The substitute testimony

In this article I argue that what could contribute to creating trust today are historiographic forms of narrations that resemble testimonies made by witnesses of the past, which I have defined as the “substitute testimony”. The focal point of my considerations is, firstly, the difference between a substitute testimony and a testimony given by a witness of the epoch, and secondly, its attitude to philosophical criticism that analyses the issue of giving a testimony. My propositions are based on the theory of testimony by Ricoeur. According to it, a testimony is a narration created through communicating everyday reality. Building a substitute testimony means formulating suppositions with respect to the possibility of experiencing past events by their participants as well as historian’s creation of a personal, subjective involvement in the difficult historical issues.