Language of a historian as a condition of application of discontact method to the reality

It is necessary to note that the language of a historian, as amatter of fact, is a tautological concept, first of all, due to the deep historicity of the language. So, language and history both equallyrepresent some kind of space of crossing and categorization, supposing their mutual interconditionality. Therefore, it is not surprisingthat in the moment of using one of them, for example, language, the other space - history - is imposed on the first as an original background,always acting as the experience of language. However, it soon becomes clear, that such experience never becomes the momentof achievement of independence from language, but will always be shown only as a next stroke of language showing existential ascertainingimmanent cognitive intentionality, therefore, the experience of language is always cognitive experience adjusted for acquiringknowledge. It causes the analytical opinion on a situation of acceptable contact of ideas and experience eexceptionally as language modelsof interaction of Rorty, which becomes the result of application to the reality. It is also the necessity of recognition of such state ofaffairs generating the corresponding method of the historical application to the reality only by means of use of language means by ahistorian. The given position equally concerns the space of art criticism, oriented to the analytical method application to the matter of artby the analysis of texts revealing the contextual level, which, in the opinion of art critics, is capable of discovering the mysterious nichewith certain sacral knowledge directly concerning this or that kind of art. But language of a critic, as well as language of a historian, isnot capable to release art analyst from that internal break which is characteristic for the interrelation of experience and language. Accordingto Ankersmit, such a connection does not exist at all, for where there is experience, there is no language, and reversely. Thus,the space of the personal opposition of experience and language cannot be eased by anyone or anything (transcendentalism, antitranscendentalism,post-transcendentalism, pseudo-language space of Gadamer as a space of historical interpretation of the text (derWirkungsgeschichte), rhetorical space of Kellner, post-structural concept of intertextuality of Barthes, deconstructivism of Derrida),hence, it is possible to conclude that on behalf of the historian we actually have confirmation and demonstration of the application of thediscontact method to the reality.

Keywords

Authors

References