Problems of the Conceptual Apparatus of Historical Knowledge

Occupation: Head of the Laboratory for Integrated Digital Technologies
Affiliation: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow

Journal name

Digital Orientalia

Edition

Volume 1 № 1

Pages

40-55

Abstract

The improvement of the conceptual apparatus of historical researches and categories specific to historical knowledge is becoming today the most important condition for the existence of historical science. The clarity and severity of concepts in the digital age is acquiring high relevance — this is the key to the logicality, accuracy and consistency of knowledge that forms the integrity and completeness of the building of any science. In this work, an attempt is made to analyze the common forms of modern ailments (problem areas) of the conceptual apparatus of historical knowledge, such as: polysemy, synonymy, uncertainty, inaccuracy, fluidity, ornateness, nondiscrimination, historical conditionality, incoherence. Their progressive exacerbation threatens scientific communication and the very ability of historians to understand each other. It is clear that today there is a need for a qualitative improvement of the historian's language (thesaurus of historical knowledge). One of the ways to improve is the inclusion in the study of a section with a conceptual apparatus containing the most capacious, unambiguous and precise definitions. The presence of such a section in historical works should be not an exception, but a rule.

Keywords

historical knowledge, historical methodology, conceptual apparatus, terminology, concepts, definitions, language of the historian, historical thesaurus

Received

24.08.2021

Publication date

16.10.2021

Number of characters

37151

Cite

GOST	Bystritskiy N. Problems of the Conceptual Apparatus of Historical Knowledge // Digital Orientalia – 2021. – V. 1. – № 1 C. 40-55 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://do.jes.su/S000000000016335-8-1 (circulation date: 19.05.2024). DOI: 10.31696/S000000000016335-8
MLA	Bystritskiy, Nikolay "Problems of the Conceptual Apparatus of Historical Knowledge." Digital Orientalia 1.1 (2021):40-55. DOI: 10.31696/S000000000016335-8
APA	Bystritskiy N. (2021). Problems of the Conceptual Apparatus of Historical Knowledge. Digital Orientalia 1(1), pp.40-55 DOI: 10.31696/S000000000016335-8

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.


1	«Те, кто серьезно желает искать или отстаивать истину, должны считать своим долгом изучить способы, как избавиться от неясности, сомнительности, двусмысленности, которые, естественно, бывают в словах при отсутствии надлежащего внимания». Джон Локк (1632–1704) [1, с. 568]
2	Дальнейшее совершенствование научной методологии сталкивается сегодня с накопленным комплексом проблем гуманитарного знания. Так, одним из существенных барьеров для развития гуманитарных наук уже давно продолжает оставаться отсутствие необходимого единства, согласия в сфере понятийного и категориального аппарата. Зачастую историки, философы, политологи, социологи под одним понятием подразумевают разные явления, либо обратно — для описания конкретного явления пользуются разным понятийным аппаратом. У специалистов других наук складывается такое впечатление, как будто гуманитарии говорят на разных, малопонятных языках [2, с. 45]. Да и сами представители гуманитарных дисциплин зачастую с трудом понимают язык друг друга. Еще в начале прошлого века ситуация с научной терминологией выглядела бедственной, на что ясно указывал историк Илья Леонидович Смоленский: «1. Авторы исторических сочинений (и вообще историки) понимают термины не ясно; 2. они понимают их каждый по-своему» [3, с. 74]. Во всех красках ситуацию описывал экономист и философ Иосиф Александрович Давыдов: «Поистине печальное положение философской терминологии на русском языке слишком хорошо известно, чтобы нужно было особенно распространяться об этом. Даже вполне компетентные представители мысли, — не говоря уже о сонме некомпетентных — одни и те же термины передают нередко различным образом. Это лишний штрих из нашей общей некультурности. Такого серьезного дела, как выработка терминологии на русском языке, нельзя оставлять на волю стихийно развивающегося процесса. И нашим компетентным сферам — на первом плане Академии наук — давно пора было бы положить конец этому невозможному терминологическому разброду: к этому обязывает долг ученого и философа» [4, с. XX].
3	Прошло более века, и сегодня положение с гуманитарной терминологией, пожалуй, даже ухудшилось. Видный французский эксперт Эдгар Морен писал: «Я все более и более убеждаюсь и том, что понятия, которые мы используем, чтобы постигнуть наше общество — все общество, — изуродованы и поэтому неизбежно ведут к порочным действиям. Я все более и более убеждаюсь в том, что антропосоциальная наука нуждается в установлении в ней внутренних сочленений» [5, с. 30]. В наши дни открыто подчеркивается, что «кризисное состояние исторического познания возобновляется уже на протяжении более ста лет, фактически с того момента, когда были предприняты серьезные попытки обосновать его научный статус» [6, с. 57]. Таковой статус и теперь ставится под сомнение рядом ученых по той причине, которая «не дает истории право называться наукой в полном смысле этого слова, является ненаучный характер ее понятийного аппарата» [7, с. 82].

