History/ 2. General History

S. A. Turezhanova, candidate of historical sciences ,associate professor history of Kazakhstan, Nurzhataeva G, student of the 4^th course, region study

Kostanay State University named after A.Baitursynov

CRISIS OF HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE BY THE SECOND

HALF OF 20TH CENTUARY OF THE EYELID AND V. DILTEY'S DOCTRINE

The second half of the 20th eyelid was characterized by active search of adequate sociohistorical reality of methodology of knowledge. The old, so-called classical paradigm of an explanation of the history, created by Hegel's theory, Kant and others thinkers of the past, did not satisfy because of the excessive abstractness of humanists scientists more and more. H1H of an eyelid created in 40 years Comte's calling for skilled knowledge of social reality sociology was attempt of overcoming of this crisis, in particular. Other paradigm which has been already directly turned to historical science, and connected with a name of the German scientist V. Diltey is less known at this time. The history acted during this period as mainly descriptive humanity reflecting events of the past in a chronological order. As means of treatment of historical events and the phenomena the explanation acted.

However the similar methodology of knowledge of history did not suit V. Diltey because, in his opinion, it considered specifics of object of social reality not enough. Diltya it agreed that an explanation as a learning tool of the phenomena of the nature quite legally. Objects of knowledge of the nature give in to generalization, identification of the main essential communications between subjects and therefore logically come to the end often with opening of laws of the nature. However and to it paid attention V. Diltya, the explanation as a learning tool of historical events is illegal. The history is an infinite chain of individual events which act unique, specific. Therefore to find and reveal the general communications between the phenomena an event and the more so to open laws in them it is impossible. From here Diltya drew basic character a conclusion on special specifics of the humanities which part is the history. These specifics, dictated other, than the nature, specific reality demand also other methodology of knowledge. Such methodology of knowledge of social reality, in particular stories, has to be, according to V. Diltey, understanding (1). The understanding acts at V. Diltya in quite wide plan. First of all, and the scientist paid attention to it, this means of penetration into thoughts, spiritual laboratory of the one who wrote texts about historical events of the past (2) mainly.

Speaking so, V. Diltya proceeded from the indisputable fact that all of us study history in texts (to contemporary records, chronicles, autobiographies and so forth). The researcher-historian, understanding thoughts, cogitative installations of the author of the text leaves to other threshold of understanding – direct participants of historical events, that forced them to work quite so that operated them.

Thus, the sense of understanding as studying of history consists in plunging in the investigated

V. Diltey's idea about understanding as means of studying of historical events in domestic methodology is unknown to much. For this reason it is not applied in historical researches. Meanwhile understanding as the methodological principle of knowledge and an explanation of historical events interesting to that it acts as a matter of fact as the requirement of historicism, the accounting of a concrete historical context of a studied event. It is necessary comprehensive investigation of value of creativity of V. Diltey for historical science.

THE LIST OF THE USED SOURCES:

1.Diltya V. creation of the historical world in sciences about spirit. - M.: 1921 . - 92 p.

2. Diltya V. descriptive psychology. M.: 1924 . - 74 pages.