SECTION I BASIS OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE

The value of studying history. One can cite many sayings of great people about the benefits of studying history. The famous Roman orator Cicero called history the teacher of life. Similar ideas were expressed by many other prominent figures. Thus, the Spanish writer Miguel Cervantes noted that history is a treasury of our deeds, a witness of the past and a lesson for the present, a warning for the future, and the Russian writer Leonid Andreev argued: “To go forward, look back more often, because otherwise you will forget where you came from and where you need to go."

The above and many other similar statements emphasize the idea that knowledge of the past helps to better understand the present and even foresee the future. Indeed, despite all the differences between the present and even the very recent past, it is easy to see that much in the life of mankind has remained unchanged since its appearance on Earth.

People have always sought to improve their lives and the lives of their children, and for this they always had to work using natural resources. They interacted with each other, uniting in various communities. Between these communities (tribes, nationalities, states, social groups) clashes often occurred and at the same time there were mutually beneficial ties and cooperation. Since ancient times, man has been trying to realize his place in the world, therefore, problems related to spiritual life (religion, culture) were of great importance in his life.

All spheres of life of human society have their own patterns, which are studied by historical science. Having considered the effect of these patterns in the past, we can use them in the modern world. The Russian philosopher Arseniy Gulyga believed that history is a school of behavior and in the past people are looking for and finding the right examples. In his opinion, the experience of history is a true guide, which is often used unconsciously. This is how individuals and entire nations behave.

True, there is another well-known aphorism: "History teaches that it teaches nothing." New generations of people often make the same mistakes as their predecessors. Perhaps this happens because of the feeling of superiority of each new generation: after all, people in the past did not know much of what any modern person knows. But we must remember that people at all times have solved problems (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) no less complex than those facing modern humanity.

On the other hand, the failure to use the "lessons of history" is also due to insufficient knowledge of this science. That is why the study of history is important for every person, regardless of his profession.

The problem of reliability of historical knowledge. Many big and small events have happened and are happening in the world. First of all, they need to be ranked in order of importance. Here begins the work of a historian who knows how to consider events as links in a certain chain stretching from the past to the present.

In history, unlike many other sciences, there is an "Achilles heel": the object of historical science - the past - can be called an unreal reality. The correctness of our knowledge of what was before is very difficult to verify. Experiments, experiments to confirm theories and hypotheses (as happens in other sciences) in history are largely unfeasible. Is it possible to be sure of the truth of our ideas about the past, and if we go even further, of the possibility of knowing history in general?

Historical science has accumulated a rich arsenal of techniques and methods that make it possible to make our knowledge about the past as a whole provable, verifiable and consistent.

Of course, the historian does not consider it possible to reveal "the whole truth" about the event he is studying. But the same applies to any other, even the most exact science. After all, the world is endless, and the process of its knowledge is endless. There are heated disputes between historians on a variety of issues. Sometimes discoveries are made that fundamentally change established concepts. However, now few people will deny a number of firmly established facts and assessments of the past. It is these facts and assessments that form the basis of educational literature on history.

Historical sources and the main methods of the historian's work. The most important problem of historical science is the problem of sources. In the most general terms, historical sources can be called all the remnants of past historical writing, up to very recent times, the role of archaeological materials is very large (for example, for the study of the Great Patriotic War, important data is obtained through the search for weapons and military equipment, the remains of soldiers in battlefields). At present, scientific archaeological excavations are carried out subject to strict rules: after all, often the most important information is provided not only by the things found, but also, for example, by their relative position. closely related to archeology. anthropology, which, according to the remains of people, as a rule, extracted by archaeologists, recreates the appearance of a person. Anthropology is especially important in recreating the history of the emergence and settlement of peoples. These questions are among the most important for historical linguistics(linguistics), studying the origin and development of ancient and modern languages. Part of linguistics are onomastics(science of names), toponymy(science of geographical names). The most valuable information for historians is provided by the coins that he studies numismatics. Coats of arms explores heraldry, printing - sphragistics. In the study of history, an important place is given to ethnography. The customs and traditions, occupations and way of life of peoples, for various reasons, remained on

