The subject of cognition as a demarcation criterion of the historical myth and historical science

From ancient times philosophers made attempts to release the scientific knowledge from myth formations, ideological influences and so on, that is, to solve the problem of demarcation of scientific and extra-scientific knowledge. But these attempts were not successful. Therefore, the search for criteria of demarcation may be more successful in the allocation of specific areas of scientific and extra-scientific knowledge, which have common grounds. In this case, they are the science of history and historical myth. Searching for the criteria, the researchers paid much attention, first of all, to the subject of science, the peculiarities of cognition, etc., but not for the characteristics of the subject. We may suppose that the questions of who participates in the process of cognition, what they expect to get and what they really get are very important for solving this problem. Historical study, due to the specification of the subject of history, the complexity of the subject sphere, requires a special approach. Moreover, it includes the diversity of views on the object of historical knowledge. But, despite this, the subject, in different degrees, is opposed to the object. The role of the subject of the science of history, therefore, is determined by its relationship with historical reality. In historical myth such an opposition arises only in case if the mythological reality is not considered to be true, that is, it is studied or created. Both historical science and historical myth are characterized by the multi-level character of the subject, but in totally different meanings. The complexity of the subject of historical science is caused by the peculiarity of the object and the need for a more careful study of essential relations. When considering the subject of historical science in relation to the text, the author and the interpreter are noted, first of all. The status of the author and the interpreter is conditional. The author can be the interpreter, and vice versa. Different types of text are presented by eyewitnesses, archaeologists, interpreters of sources, interpreters of interpreters. Classification of subjects can also be conducted in terms of volume and depth of historical reality study (the historian and the philosopher). In historical myth, where the aim of the subject is glorification of the national or ethnic history, the complexity of the subject is connected with the confrontation between the outer and the inner, that is, with the acceptance of myth as reality, on the one hand, and the myth itself, on the other. The myth as a myth exists for those who do not accept it as a reality, consider it inadequate to reality. Accordingly, for those who accept myths, myth is a reality, and its cognition reveals the truth - the reflection of this reality. Thus, the subject of historical myth is the myth creator, on the one hand, and the myth ''carrier'', on the other. This distinction seems to be a rather strong criterion of demarcation of historical myth and historical science.

Keywords

Authors

References