- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
This is an extremely dubious statement, if only because history is much younger than philosophy, even if we try to talk about historians starting with Herodotus (and history will only really begin to become a science in the XIX century). And philosophy, in principle, as a form and instrument of cognition of the world, is the original foundation of science as a phenomenon. Any.
Another question is, if we talk about some specific philosophers and their concepts – there the reliance on history can be very clear, a vivid example is the same Marx. But this hardly applies to philosophy as a whole, as far as I (being a historian) imagine it.
Again, in our time, there is practically no longer any “pure” science — all kinds of interdisciplinary research and work are everywhere, all sciences are somehow intertwined, use each other's tools and provide them themselves. It seems to me that in the twenty — first century, it is impossible and, most importantly, unnecessary to try to establish such relations between the sciences.
These sciences (although not everyone considers both history and philosophy to be a science) are quite closely related: there is a philosophy of history, social philosophy, and political philosophy. These sections often take examples of situations from history. However, I would not call history the foundation of philosophy.
And here's why:
The “father” of history is Herodotus, who lived in the fifth century BC in the city of Halicarnassus. Prior to him, we find almost nothing about historical writings (although Umberto Eco used the term “logographer”, which is defined as ” a group of historians who worked before Herodotus).
And we can talk about philosophy at least from the appearance of the Milesian school, whose representatives lived in the VI century BC (and if we take the example of India and China, we will go deeper even earlier). So chronologically, history as a science appeared later than philosophy and could not be its foundation.
And the field of interests of philosophy is wider: this includes linguistics, semiotics, and ontology with epistemology. These sections are often not related to the history.
Philosophy is completely independent of history. Questions of philosophy are relevant here and now, and at the same time – always, at any moment in human history, because they stem from the specifics of human thinking, the specifics that remain largely unchanged throughout the historical process.
Yes, it is possible that some concepts could not have been created at a different time and place, but we do not need to know this time and place to understand the concepts themselves.
You don't need to know the history of antiquity to understand Socrates, and you don't need to know the history of the Middle Ages to understand Marx.
Due to the fact that history often uses concepts and concepts of other sciences, it is sometimes considered not an independent discipline, but a foundation, a source for philosophy/sociology/other social and humanitarian sciences. Now this is more often disagreed with. Using someone else's conceptual framework does not make history less of a full-fledged science. Historians have their own methods and techniques, and their work is interesting and necessary even without any connection with philosophy. And philosophy, as far as I understand it, does just fine without an empirical foundation from historians.
It is not. Philosophy and History are two separate subjects. In most cases, they are not connected in any way.
I believe that the foundation of philosophy is a worldview.
The foundation of philosophy is a person's ability to think. And already on this foundation, logical , analytical, research, cognitive and other constructions are built.
History is, on the one hand, a sequence of events in the past. We mean facts that are beyond the control of human consciousness. On the other hand, it is the interpretation of social events and social phenomena. And in this sense, history is politics. This is a policy reversed.
To a certain extent, philosophy is no stranger to politics. Or rather, politics draws on philosophy for its justification.
Thus, any area of intelligent human activity ( including, if not primarily, science) will be significantly affected by human nature. And it, alas, is still imperfect.
The correlation of different disciplines or sciences is a subjective thing, since this division or subdivision occurs in the individual human mind, which is as diverse in quality, degree and capabilities as the ocean fauna is diverse.
the foundation of philosophy is natural philosophy, which considers the present and the phenomena of everyday life. thus, the past and history are considered in philosophy only as an example of events and the experience of ancestors, but they are not the basis (or foundation).
IN HISTORY (this is the past), it is not dates and personalities that are important…. but conclusions that need to be drawn for the future and avoid mistakes…
PHILOSOPHY is people's thoughts about the past, present, and future…. As a rule, they are not generalized, without a general analysis of the material… mostly different fictions of individuals…..
With 25.351% of the total intelligence in the Solar System, humanity is far from the Truth.