transitional stages of development, help in recreating the past of all mankind. Some ancient customs and traditions have been preserved among quite civilized peoples, which is also the object of study by ethnographers. Important and sometimes unique information about the past is contained in legends, legends, fairy tales of the peoples of the world. Studying these sources folklore makes a huge contribution to historical science. As mankind develops, the number of historical sources increases. In the XIX-beginning of the XX century. such of them as photographs, sound recordings, newsreels arose in the second half of the 20th century. electronic documents have appeared. All this expands the possibilities of historical research. The purpose of studying historical sources is to extract the facts necessary to solve the problem under study. Thus, the work of the historian begins with the formulation of the question to which the scientist wants to find an answer. In this regard, any scientific work on history begins with a review of scientific literature. (historiography), which reveals the solved and unsolved problems and contradictions of former researchers. The historian also evaluates the possibility of solving the problem posed and, above all, the presence of remains includes both everything consciously created by people, and everything that appeared independently of their consciousness (for example, the remains of the people themselves). The source is also the "past in the present", for example, the languages ​​that arose in antiquity, which are now spoken by the peoples of the world, customs and traditions, geographical names, etc.

The historian, when studying a topic, seeks to draw on as wide a range of sources as possible. When classifying sources, their origin, form and content are taken into account. Most often, sources are divided according to their form into seven types:

1) written;

2) real;

3) ethnographic;

4) oral (folklore);

5) linguistic;

6) film and photographic documents;

7) phono documents.

It is clear that many sources are difficult to attribute to any one species. For example, coins are both material and written sources. The form of the source largely determines the methods of working with it. There are a number of so-called auxiliary historical disciplines that study certain types of sources.

So, when working with written sources, one cannot do without paleography- a science that studies the external features of handwritten and printed sources in their historical development (writing signs, features of their graphics, handwriting, writing material, etc.). When examining ancient written sources that have come down to us, as a rule, in several lists with some differences, historians use textology- an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the relationship of various lists, revealing their original form.

Historians obtain the most extensive information about the past from written sources. However, they must be read. The oldest written documents are about 5 thousand years old. Many of them are written either in languages ​​that are now dead or in ancient forms of modern languages.

A number of dead languages ​​were never forgotten (Latin, Ancient Greek), others were deciphered in the 19th-20th centuries. (Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, the language of the Mayan people, etc.), and some have not yet been solved (for example, Elamite, Etruscan).

A significant part of material sources was obtained with the help of archeology. Our information about the history of peoples before the appearance of writing in them is mainly based on the data of archaeological excavations. Yes, and for the period after the invention

To solve the problem posed, the historian draws on facts gleaned from sources. When selecting facts, assessing their significance, their interpretation, the scientist relies on his theoretical ideas. Among them, the methodology used by the historian, firmly established scientific conclusions regarding the problem under consideration, information from other sciences that help to understand the historical problem under study, general cultural ideas and, finally, everyday life observations, which often allow you to immediately assess, for example, are reliable or the information contained in the source is unreliable. Thus, the process of historical research combines work with sources and the use of theoretical knowledge. It is in this way that the historian can reveal the patterns of historical development.

History largely determines the vector of development of the future: the one who controls the past controls the present and the future. There is an opinion that history is the most politicized science. And this opinion has the right to exist, because each previous era denies the other, as a result, history is adjusted taking into account the demands of time.

Historical knowledge covers several millennia, and if the understanding of the most ancient world is based on dilapidated sources, archaeological excavations, assumptions and hypotheses, then the basis of modern history is facts, events, documents, statistics and human evidence.

If we consider facts as fragments of reality, we can understand that in themselves they say nothing. For historical knowledge, the fact is the basis, and only a historian can give the fact the meaning that certain ideological and theoretical views require. Therefore, one and the same fact in historical practice can have a different vision. Thus, the interpretation that stands between the fact and its understanding by historical science is important.

Historical schools and the subject of their research

The very subject of historical science is defined ambiguously. On the one hand, the subject of history is political, economic, demographic history, as well as the history of a particular place - a village, city, country, sometimes the history of a separate unit of society - a person, family, clan.

