The authors consider the problem of the disciplinary status of linguistic (narrative) philosophy of history. The problem is examined in the context of analysis of its basic assumptions, which have been described in the works of A. Danto and F. R. Ankersmit. This philosophical tradition mainly developed in the first half of the twentieth century as a reaction to the impossibility of empirical verification of the scientific adequacy of the theoretical concepts of the regularities of historical development, which were established within the classic philosophy of history. Rejection of the gnosiological problematics lies on the basis of linguistic (narrative) philosophy of history. Also the notion of a fact is replaced by the notion of interpretation of a fact on the basis of narrative. The study of meanings and values of these narratives is based on language as the ontological Foundation of consciousness.According to A. Danto the scientific failure of the theory (concept) of the historical process lies in the impossibility of assessment by the researcher of the entire length of the process, especially of the stage of completion (the «end of history»). The observer does not know the final result of the whole process. Therefore, the observer can not estimate the value and meaning both of a process as a whole and its individual stages. Thus, the conclusion is that the history as a series of past events cannot be the subject of the philosophy of history. Only the interpretation of history in the philosophical studies and narrative representations can be the subject of the philosophy of history.According to F. G. Ankersmit «past» and «history» by themselves do not have narrative structure. The researcher also doesn’t have a set of rules of language translation of the past into the language of modernity. These rules would allow to compare the historical narrative with the «past».Thus, in the context of linguistic tradition the «philosophy of history» transforms into the «theory of historical narrative». This theory only logically analyzes the existing historiographical narrative. In fact, this position does not replace the basic methodological approach of classical philosophy of history to the study of reality (a theory based on the uncertainty of the outcome of the process). Only the subject of study is changed: the historical process is replaced by a historical narrative (not the source of the study of history but its interpretation).This approach can be used for the formation of historical consciousness, but it is unsuitable for real historical research. At the same time in the frames of classical philosophy of history a series of methodologies have been recently created. These methodologies allow to use empirical research methods and build it on the basis of concepts. These concepts find a complete confirmation with the help of an independent group of historical sources. So, today, as a result of repeated empirical evidence the concepts of cliometrics, revolutionary crises, and historical development as a result of adaptation of society to changing conditions of existence are finally created. These concepts were developed on the basis of the methodology of historical materialism. At the same time a linguistic (narrative) philosophical tradition only explains the basic foundation of own methodology and criticizes the methods of the opponents. Predictive capability of the methodology of narrative philosophy of history doesn’t enable to adequately use it in a real historical research, although this methodology has been successfully used for the formation of a historical consciousness, including professional surrounding. Therefore, at the present stage of development of the philosophy of history, linguistic tradition as the methodology of the research is much less promising than the methods developed on the basis of classical historical materialism.
ФІЛОСОФІЯ ІСТОРІЇ В КОНТЕКСТІ ЛІНГВІСТИЧНОЇ (НАРАТИВНОЇ) ФІЛОСОФСЬКОЇ ТРАДИЦІЇ