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Locke, J. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Moscow, 1985 (Russian transl.)

2. Blosfel'd, E.G. “Notes on some problems of historical science.” Izvestiya of Saratov University. History. International Relations 1 (2013). Pp. 44–46 (in Russian).

3. Smolensky, I. History as a science and as a subject of teaching (Reassessment of historical knowledge). Historical and methodological study. Odessa, 1905 (in Russian).

4. Sigwart, C. Logik. St. Petersburg, 1908 (Russian transl.)

5. Morin, E. La Methode. Vol. 1. La Nature de la nature. Moscow, 2005 (Russian transl.)

6. Zubova, I.L. “The current state of historical science: on some results of the search for new paradigmatic and methodological orientations.” In Figures of history, or "common places of historiography." Second St. Petersburg Readings on Theory, Methodology and Philosophy of History. St. Petersburg, 2005. Pp. 57–65 (in Russian).

7. Budtsyn, I.V. “The question of the nature of historical concepts on the pages of the journal "History and Theory" (60s-70s).” In Methodological and historiographic questions of historical science. Tomsk, 1990. Pp. 82–98 (in Russian).

8. Podlevskikh, L.G. “Conceptual and categorical apparatus of the theory of historical knowledge: problems and prospects.” In The terminology of historical science. Historical writing. Moscow, 2010. Pp. 80–114 (in Russian).

9. Barg, M.A. Categories and methods of historical science. Moscow, 1984 (in Russian).

10. Carey, B.J., Rescher, N. “The Problem of Uniqueness in History.” History and Theory Vol. 1, No. 2 (1961). Pp. 150–162.

11. Toschenko, Z.T. “On the conceptual apparatus of sociology.” Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniia 9 (2002). Pp. 3–16 (in Russian).

12. Bloch, M. Apologie pour l'histoire ou Metier d'historien. Moscow, 1986. (Russian transl.)

13. Kosolapov, V.V. Information-logical analysis of scientific research. Kiev, 1968 (in Russian).

14. Burke, P. “Overture: the New History, its Past and its Future.” In Imagines mundi: almanac of general history studies of the 16th-20th centuries. Vol. 3. Ekaterinburg, 2004. Pp. 87–115. (Russian transl.)

15. Herodotus. The Histories. Moscow, 1972.

16. Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Moscow, 1981.

17. Bystritskiy, N.I. “Natural Science Approaches to the Acquisition and Analysis of Digital Data for the Byzantine History.” In Natural Science Methods in the Digital Humatitarian Envieronment. Perm, 2018. P. 19–22 (in Russian).

18. Reid, T. The Works of Thomas Reid, now fully collected, with selections of his unpublished letters. Eds. Hamilton W., Stewart D. 3rd edition. Edinburgh, 1852.

19. Belinsky, V.G. Complete works: In 13 volumes. Vol. 5. Moscow, 1954 (in Russian).

20. Veinberg, I.P. Rozhdenie istorii: istoricheskaia mysl' na Blizhnem Vostoke serediny I tysiacheletiia do n.e. Moscow, 1993 (in Russian).

21. Lotte, D.S. Fundamentals of building scientific and technical terminology. Questions of theory and methodology. Moscow, 1961 (in Russian).

22. Jung, C.G., ed. Man and His Symbols. Moscow, 1997 (Russian transl.)

23. Kolesov, V.V. Language and mentality. St. Petersburg, 2004 (in Russian).

24. Soloviev, O.B. “Uncertainty: Intentional and Aspectual Horizons of Understanding.” Vestnik NSU. Psychology 2-1 (2008). Pp. 63–67 (in Russian).

25. Urmantsev, N.M. “Human freedom and uncertainty of his choice.” Tyumen State University Herald 2 (2007). Pp. 116–121 (in Russian).

26. Sidortsov, V.N. “The historian's scientific language as a problem.” In Change of paradigms in the historiography of the 19th - early 21st centuries: Collection of scientific articles dedicated to the 60th anniversary of Professor A.N. Nechukhrin. Grodno, 2012. Pp. 75–83 (in Russian).

27. Lenin, V.I. Complete works. 5th ed. Vol. 15. Moscow, 1972 (in Russian).

28. Rumyantseva, M.F. History theory. Textbook. Moscow, 2002 (in Russian).

29. Disraeli, B. Vivian Grey. N.Y., 1900.

30. “Knowledge about the past in modern culture (materials of the "round table").” Voprosy Filosofii 8 (2011). Pp. 3–45 (in Russian).

31. Gorsky, D.P. Problems of the General Methodology of Sciences and Dialectical Logic. Moscow, 1966 (in Russian).

32. Philosophy in the "Encyclopedia" by Diderot and D'Alembert. Moscow, 1994 (in Russian).

33. Bugorskaya, N.V. “Once again about the accuracy of the term.” Siberian Journal of Philology 3 (2008). Pp. 211-219 (in Russian).