Modern historical schools have up to thirty definitions of the subject of history (in the scientific sense). As a rule, the subject of history is determined by the worldview of the historian, his philosophical and ideological convictions. Therefore, one should not look for objectivity in history, the support in its understanding should be one's own understanding of the processes, independent work with facts and sources, as well as critical thinking.

Historians-materialists are of the opinion that history studies the patterns of development of society, which depend on material goods and the methods of their production. In other words, from the point of view of materialism, history is based on economic relations, and with the help of society, the reasons for the development or non-development of these relations are determined.

At the heart of the liberal understanding is the belief that the subject is specifically a person (his personality), through which his natural rights are realized. That is, history, according to liberal historians, studies people in time.

History is a science that studies the features of human activity in the past. It makes it possible to determine the causes of events that took place long before us and in our day. Associated with a large number of social disciplines.

History as a science has existed for at least 2500 years. Its founder is considered the Greek scientist and chronicler Herodotus. In ancient times, this science was valued and considered to be the "teacher of life." In ancient Greece, she was patronized by the goddess Clio herself, who was engaged in the glorification of people and gods.

History is not just a statement of what happened hundreds and thousands of years ago. It is not even only the study of processes and events that took place in the past. In fact, its purpose is more and deeper. It does not allow conscious people to forget the past, but all this knowledge is applicable in the present and future. This is a storehouse of ancient wisdom, as well as knowledge of sociology, military affairs, and much more. To forget the past means to forget one's culture, heritage. Also, mistakes that have ever been made should not be forgotten, so as not to repeat them in the present and future.

The word "history" is translated as "investigation". This is a very appropriate definition.

borrowed from Greek. History as a science investigates the causes of events that took place, as well as their consequences. But this definition still does not reflect the whole point. The second meaning of this term can be perceived as "a story about what happened in the past."

History as a science experienced a new upsurge in the Renaissance. In particular, the philosopher Krug finally determined her place in the system of teachings. A little later, it was corrected by the French thinker Naville. He divided all the sciences into three groups, one of which he called “History”; it was supposed to include botany, zoology, astronomy, as well as history itself as a science of the past and heritage of mankind. Over time, this classification has undergone some changes.

History as a science is concrete, it requires the presence of facts, dates attached to them, the chronology of events. However, it is closely related to a large number of other disciplines. Naturally, among the latter was psychology. In the last and the century before last, theories were developed about the development of countries and peoples, taking into account the "public consciousness" and other similar phenomena. The well-known Sigmund Freud also contributed to such doctrines. As a result of these studies, a new term appeared - psychohistory. The science expressed by this concept was to study the motivation of the actions of individuals in the past.

History is connected with politics. That is why it can be interpreted biasedly, embellishing and painting some events and carefully hushing up others. Unfortunately, in this case, all its value is leveled.

History as a science has four main functions: cognitive, ideological, educational and practical. The first gives the sum of information about events and epochs. The ideological function involves understanding the events of the past. The essence of the practical is in understanding some objective historical processes, "learning from the mistakes of others" and refraining from subjective decisions. The educational function involves the formation of patriotism, morality, as well as a sense of consciousness and duty to society.

"History is the teacher of life." Cicero

“You can not know, not feel an attraction to the study of mathematics, Greek and Latin languages, chemistry, you can not know thousands of sciences, and still be an educated person; but only a person who is completely mentally undeveloped can not love history. N.G. Chernyshevsky.

“We know only one single science - the science of history” K. Marx, F. Engels

“The rapid accumulation of knowledge acquired with too little independent participation is not very fruitful ...

On the contrary, what a person must reach with his mind leaves a trace in his mind that he can follow under other circumstances. G.K. Lichtenberg

The statement of N.G. Chernyshevsky does not give and does not presuppose a definition of the subject of history. The author proceeds from his other conviction: “no matter how sublime the spectacle of celestial bodies, no matter how delightful the majestic or charming pictures of nature,” he concluded, “man is more important, most interesting for man. Therefore, no matter how high the interest aroused by astronomy, no matter how attractive the natural sciences, the most important, fundamental science remains and will remain the science of man ”- in this case, history is thought of as the most important of the social sciences, although man is also a product of nature.

