Abstract
There is evidently no requirement so persistently repeated by theoretical sociology when cognitive functions of historical scholarship are under discussion as requirement that latter adhere to reflecting reality it studies. (1) Of itself this requirement is entirely proper, for such fact is specific nature of historical knowledge. (2) The only question is what this definition means language of epistemology and logic of discipline ? What knowledge deserves to be denoted as concrete? Are notions concreteness and factography equivalent insofar as historical knowledge is concerned? Finally, what cross-section (level) of historical actuality has to be studied and what way must it be reproduced a historical investigation for results to correspond to this requirement, i.e., for subject to be presented in all its concreteness? These are questions united within confines of applied method of historical science known as the ...
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call