Does the science of history need a philosophy of history?

(A reply to Sergei Nikolsky’s paper)

Abstract

Sergey Nikolsky’s paper touches upon some of the most problematic questions related to both history and philosophy and is, therefore, bound to cause controversy. Is a philosophy of history possible? And if so, what must it look like? The set of principles proposed for it by Nikolsky can hardly be accepted, since they are not demonstrable and appear to be a product of abstract reasoning unrelated to any historical context which is ever-changing, dynamic, special and unique. The present author suggests that it may well be not any system of ‘constant patterns’ that would make an appropriate object for the philosophy of history, but rather the variable data as a problem of philosophical reflection that examines the languages that describe history.