In the world for many centuries there has been a struggle between two principles: the priority of the public or the private. Despots and dictators speculated on the "public interests", while the "sovereignty of the individual" led and is leading to a war of all against all, and ultimately, paradoxically, to the destruction of the individual himself. Chernyshevsky, apparently, took for granted the understanding of the social nature of the essence of man: the essence of man is the refraction in him of the totality of social relations. In this he differs from the animal world, and, as a rule, the destruction of society leads to the destruction of man as a social being. The ancient Romans, asserting the priority of the public, proceeded from the fact that, by their biological nature, “man is a wolf to man” (“Homo homini - lupus est”). The English philosophers of the 17th century T. Hobbes and (partly) D. Locke proceeded from the same, insisting on the priority of the state, whose task is to contain the natural vices of the individual.

The complex of social sciences is philosophy and sociology, linguistics and ethnography, literary criticism and art criticism, jurisprudence, economics, and a number of other more specific sciences. The word "history" is combined with all of them as a separate branch of this or that science. But the meaning of this designation most often comes down only to chronology, and therefore history as a science remains outside the scope of study. On the other hand, the science of history makes use of the materials of all the listed and many unnamed sciences. But the fruitfulness of such borrowings largely, if not mainly, depends on the definition of the very subject of the science of history. The definition of the subject is the basis of self-consciousness and the most important link in the methodology of any science.

There are dozens of definitions of the subject of history in the literature. This inconsistency also permeates the textbooks. At the same time, the definition of history as "the science of the past" is most common. But the object of study and the subject are essentially different concepts. History does not study the "past" as such: this is both impossible and unnecessary. The subject of any science is one or another regularity. Obviously, the subject of the science of history can only be the laws of the development of society, naturally, taking into account the influence of natural conditions and their changes in space and time.

Diversity in literature stems from following one or another philosophical school. The confusion of object and subject is characteristic of positivism - the most widespread trend in science so far and the most ordinary worldview, focused on the "sovereignty of the individual." Positivism (“positive knowledge”) bases research on facts understood as direct indications of sources. As a result, history is generally excluded from the number of sciences that are looking for any regularities.

At the end of the 19th century, neo-Kantianism (named after I. Kant, the founder of German classical idealism) became a definite alternative to positivism. Unlike positivism, neo-Kantianism paid significant attention to the method of cognition, as well as to the value approach. But this method itself was based on the age-old practice of positivism, and the elements of dialectics characteristic of Kant were lost. In addition, many important problems were closed as "unknowable". And they really became unknowable within the framework of the chosen method.

In philosophical literature, positivism and neo-Kantianism are characterized as varieties of "subjective idealism" (in contrast to the "objective idealism" of Hegel and his followers). Strange as it may seem, “subjective idealism” prevailed in the social sciences and politics of the Soviet period, including works on Russian history, although in words in these works we find oaths of “fidelity to dialectical materialism.”

Positivism and non-Kantianism dominated Russian historical science in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A variety of positivism (“Machism”) was promoted at the beginning of the century by A.A. Bogdanov (Malinovsky) and a number of other social democrats (including future members of the Politburo of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks). Neo-Kantianism also attracted the attention of socio-political figures (namely, attention to value systems). Neo-Kantians were "legal Marxists" and many members of the Second International.

Positivism and neo-Kantianism were opposed by dialectical logic in the Hegelian (idealistic) and Marxist (dialectical materialism) variants. A special place was occupied and occupied by Christian dialectics, which focuses on the value content of the issue under study.

The dialectical approach provides the most complete knowledge of the patterns of historical development. Dialectical logic in the Hegelian (idealistic) and Marxist (dialectical materialism) versions opposed both positivism and neo-Kantianism from the very beginning. A special place was occupied and occupied by Christian dialectics, which focuses on the value content of the issue under study.

The essence of dialectics as a logic and method of cognition is quite simple: the world is initially contradictory, everything in the world is in constant change and development, and everything in the world is interconnected and interdependent. Within the framework of dialectics, the fundamental cognizability of an objective, existing reality outside of us is recognized, but the achieved knowledge is considered relative - the infinity of the world presupposes the infinity of cognition.

