On historiosophy and the methodology of history: a street debate (24.11.2021)
A street debate by Vitaliy Dribnytsia on historiosophy and the methodology of history: why “one continuous state from Rurik to Putin” is a methodological trap, how to distinguish continuity from the discreteness of statehood, why the modern concept of “state” is an anachronism for the ninth century, and — through the examples of the Frankish state and the British House of Windsor — why a shared name or a dynastic line does not make different states one.
Key moments
- 02:10 Analogy: the Frankish state ≠ France (a similar name — different states)
- 05:53 Continuity versus discreteness of statehood
- 06:55 862 is a chronicle date, not a «birth of the state»
- 07:09 The modern concept of «state» is a construct of nineteenth-century jurists
- 11:21 Hanover → Windsor (1917): a dynastic line ≠ continuity of the state
- 13:05 The dynastic break Rurikids → Romanovs (the Time of Troubles)
- 14:30 «An official viewpoint on history exists only in a totalitarian state»