENT OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE AND COGNITION: BALLAST OR IMPERATIVE?

Abstract

The sphere of modern scientific knowledge places great hopes on the systemic and synergistic effect of interdisciplinary research. In general, such hopes are not unfounded: since the 1980s, the greatest increase in heuristic achievements of science has been ensured primarily by the interaction of different disciplines. Actually, even from the considerations of the internal logic of the evolution and functioning of scientific knowledge and cognition, there are no objections here, because the disciplinary demarcation of scientific knowledge occurred at a certain stage only on the basis of the inability to perceive the studied reality in its entirety, but reality has always been and will always remain exactly that: an organic unity of a huge set of aspects, which for its correct and effective study requires appropriate tools in the format of combining the efforts of different disciplinary approaches. In this case, we are primarily talking about the criterion-based foundations of perception of the realities of the subject area, as well as about consensus or at least about conventional agreement of positions on the axiological foundations of epistemological and epistemological processes. The point is that in the absence of explicit agreement on different interpretations of this roadmap, we will be dealing not so much with complementarity as with mutual absorption of research efforts.An illustrative example is the situation with conceptual and stereotypical differences between the historical field of knowledge and the philosophy of history: if historians accuse philosophers of relatively blurring the very foundations of history as a set of unambiguous facts, then philosophers ironically note that most scientific facts meet this criterion to an extremely small extent, and in addition, for the correct perception of systemic realities, it is not factography, but factology that is of decisive importance, to meet the needs of which historians often lack the competence and research skills in this profile.