Home – Home – Jornals – Philosophy of Sciences 2024 number 5S

The work presents the problem space of methodological work devoted to historical and philosophical research. The author, on the one hand, gives a short overview of the various foundations that are laid out by certain authors involved in the history of philosophy, on the other hand, he makes an attempt to show in general the entire architectonics of methodological approaches to the history of philosophy. The first part of the article is devoted to the so-called historical topic. The author shows that in general, if we are talking about the history of philosophy, then the topic of the historical requires a separate analysis. The author identifies in the historical topic positions, tops, according to which certain aspects of the historical are singled out - these are such as an event, a witness-participant of an event, a storyteller, a historian, a historiographer, a philosopher (methodologist) of history, the idea of history. Depending on through which top the topic of history is viewed, depending on this, the history of philosophy will look different and be viewed from different positions. The second part of the work is devoted to highlighting two directions of historical and philosophical research - contextualist and appropriationist (appropriating) approaches. Based on a review of existing works, the article discusses the extremes and transformed forms of these approaches, which consist in the fact that either the historian of philosophy goes into the antiquarian-museum genre of the history of philosophy, turning this or a philosophical work into a dead artifact (text), or appropriates the work of a philosopher for the sake of current problems on the modern agenda. The work makes an attempt to overcome the extremes of transformed forms of historical and philosophical research by bringing the position of the historian of philosophy into a metaplan, according to which it is necessary to understand not so much the context of a particular work, not so much the response to the modern agenda, but rather the source that was the basis for the precedent of philosophizing. No historical context in itself and no modern agenda can answer the question - what served as the secret of the creation of this or that philosophical work. But it is precisely the understanding of the source of a philosophical work that makes it possible to understand the act itself, the precedent of philosophizing as it is, without resorting in transformed forms.