34. Kant, E. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Moscow, 1994 (Russian transl.)

35. Kara-Murza, S.G. The power of manipulation. Moscow, 2009 (in Russian).

36. Cherniak, E.B. “History and Logic (Structure of Historical Categories).” Voprosy Istorii 10 (1995). Pp. 29–43 (in Russian).

37. Soloviev, V.D., et al. “To the question of the definition of the term.” In Semiotic problems of languages of science, terminology and informatics. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1971. Pp. 365–370 (in Russian).

38. Sviderskii, V.I. “Elements and structure as categories of dialectics.” In Dialectics and logic of scientific knowledge. Moscow, 1966. Pp. 245-272 (in Russian).

39. Novoselov, M.M. Abstractions in the labyrinths of knowledge. (Logical analysis). Moscow, 2005 (in Russian).

40. Rousseau, J.-J. Emile ou De l’education. St. Petersburg, 1912 (Russian transl.)

41. Stael, G. de. De la litterature consideree dans ses rapports avec les institutions sociales. Moscow, 1989 (Russian transl.)

42. Lapteva, M.P. “The historian's language and the problem of understanding.” In Figures of history, or "commonplaces" of historiography. Second St. Petersburg Readings on Theory, Methodology and Philosophy of History. St. Petersburg, 2005. Pp. 66–71 (in Russian).

43. Bodin, J. Methodus ad facilem historiarum cognitionem. Moscow, 2000 (Russian transl.)

44. Bobkova, M.S. “Terminological Toolkit of Historical Science: Towards a Problem Statement.” Belgorod State University Scientific Bulletin. History, Political science, Economics, Information technologies 13(84)-15 (2010). Pp. 102–108 (in Russian).

45. Nava'i, Ali-Shir. Language of Birds (Lison ut-Tayr). Moscow, 1993 (Russian transl.)

46. Kliuchevskii, V.O. Letters. Diaries. Aphorisms and thoughts about history. Moscow, 1968 (in Russian).

47. “Actual theoretical problems of modern historical science.” Voprosy Istorii 8-9 (1992) Pp. 159–166 (in Russian).

48. Puskin, A.S. Complete works: In 10 volumes. Vol. 5. Eugene Onegin. Dramatic works. Leningrad, 1978 (in Russian).

49. Belinsky, V.G. Complete works: In 13 volumes. Vol. 10. Moscow, 1956 (in Russian).

50. Lichacev, D.S. The past is for the future. Articles and essays. Leningrad, 1985 (in Russian).

51. Ankersmit, F.R. “Historiography and postmodernism.” In Contemporary teaching methods of modern history. Moscow, 1996. Pp. 142–163 (Russian transl.)

52. Febvre, L. Combats pour l’histoire. Moscow, 1991 (Russian transl.)

53. Min'iar-Belorucheva, A.L. The language of the historian. Moscow, 2001 (in Russian).

54. Rakitov, A.I. Anatomy of scientific knowledge. Moscow, 1969 (in Russian).

55. Lotte, D.S. Some fundamental questions of selection and construction of scientific and technical terms. Moscow; Leningrad, 1941 (in Russian).

56. Savel'eva, I.M., Poletaev, A.V. Knowledge of the Past: Theory and History. Vol. 1: Construction of the past. St. Petersburg, 2003 (in Russian).

57. Lem, S. Dzienniki gwiazdowe. Podroz czternasta. Moscow, 1994 (Russian transl.)

58. Smolensky, N.I. “Rational and emotional in the language of the historian.” Istoricheskie Zapiski 2 (1999). Pp. 137–148 (in Russian).

59. Rickert, H. Die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung. St. Petersburg, 1997 (Russian transl.)

60. Lobacevskij, N.I. Scientific and pedagogical heritage. Governance of Kazan University. Fragments. Letters. Moscow, 1976 (in Russian).

61. Lapteva, M.P. Theory and methodology of history: a course of lectures. Perm, 2006 (in Russian).

62. Kung, G. Ontology and the Logistic Analysis of Language. Moscow, 1999 (Russian transl.)

63. Asimov, I. Words of Science and the History behind Them. Moscow, 1985 (Russian transl.)

64. Ozhegov, S.I. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. Moscow, 2003 (in Russian).

65. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow, 1990 (in Russian).

66. Theory and methodology of historical science. Terminological dictionary. Moscow, 2014 (in Russian).

67. Repina, L.P., Zvereva, V.V., Paramonova, M.Y. History of historical knowledge. Moscow, 2004 (in Russian).

68. Bocharov, A.V. Basic methods of historical research: Textbook. Tomsk, 2006 (in Russian).

69. Mazur, L.N. Methods of historical research: Textbook. Ekaterinburg, 2010 (in Russian).

70. Savel'eva, I.M., Poletaev, A.V. The theory of historical knowledge: Textbook. St. Petersburg, 2007 (in Russian).

71. Digesta Iustiniani. Vol. VII, 2. Moscow, 2005 (Russian transl.)

72. Herzen, A.I. Collected Works. Vol. 8. Moscow, 1956 (in Russian).