Nikolay Danilevsky’s book “Russia and Europe” was written in hot pursuit of the Crimean War (1853–1856), when the powers of Holy Union broke political equilibrium after the victory of the Russian army over Napoleon and started a new aggressive war against Russia, the only sovereign Slavic state in Europe. The book could be evaluated as an in­tellectual epilogue of the Crimean War in which there were pointed out two central prob­lems: firstly, to show the sovereignty and future perspectives of (...) Slavic civilization, which has occupied it’s own legitimate historic place in Europe as an independent cultural-his­toric type; secondly, to construct the project of the All-Slavic Union as a protective bar­rier against European invasion. The solution of the first problem was based on the tradi­tions of Russian thought, especially on Slavophilism. So that demonstrated it’s culmina­tion and specific Russian contribution to the world civilizational theory. The solution of the second problem was based on the “circle of conservative utopia” (A. Walicki) de­rived from the European Pan-Slavism (Austroslavism), founded on the territory of Aus­tro-Hungarian Empire as early as at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The contra­dictory combination of Slavophilism and Pan-Slavism is the subject of the historiosophi­cal study in the current article. (shrink)

The article problematizes the relatively recent tradition (initiated by O.M. Medushevskaya and picked up by a number of researchers) of a phenomenological interpretation of A. S. Lappo-Danilevskii’s historical and methodological work. The article aims to find out whether, and if so, in what sense (senses) it is possible to talk about the phenomenology of Lappo-Danilevskii. It shows the grounds on which this interpretation can, within certain limits, be accepted, and the moments of principal divergence between classical phenomenology and Lappo-Danilevskii’s methodology (...) of history. The key point of these discrepancies is the phenomenological reduction, which is the essence of the phenomenological method, and, in the author’s opinion and contrary to the opinion of some researchers, is absent in the methodology of history of Lappo-Danilevskii. The theoretical positions that provoke the comparison of the views of Lappo-Danilevskii and Husserl are reduced to two main points: the problem of the psychological impenetrability of someone else’s Self and the understanding of the historical source as a construction of the historian. The article suggests that the “phenomenological motives” of Lappo-Danilevskii’s work are determined by the general philosophical and epistemological search of his time, perceived by Lappo-Danilevskii through the works of I. G. Droysen, Russian Neo-Kantianism and W. Dilthey, but hardly directly from Husserl’s philosophy, with which he could not be thoroughly familiar. The author suggests qualifying Lappo-Danilevskii’s methodological work as an original version of historical phenomenology, which was formed outside the direct influence of the classical phenomenology of Husserl. The article outlines the directions of further development of the problems laid down in Lappo-Danilevskii’s methodology of history, in particular, O. M. Medushevskaya’s “cognitive history,” A. L. Yurganov’s “historical phenomenology” and the sociological turn in the methodology of historical knowledge (turn from a subject to an actor) fixed by M. F. Rumyantseva. The latter, according to the author of the article, actualizes the key problem of the phenomenological tradition—that of intersubjectivity. (shrink)

N. Ya. Danilevsky is often mentioned as one of the predecessors of the Eurasian movement without the spheres of similarity and difference being clearly defined. This paper shows that both Danilevsky's theory of cultural-historical types and Eurasianism can be interpreted as philosophies of history based on anti-Darwinian models of thought. However, the idea of convergence through contiguity which constitutes the geographical, linguistic, and cultural unity of Eurasia is not found in Danilevsky. War against Europe as a unifying (...) bond in Danilevsky's Panslavic programme is discussed in Darwinian terms which is in opposition to his own theory of cultural-historical types, whereas self-sufficiency in foreign politics corresponds to the basic principles of Eurasian philosophy of history. (shrink)