The study of history on the basis of the dialectical method is impossible without turning to sociology.

The subject of sociology is the study of the relationship between different aspects of the social organism, as well as - no less important - the interaction of social being and social consciousness. Historical and sociological laws are closely intertwined and practically one does not exist without the other. Often the same law appears in both capacities. At one time, V.N. Tatishchev discovered the historical law: "crafts are the cause of cities." But it is also a sociological law expressing the relationship between craft and the city as a form of organization. Similarly, the emergence of classes gives rise to the state, and the state is the form corresponding to a society split into opposing classes. Tribal and territorial communities are social organisms studied by sociology. But the transition from the first to the second is a historical pattern. At the same time, the diversity and inconsistency of the manifestation of regularity is already visible from the fact that the transition from one stage to another among peoples takes place not only at different times (from the Bronze Age to our century), but also at different stages of economic development.

It is necessary for the historian to actively master the achievements of sociology, and it is equally important for sociologists to take into account the achievements of historical science. The historian constantly has to turn to sociology, transferring the methods and principles of this science to different epochs under study, and the sociologist will not understand the essence of interconnections and interdependencies without understanding their origin. The difficulty lies in the need to process a huge historical, philosophical and factual material. Only under this condition, the above postulates of dialectics will be a reliable methodological foundation.

The works of positivist historians most often suffer from descriptiveness. They are useful as a summary of certain source and factual material. But the facts in them usually do not lead to an understanding of the processes and patterns of development, especially since such a task is most often not posed in positivism. Positivists also avoid evaluations, considering evaluations as a sign of subjectivism. In fact, it is precisely the rejection of value systems that leads to subjectivism: the author involuntarily pursues his views without giving them any justification anywhere.

It should also be borne in mind that the concept of "fact" in positivism and dialectical materialism (as well as in other forms of dialectical methodology) has a different content. In positivism, a "fact" is something directly tangible: a thing, a record in a source. “That which cannot be known cannot be the subject of science, as, for example, the world of essences, opposite to the world of phenomena,” wrote the famous Russian historian N.I. Kareev. According to the author, "what constitutes the subject of history does not go beyond the world of phenomena." And in dialectics, a “fact” is both a certain process and connections between different aspects of the social organism, including the global problem of the natural interconnection of social being and social consciousness. Moreover, it is precisely the search for certain connections and patterns that is usually the research problem of dialectic historians.

Since any historical research is based on a certain range of sources, there is a significant difference in understanding the subject of source study. In positivist works (including textbooks) a simple description of the sources is usually given (with descriptions of the holdings, the appearance of the manuscripts, etc., which are useful in themselves). In dialectics, the center of gravity is transferred to the patterns of deposition of sources and the reflection of objective reality in them. In other words, not only does the source provide information about the era, but the era - according to other sources and as a link in the development process - helps to understand the source. And special attention must be paid to discrepancies in the sources, since they often have major political events and conflicts behind them.

Many discussions of the last two centuries are connected precisely with different understandings of the essence of the sources involved. Russian chronicle X - XVII centuries. - a unique phenomenon in world history and culture. But in the practice of research, the "Shlozer" approach, which goes back to the work of A. Schlozer of the late 18th - early 19th centuries, about "Nestor" has not yet become obsolete: the idea of ​​chronicle writing as a single "tree". This is how chronicle writing was understood by one of its most authoritative researchers, A.A. Shakhmatov (1864 - 1920), who for many years tried to reconstruct this original "tree" and only at the end of his life realized that such a "tree" simply could not exist. Chronicle-writing is both ideology and politics, and the inevitable struggle of interests. And this also implies the tendentiousness of the chroniclers, who defend the interests of the prince, the city, the monastery, and the direct destruction of information that is undesirable for someone. A vivid example of a two-century delusion is the bullying and even persecution of the first Russian historian, V.N. Tatishchev (1686 - 1750). Until very recently, he was accused of falsification on the grounds that his "History" contains a large amount of information that is not in the Laurentian and Ipatiev Chronicles, according to which the "Tale of Bygone Years" is usually published as the first chronicle monument. But Tatishchev did not know either one or the other chronicle, but on the other hand, he had other chronicles at his disposal, which gave a different interpretation of many events, and he quite professionally presented them in his work. Tatishchev had practically no access to the central book depositories, and on the outskirts, where he had to work, a unique manuscript could be bought on the market. The keepers of manuscript collections were usually schismatics, and one of its main sources is the "Schismatic Chronicle", close to the "Ipatievskaya", but clearly preceding it. Another unique source is the Rostov Chronicle, which Tatishchev presented to the English Academic Assembly, and it either disappeared or has not yet been found. Unfortunately, other sources used by Tatishchev have not come down to us. history social science dialectic

