English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Many generations of philosophers and scientists are trying to understand the nature of Russian civilization and predict its future. N. Y. Danilevsky represents Russian philosophy of the XIX century, and S. Huntington-American political science of the late XX – early XXI centuries. Each of them thinks differently about the civilizational future of Russia. And yet a dispute between them, even if it is symbolic, is quite possible. The author suggests as a method its reconstruction taking into account modern realities. Both thinkers have different understandings of Russian civilization. Danilevsky thinks of it as a family of Slavic peoples, freely United on the basis of a single cultural-historical type, which is associated with the ideas of allslavism and Orthodoxy. And Huntington sees it as a potential center of the Orthodox world, currently torn by religious contradictions and preserving the remnants of Eastern despotism (centralization of power, bureaucratization, etc.). For Danilevsky, relations between Europe and Russia are dramatic, sometimes not in favor of the latter, which is often assigned a service and auxiliary role in this contradictory Alliance. He is opposed to transplanting alien European forms and institutions into Russian soil. In his opinion, this inevitably leads to distortion of the national life and destruction of Russian culture. On the contrary, Huntington considers Russia a «torn» civilization, unable to find stability in development and unite the Slavic countries without the help of the West. To do this, it needs to make minor concessions and moderate its geopolitical ambitions. What conclusions does the author come to when comparing the views of two completely different thinkers? First, each of them was able to Express only certain features of Russian civilization that do not affect its essential specifics. From his point of view, there are no sufficient grounds to consider Russia exclusively as a Slavic or Orthodox civilization. This is special in it, not universal. All-common is the all-humanity as the idea of gathering peoples on the basis of sophism and transculturality.

TWO PROJECTS OF THE CIVILIZATIONAL FUTURE OF RUSSIA: HANGTINTON VS DANILEVSKY (EXPERIENCE OF ACTUAL RECONSTRUCTION)