On the Issue of N.Y. Danilevsky's Views on Humanity (Based on Materials of the Work "Russia and Europe")

Russian scientist N.Y. Danilevsky, in his fundamental work “Russia and Europe,” outlined his views on the phenomenon of humanity. The article, based on comparison, presents two different understandings, two different readings of the historiosophical thoughts of the famous scientist. One of the key aspects of the disagreement is highlighted which is the interpretation of the doctrine of cultural and historical types, the main positions are outlined from which the opponent is invited to consider in more detail the ideas expressed by the author of “Russia and Europe”. As a methodological principle of the study, the authors propose to use the known principle of unity in multiplicity, which allows us to find an approach to explaining real concepts, including the concept of personality, regardless of its scale. The followers, scientists, well-known and novice researchers advocated Danilevsky’s conclusions throughout the existence of the book “Russia and Europe” – and this is more than 150 years, that evidences, on the one hand, about the relevance and significance of the problems seen by the domestic thinker, especially for Russia, historical fate of which was a real concern for Danilevsky. And on the other hand, it is necessary to recognize the high degree of the subjectivity of the nature of the socio-humanitarian sphere of knowledge. Danilevsky’s civilizational approach to the history of humanity has always been preventing the collective opponent in the person of V.S. Solovyov, F.M. Dostoevsky and, in this particular case in the person of Russian diaspora philosopher S.A. Levitsky, from building their own scientifi c theory about the universal goodness. The article suggests a hidden reason, probably not fully realized by Levitsky himself, for such a subjective understanding of Danilevsky’s work – created by Levitsky the theory of Russian solidarism, embraced, to quote Levitsky himself, by the “pathos of universality.” Being in pathos, it is difficult to maintain the ability to objectively hear the views of other person. The authors have the additional motive for writing this article due the concern caused by the fact that Levitsky, working as a university tutor, shares his thoughts about Danilevsky as a thinker in the galaxy of Russian philosophers, about his role in the history of Russian philosophy with students, giving lectures on Russian literature and philosophy. Moreover, he publishes his subjective interpretation of Danilevsky’s views as part of a collection of essays on the history of Russian philosophy as a textbook.