On the paradoxes of the time of history

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY Filosofskii Zhurnal Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-2-127-143
Mariya M. Fedorova
{"title":"On the paradoxes of the time of history","authors":"Mariya M. Fedorova","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-2-127-143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is an attempt to comprehend the radical changes in the historical self-con­sciousness of the modern era and their impact on modern political practices. The position of the author is that our attitude to the time of history crystallizes deep transformations of the political sphere. It is shown that the historicity regime at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries is characterized by an orientation towards today’s needs and interests (so-called presentism) and at the same time increased attention to the past (“memorial revolution”), which, in the absence of major socio-political projects of the future, plays the role of a consolidating social factor. These changes required, on the one hand, significant efforts by historians to revise the methodological foundations of their science and, on the other hand, philosophical reflection on key historiosophical concepts and mean­ings. The most significant discussions concern, first of all, the concept of the past in its relation to the present, “modernity”. Understanding the ontological and epistemological foundations of these concepts has become today a “bone of contention” in building mod­ern political strategies and practices. The article demonstrates how the past from the con­cept of clear and self-evident, as it appeared within the framework of the historicist con­cepts of the Modern era, has become a philosophical and political problem in our days. There are two approaches to solving this problem. These are, firstly, those philosophers and historians who defend the modernist idea of the past as different in relation to the present, although they significantly modify it with the help of the idea of a “living past”. And secondly, those philosophers who defend the thesis about the “non-past” of the past and the continuation of its existence in the present. It is concluded that, with all the differ­ences, both types of concepts proceed from the concept of “living past”, which implies a non-linear and “multi-layered” understanding of historical time.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":"410 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-2-127-143","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is an attempt to comprehend the radical changes in the historical self-con­sciousness of the modern era and their impact on modern political practices. The position of the author is that our attitude to the time of history crystallizes deep transformations of the political sphere. It is shown that the historicity regime at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries is characterized by an orientation towards today’s needs and interests (so-called presentism) and at the same time increased attention to the past (“memorial revolution”), which, in the absence of major socio-political projects of the future, plays the role of a consolidating social factor. These changes required, on the one hand, significant efforts by historians to revise the methodological foundations of their science and, on the other hand, philosophical reflection on key historiosophical concepts and mean­ings. The most significant discussions concern, first of all, the concept of the past in its relation to the present, “modernity”. Understanding the ontological and epistemological foundations of these concepts has become today a “bone of contention” in building mod­ern political strategies and practices. The article demonstrates how the past from the con­cept of clear and self-evident, as it appeared within the framework of the historicist con­cepts of the Modern era, has become a philosophical and political problem in our days. There are two approaches to solving this problem. These are, firstly, those philosophers and historians who defend the modernist idea of the past as different in relation to the present, although they significantly modify it with the help of the idea of a “living past”. And secondly, those philosophers who defend the thesis about the “non-past” of the past and the continuation of its existence in the present. It is concluded that, with all the differ­ences, both types of concepts proceed from the concept of “living past”, which implies a non-linear and “multi-layered” understanding of historical time.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于历史时间的悖论
本文试图理解近代历史自我意识的剧烈变化及其对现代政治实践的影响。作者的立场是,我们对历史时代的态度体现了政治领域的深刻变革。它表明,在20 - 21世纪之交,历史性政权的特点是面向今天的需求和利益(所谓的现在主义),同时增加对过去的关注(“纪念革命”),在缺乏未来的重大社会政治项目的情况下,它起着巩固社会因素的作用。这些变化一方面需要历史学家努力修正其科学的方法论基础,另一方面需要对历史哲学的关键概念和意义进行哲学反思。最重要的讨论首先关注的是过去与现在的关系,即“现代性”。理解这些概念的本体论和认识论基础,已经成为当今构建现代政治战略和实践的“争论焦点”。本文论证了过去是如何从清晰和自明的概念出发,在现代历史主义概念的框架内出现的,在我们这个时代已经成为一个哲学和政治问题。有两种方法可以解决这个问题。首先,这些人是那些哲学家和历史学家,他们捍卫过去与现在不同的现代主义观念,尽管他们在“活的过去”观念的帮助下对其进行了重大修改。其次,那些捍卫过去的“非过去”和它在现在的存在的延续这一论点的哲学家。结论是,尽管存在种种差异,但这两种概念都是从“活的过去”的概念出发的,这意味着对历史时间的非线性和“多层次”理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Filosofskii Zhurnal
Filosofskii Zhurnal PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The problem of autocracy in the late Renaissance (La Boétie and Charron) The justification of morality and the justification of utilitarianism in Jeremy Bentham’s ethics Stratified reality in Francis Bradley’s idealism, its critics and a personalistic alternative Attention as a condition for moral responsibility A time to be silent and a time to speak: S. Kierkegaard’s “The Point of View for My Work as an Author”
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1