One should also take into account the fact that most of the surviving chronicles are collections of various materials, including previous chronicles. The compilers of the later collections combined different materials either to satisfy their own curiosity, or by rewriting them on someone else's order. Very often they edited the texts of the ancient manuscripts they had at their disposal. But no less often the compilers of the codes transferred the most ancient information word for word into their manuscripts. In practice, this meant that in later manuscripts - annalistic collections - more reliable and early materials could be preserved than in the earliest manuscripts. Thus, the oldest Novgorod chronicles report almost nothing about the time of Yaroslav the Wise. And in the vaults of the 15th century, some kind of Novgorod source is used, which the oldest chronicles do not know.

The same reasons for the controversy surrounding the Tale of Igor's Campaign. The poem contains completely different information than in the chronicles known to us. And on this basis, some authors declared a masterpiece of world literature a fake. And it is necessary to explain on what sources, and within what traditions this poetic creation was created. The poem clearly relied on the oral poetic tradition, which is generally poorly reflected in the annals because of its pagan coloring, and it is focused on events in the Black Sea region (the “Word” does not know either Rurik or the god Perun).

Actual material is easier to perceive: it usually records the specific practice of legal proceedings and awards. But even in this case, it is necessary to take into account the territorial and chronological scope of the operation of certain regulations. Awards in the era of feudalism are focused on certain territories, and the "Earth" for the most part continued to live according to its traditional rules, following the so-called "common law".

The most important problem for every researcher is history and modernity. Even the Roman thinker Cicero emphasized the practical benefits of history. N.G. Chernyshevsky pointed out, first of all, the importance of history for the education of a citizen of the Fatherland. Soviet historian M.N. Pokrovsky in the 20s of the 20th century generally used the formula: "history is politics overturned into the past." Now, on the one hand, history is being attacked (as, indeed, in the 1920s, when Pokrovsky was especially popular) as an unnecessary and even harmful subject that should be excluded from school curricula. On the other hand, the book market is filled with absolutely fantastic materials and concepts based on nothing (for example, books by Fomenko and Nosovsky about the "new chronology of history", Asov's books about the "Russian Vedas", etc.).

Of course, all this has nothing to do with the science of history. But this indirectly affects the understanding of its importance for modernity. And ultimately, history is needed to understand the present, because all significant processes go into more or less distant past. It can be said that modernity cannot be understood without history. It is modernity that usually asks questions of history and historians. But it must be borne in mind that the acuteness of the problems increases the danger of drifting away from the truth towards the fulfillment of social orders. For society as a whole, only a true history, an explanation, including various kinds of negative processes, is needed. And true science is possible only with a true method.

The subject of the science of history is the patterns of development of the social organism. Patterns, of course, are revealed only in the analysis of more or less long periods of history.

The differences between the positivist and dialectical approaches are already manifested in the very definition of the subject of a particular study. In the positivist approach, research proceeds "from the source". The presence of a raw fund often proves to be a motive for choosing a topic of work, regardless of whether such research yields anything.

Within the framework of the dialectical method, research can only begin with a problem. The dialectic of cognition lies, first of all, in the fact that the researcher is included in the process, which began with the birth of humanity itself.