The subject of the research in this article are certain aspects of the "philosophy of culture" of the prominent thinker, theologian, historian of Russian thought Georgy Vasilyevich Florovsky, which influenced the evolution of his worldview. Special attention is paid to the facts of the "European" period of his biography, the analysis of his "Eurasian" works, as well as his assessments of the philosophical concepts of some Russian thinkers and calls for the conversion of the process of cultural creativity to spiritual (...) principles. Particular attention is paid to the content of the discussion that unfolded between G.V. Florovsky, N.S. Trubetskoy and (in absentia) N.Ya. Danilevsky on the problem of the status of "universal culture" and the mutual influences of cultures. The study reveals the philosophical nuances of the evolution of G. Florovsky's views as a "Eurasian" author based on his own works and the assessments contained therein. Scientific literature often emphasizes the influence of Eurasian ideology on G. Florovsky, expressed, in particular, in his ideas about culture and cultural creativity. However, based on the analysis of the material presented in the article, the author comes to the conclusion that G.V. Florovsky, although he was a member of the Eurasian circle, on some significant issues differed from the main direction of development of the Eurasian ideology presented by E. Trubetskoy. (shrink)

Healing the inner rupture of Russian culture caused by the reforms of Peter the Great is an urgent need which is still on agenda. This task can be accomplished by relying upon the logic of sobornost’ and vsesubyectnost’ that manifested itself as the basic value in the course of millennium of Russian history. Implanting the European section into the overall layout of the vsechelovecheskoye design of Russian culture will help bridge the gap between the culture of the upper strata totally (...) bound by the spirit of European domination (evropeynichanye, “Europe-apping”, according to N.Ya. Danilevsky) and the culture of the lower strata governed by the logic of sobornost’ and vsesubyectnost’. To overcome Europe-apping, which is still a pressing task, means to overcome the dogma of European culture as obshechelovecheskoye (common to humankind) by basing the dis­course on the vsechelovecheskoye category. Vsechelovecheskoye, as opposed to obshe­chelovecheskoye, was elaborated in Russian thought starting from the 19th century. For­mation and manifestation of the logic of sobornost’ and vsesubyectnost’ represents the sense of the Russian history tying it together over all breaks and revolutionary catas­trophes. “Humankind” can be conceived of only as a notion based on sobornost’, not as a unity of any kind, for it developed, in the course of its history, a number of the big cul­tures each of which based itself on its indigenous logic irreducible to the logic of any other big culture. The basic task the Russian philosophy faces, in order to develop itself as the philosophy of sense, is to study and elaborate on the actual manifestations of the logic of sobornost’ and vsesubyectnost’ in the course of Russian history as the logic of vsechelovecheskoye global design for humankind. (shrink)

It is known that Ivan Ogienko in his numerous scientific and theological works paid much attention to the problems of cultural development, to clarify its significance in the life of society. However, he did not leave the deep theoretical developments devoted to culturological issues. This does not mean at all that he was not interested in the theory of culture as a branch of knowledge, engaged in the scientific and philosophical analysis of the phenomenon of culture. However, there is no (...) reason to say that he tried to reach the level of comprehension of universal laws of development of world culture, as was done by his contemporaries and predecessors - M. Ya. Danilevsky, K. Leontiev, M. Berdyayev, A. Spengler, A. Toynbee and others. There is also no reason to prove that I.Ogienko directly addressed the works of these and other prominent philosophers, historians and sociologists of culture, although it is likely that his acquaintance with their ideas is indirect. But despite this, it seems advisable to translate I. Ogienko's argument about culture into a cultural-conceptual analysis plane. (shrink)

