| Summary: | Thinkers N. Y. Danilevsky and O. Spengler brought together a civilization approach to world history. The
relevance of the works of these authors is evidenced by their consonance with the modern historical process.
The interrelation of ideas and the relative reliability of the predictions made by the theorists predetermined the
purpose of the work: comparison of the concepts of “Slavic” and “Romano-Germanic” cultural and historical
types, the study of the applied methodology of research by Danilevsky and Spengler, and the application of
the comparative historical method in this work. Danilevsky created a typological direction in historical research,
moved away from the interpretation of international relations as a situational phenomenon, realized the importance
of historical forecasting. He came to the conclusion that Russia and Europe belong to different cultural
and historical types, there are, in modern terms, mental contradictions between them, which in the future could
give rise to clashes between civilizations. The studies of the geopolitician convinced him that Europe considered, and will continue to consider our fatherland, a “foreign” and even a “hostile” world. Fifty years after Danilevsky,
Spengler spoke about the future of Western civilization. The philosopher’s doctrine developed in the direction laid
down by the Russian geopolitician. The philosopher revealed the palette of the Faustian soul “from the inside”,
and confirmed the assumptions and fears of Danilevsky. “Faustian culture” as Spengler concluded, “has always
been aimed at “spreading”. All thinkers and leaders from Eckhart to Napoleon wanted to “conquer the world”.
The coming twentieth century was seen by the philosopher as the era of the “war of inheritance”, in which India,
China, South Africa, and Russia would enter. In the list of “mobilized states”, the thinker saw his fatherland in
the first place. “Unbearable tension”, he testified, pushes Europe to the true Faustian path ‒ the “primal politics
of all living things” ‒ war. The conducted historiographical analysis showed that the morphological attitude of
the classics of civilization analysis changed the research paradigm, increased the possibilities of theoretical
understanding of the problem, opened up prospects for comparative study of cultures, obtaining the necessary
geopolitical forecast today.
|
|---|