At one time, I. Kant formulated the thesis about "a priori", inexperienced knowledge, inherent in human consciousness. It was "apriorism" that evoked a particularly negative reaction from the positivists. In relatively recent literature, the nature of "apriorism" has been elucidated. This, in the words of the Polish scientist E. Topolsky, is “out of source” knowledge, knowledge inherited from past generations, and not always realized even by professional scientists. A variety of such knowledge is an artistic image and what is called intuition in science. Most often, “a priori” knowledge turns out to be in the sphere of theoretical and conceptual, and its explanation will require the involvement of related sciences, primarily sociology. "A priori" knowledge is a problem that has been passed down from past generations, perhaps very distant ones. And success in clarifying this knowledge will depend to a large extent on the formulation of the problem.

Social knowledge contains contradictions connected both with the inconsistency of the reality surrounding us and with the contradictions that arise or are discovered in the course of cognition. Both reality and cognition naturally give rise to more and more new problems, which, above all, stimulate the process of cognition. "Small volume", in which historians were rightly reproached by philosophers, is impossible if we are talking about the search for a solution to a question already posed by the previous development of science or by the contradictions of the reality that surrounds us.

The formulation of the question (in other words, the formulation of the problem) is the most important stage in any research. K. Marx's words that "the correct formulation of the question is its solution" is not an exaggeration. After the question has been formulated, the collection of facts is carried out much more economically and purposefully and new connections are discovered in long-known systems of facts. At the same time, any new knowledge immediately replenishes the stock of “out-of-source” knowledge, and it starts working from a higher level. Another thing is that it is possible to put a question correctly only after a thorough study of it.

Structurally, the introduction of the work usually opens with the designation of the topic - the object of study. A review of the work of predecessors reveals controversial issues. The emphasis is usually placed on those contradictions that the author intends to resolve or explain. And we must keep in mind that, as Goethe noted, between opposing opinions is not the truth, but the problem (truth may be generally outside these opinions). The review of the literature ends with the formulation of the problem. And then the writer explains on what source and non-source (theoretical, conceptual) material he intends to build his conclusions.

Historical knowledge presupposes only more or less meaningful memorization. Mastering science requires mandatory participation. Therefore, the study of history requires a clearly formulated system of values, which the researcher adheres to.

For example, until now one of the most important value concepts is the concept of progress. Usually, progress is associated only with the "development of the productive forces." But this is clearly not enough for a historical study of the life of society. Therefore, an addition is necessary: ​​the growth of the material goods of society. But society lives not only with material concerns. Moreover, the very essence of man, as the main element of history, implies the priority of spiritual values. Therefore, when we talk about progress, we should talk about the growth of the material and spiritual benefits of society.

Progress, obviously, must include the principle of social justice: the distribution of benefits according to real labor costs, according to the quantity and quality of labor. Humanity has not yet been able to achieve ideal social justice: in a classless society, its most energetic members are infringed upon, while in a class society, the exploitation of workers by employers is inevitable. But the humiliated and deprived have always fought for social justice, and the “world religions” brought to the fore exactly the principles of social justice understood in a certain way.

And finally, another important characteristic of progress is the provision of further development. It has long been known that what is earned is divided into three parts: to parents, children and oneself. But in different periods, society neglects this principle, wasting what was previously accumulated and spending those reserves that should be passed on to the next generations. Such a "consumer" approach, obviously, does not fit into the concept of "progress", even if for some time an increase in material wealth is achieved.

It is easy to see that in no era will we find the realization of the four named requirements for the essence of progress in their totality. There is always something missing. In general, each specific society is interested in progress, but there are always forces that are not interested in it, since "there will be enough for their lifetime." Therefore, progress always exists as a trend. It is from the point of view of this trend that one should evaluate the activities of historical characters, the essence of certain historical events, periods of development in history, and so on.

Of course, the system of values ​​is also a problem, the solution of which depends on the chosen methodology, on moral principles. Not without reason, in historiography there are so many points of view on understanding the essence of progress.