Since its publication in 1918, Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West has been the object of academic controversy and opprobrium. In their efforts to dispose of it, scholars have resorted to a variety of tactics: bitter invective, icy scorn, urbane mockery, or simply pretending that the book is not there. Yet generations of readers have refused to be warned off, finding in Spengler a prophetic voice and a source of profound intellectual excitement. H. Stuart Hughes's Oswald Spengler offers a (...) judicious and objective reading of Spengler's works that admirably fills the gap between hypercritical invective and naive enthusiasm. This pioneering volume makes clear why Spengler's pessimistic reading of the fate of European civilization continues to resonate with contemporary anxieties. Despite the author's self-imposed intellectual and social isolation, Spengler's work was as Hughes demonstrates, a part of the enormous effort of intellectual reevaluation that has characterized the early twentieth century. Viewing Spengler in the broadest possible perspective, the author places his thought in its cultural relationship to that of such predecessors as Giambattista Vico, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Nikolai Danilevsky and contemporaries including Benedetto Croce, Henri Bergson, and Vilfredo Pareto. A chapter of Hughes's book is devoted to Spengler's influence on later cyclical thinkers such as Arnold Toynbee and Pitirim Sorokin. Another chapter clarifies the essentially antagonistic relationship between his thought and Nazi ideology. Throughout, Hughes is carefully attuned to the complex and often bewildering shifts of Spengler's ideas and manner, providing a unified picture of the sober historian; the lofty seer; the cool, detached observer; and the impassioned participant. In his introduction to this new edition, Hughes comments on the timeliness of Spengler's message with respect to technology and environmental issues and draws some unexpected and fascinating parallels between Spengler's thought and that of Ludwig Wittgenstein. Oswald Spengler offers an illuminating view of the achievements and limitations of one of the most influential and representative figures of the twentieth century. It will be of concern to intellectual historians, philosophers, political scientists, and sociologists. (shrink)

The article explores the manifesto of the Moscow Anthropological School, emphasizing the primacy of hallucinations in anthropogenesis. The current predicament of modern humanity urges the anticipation of something genuine and substantial. However, the essence of philosophy does not always align with the prevailing “spirit of the times.” Its mission is to pursue autopoiesis, scrutinizing society for its inherent flaws that impede progress. From this viewpoint, F.I. Girenok’s hallucinatory theory is entirely pertinent and justified. The narrative of civilization is typically portrayed (...) as a chronicle of discoveries and triumphs of rationality over irrationality. The history of fears and misconceptions, which not only persist from the past but also resurface, is less well-documented. Therefore, the program of the Moscow Anthropological School is far from being peripheral; on the contrary, it holds significant relevance. It furthers the tradition of inversion anthropology, initially established by N.Ya. Danilevsky, the first Russian critic of Darwinism. This anthropological tradition was particularly advanced by the concept of B.F. Porshnev and the research of contemporary authors like Yu.M. Boroday and V.A. Podoroga. Each, in their unique way, contributed to the critique of evolutionism and reductionism. F.I. Girenok’s concept evokes schizoanalysis, albeit devoid of Marxist influence, unlike G. Deleuze. All these aspects warrant a comprehensive philosophical discourse on the manifesto. Meanwhile, reports and discussions concerning F.I. Girenok’s theory revealed that not all participants are readily prepared to tread the path suggested by the founder of this theory, confining themselves to theological explorations instead. This, as per the author of the article, inherently signifies that hallucinatory and messianic anthropologies are complementary to each other. (shrink)

The emphasis in this approach to philosophy of history is on the system philosophers. The emphasis itself follows from the theme of the book, which is that man's vision of historical reality is ultimately reducible to religious or secular notions of progress, or to cyclical recurrence of some kind. All other outlooks on history are taken to be merely variations on these two basic themes. As a result, the modern existentialist, phenomenological and analytic approaches to history are all lumped together (...) in one short chapter at the end of the book. The linguistic approach goes unmentioned altogether. There is a special chapter on Theology of History and the Augustinian Spirit. The philosophers examined are Augustine, Vico, Kant, Turgot, Saint-Simon, Marx, Nietzsche, Danilevsky, Spengler, Sorokin, Hegel, Dilthey, Croce, Toynbee, Teilhard de Chardin, Maritain, Dawson, and Marrou. The bibliographical references are valuable. Unfortunately, the author accepts uncritically interpretations which have been vigorously challenged in the last thirty years, most notably in the cases of Hegel, Marx, and Dilthey.--H. B. (shrink)