THE PROBLEMATICS OF HISTORY IN HISTORICAL–SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTION OF MOSES KHORENATSI

Authors

  • R. Kocharyan Armenian State Pedagogical University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24234/miopap.v1i1.358

Abstract

The fundamental problematics in the historical–philosophical conception of Moses Khorenatsi is revealed in this article, using hermeneutical methodology and, as such, by the help of interpretative philosophical analysis. To understand history principally and essentially means to understand the genuine “said” by historical text and to understand truth–denoting–meaning and then to get the advice of wisdom in the meaning. It is revealed the fundamental problematics for the history of Moses Khorenatsi: “understanding and interpretively explicating the meaning of the truth–of–being of history as such, as well as the advice of wisdom in that meaning”. This all–embracing and complete problematics consists of two components: understanding and interpretively explicating, first of all, the conception of history–science and then the wisdom of content in the historically “said”, that of truth–of–being of history as such, in general, and concretely of history of the Armenians – viewed by this conception of history–science

Author Biography

R. Kocharyan, Armenian State Pedagogical University

PhD in Philosophical Sciences, Assistant of the Chair of Logic, Theoretical and Practical Philosophy, Armenian State Pedagogical University after Khachatur Abovyan

References

1. ???? ???????, ???. ?. ??????????, ??., 1993:
2. ?. ?????????, ?????? ????????? «?????????? ?????»–? ??????????? ????????? ? ?????????????, ??., 2011:
3. ????? ??????, ??????? ??????????????? – ?????????????? ??????????????, ???. ?. ??????????, ??., 1980:
4. ?????, ?????? ???????????? ??????????, ??., 1938:
5. ?. ???????, ?????? ????????? ???????? ??????????? ??????, ??., 2001:
6. ?. ?????????, ??????????? ???????? [??????????] – «???» ???????????? ??????, 2011 ??? 1 [33] ???????–????, ?? 3–11:
7. ????? ??????, ?????? ???????? ? ?? ????? ???????????? – ?????, ??., 1981:
8. ?????? ????????, ?????????? ?????, ??., 1991:
9. ?. ?????????, V ???? ??? ?????????????? ?????????????? ????????, ???????????????` ???????. ?????????????? ??????? ???. ???????? ??????? ?????, ??., 1996:
10. ?. ?????????, ?????? ????????? ????, ??., 2007:
11. ?. ????????, ?????? ????????? «????? ??????????» ?????????????? ?????????, ??., 1965:
12. ?. ????????, ????–????? ???????? ????????????? ????????????, ??., 2006:
13. ?. ?. ????????, ?????????? ?????????????????? ? ?????? ????????? «?????????? ?????» ??????????? ??????????? ???????????????????, ?. ??????, 1998?. ???????????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? – «????????», ??., 2/10/2006, ?? 4–12:
14. ?. ?. ????????, «?????????? ?????»–? ? ?????????? ????????????? ??????????????????????, ?. ??????, 1999?. ???????????? ????????? ????????? ?????????? ????????? – «????????», ??., 2/10/2006, ?? 14–21:
15. ?. ?. ????????, ????????????????? ? ????????? ??????, «?????? ?????? ??????????? (???. ???.)» 1998, ?. 1 (94):
16. ??????????. ???????, ???. ????????? ?. ?. – ?????????, ?., 1984, ?. 4., ?. 645–680.
17. ??????????. ????????, ???????, ???. ? ??????. ??????? ?. ?. [????????] ? ????????? ?. ?. [???????], ?., 2000.
18. ???? ?. ???????? ???????, ?., 1986.
19. ??????? ?. ?. ??????? ? ???? – ?? ? ? ???????, ?????, 1997, ?. 130–142.
20. ??????? ?. ?. ??????? ??????? ??? ????????? – ???????????? ???????????, ?., 1991, ?. 26–43.
21. ??????? ?. ?. ?????? ? ?????. ?., 1988.
22. ??????? ?. ?. ?. ???? ? «???????? ???????» – ?. ????, ???????? ???????, ?., 1986, ?. 182–231.
23. ????–???? ?. ?. ????????? ? ?????????? ????????? ??????? “???????” ? ??????????? ? ???
– ????–???? ?. ?., ????? ?. ?. ????????? ???????? ? ?????, ???????? ? ????????, ???., 1999, ?. 443–458.
24. ????–???? ?. ?. ??????????????? ????????? ??????? “???????” ? ??????????? ? ??? – ????–???? ?. ?., ????? ?. ?. ????????? ???????? ? ?????, ???????? ? ????????. ???., 1999, ?. 459–483.
25. ???? ?. ?. ??????? ??? ??????? ?????? – ????????–??????????? ????????? 1988, ?., 1988, ?. 290–320.
26. Ricoeur P., The hermeneutical function of distanciation – Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, Cambridge, 1982, p. 131–144.
27. Ricoeur P., The model of the text: meaningful action considered as a text – Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, Cambridge, 1982, p. 197–221.

Downloads

Published

2013-04-16

How to Cite

Kocharyan, R. (2013). THE PROBLEMATICS OF HISTORY IN HISTORICAL–SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTION OF MOSES KHORENATSI. Main Issues Of Pedagogy And Psychology, 1(1), 148 - 160. https://doi.org/10.24234/miopap.v1i1.358

Issue

Section

Articles