Within the framework of this problem, the “principle of party spirit” was discussed not so long ago, which was most often understood not as a methodological, but as a political category. (Therefore, the phrase "scientific and party spirit" was often encountered). Meanwhile, this principle originated with the philosophers of the 17th-18th centuries. It was used by T. Hobbes, K. Lichtenberg, I. Kant, Hegel and others as a designation of public interest. In methodological terms, the principle of party membership is that social position that is focused on the search for truth and from which truth can be comprehended. And it is absolutely necessary that the researcher-social scientist, already when posing the problem of study, outlines his understanding of the system of values.

To the question What does history study as a science? Give a definition please. given by the author Nikita Schmakov the best answer is The very concept of "history" arose in ancient times. It means in translation from ancient Greek "the story of what is known." Since antiquity, the science of the past has become a relatively independent area of ​​human knowledge. It initially represented the basis of the worldview, without which the knowledge of the surrounding world and the human personality in it is impossible. Gradually, an idea was formed about the history of peoples and states as a connected sequence of major events. Even in ancient Greece and ancient Rome, the idea of ​​eternal change in nature and society was recognized, attention was paid to the consistent change in the forms of government, economic structures, mores and customs. At the same time, in Eastern philosophy, history was understood as an endless chain of transformations of human essence within the boundaries of one or another divine, cosmic and social unity. Historical science in its modern sense - as a research direction and academic discipline - developed much later. Currently, she shares world history, which studies the origin of man and his development, as well as the history of individual countries, peoples, civilizations from ancient times to the present day, including domestic history.
History as a science operates with precisely established facts. As in other sciences, in history there is an accumulation and discovery of new facts. These facts are extracted from historical sources. Historical sources are all remnants of a past life, all evidence of the past.
The past does not disappear, but continues to live in the accumulated experience of social life. Generalization and processing of accumulated human experience is the first task of history.
It is important that the life of people in time and space, called history, being the real being of social life, embraces all its manifestations, does not imply any arbitrary exceptions.
History as a science and an academic subject in the modern world: comparative characteristics
History has always been of great public interest. This interest is explained by the natural human need to know the history of their ancestors. In recent years, history as a science has been largely politicized and riddled with one-sided ideological dogmas. Many pages of history were reflected in literature one-sidedly, and sometimes distortedly, which left a certain imprint on the formation of the historical thinking of people, especially young people. Today we are moving away from these stereotypes and from everything that prevents historians from being extremely objective. At the same time, attention should be paid to the fact that today there are many cases when a number of researchers rush to the opposite extreme in assessing historical events, departing from historical objectivity, and see nothing in history but tragedies and mistakes. This approach is also far from an objective assessment of our past and present.
Historical science has accumulated extensive experience in the creation of works on history. Numerous works published in different years, both in our country and abroad, reflect the diverse spectrum and concepts of historical development, its relationship with the world historical process.
In every science, the subject of study is a system of certain objective regularities. History as a science is no exception. Its subject of study is the patterns of socio-economic and political development of the country and its peoples, the specific forms of which are manifested in historical events and facts.

Answer from Moon[guru]
person in space and time

Answer from Unknown Unknown[guru]
The science of the interaction of past events, what factors influenced them and what it all resulted in later .... Here, something like this 🙂
In general, history should be taught only because it allows you to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Answer from Kamil valeev[guru]
Studies the evolution of society.

Answer from YAr1K**[active]
the sphere of humanitarian knowledge, which deals with the study of a person (his activities, condition, worldview, social relations and organizations, etc.) in the past; in a narrower sense - a science that studies written sources about the past in order to establish the sequence of events, the objectivity of the facts described and draw conclusions about the causes of events. It is believed that people who do not know history tend to repeat the mistakes of the past.
The original meaning of the word "history" goes back to the ancient Greek term meaning "investigation, recognition, establishment." History was identified with the establishment of authenticity, the truth of events and facts. In ancient Roman historiography (historiography in the modern sense is a branch of historical science that studies its history), this word began to mean not a way of recognizing, but a story about the events of the past. Soon, “history” began to be called in general any story about any case, incident, real or fictional.
Nikolaos Gizis. Allegory of History, 1892
Stories that are popular in a particular culture but not corroborated by third-party sources, such as the Arthurian legends, are usually considered part of the cultural heritage, and not the "unbiased study" that any part of history as a scientific discipline should be.