«Universal» or «all-human»: N. Ya. Danilevsky’s contribution to the methodology of the study of the «Russian world»

The article shows the difference in the understanding of “all human” in F. M. Dostoevsky and N. Ya. Danilevsky in connection with the relevance of the study of the problem of “Russian world”. While Dostoevsky, justifying the Russian national idea, associates the “all human” with the unification of the world around Christ and in Christ, Danilevsky’s “all human” means the unity of peoples in the space of world culture. Dostoevsky’s idea of the “all human” is based on theology, while Danilevsky’s is based on science, more precisely biology, from which he takes the main explanatory schemes. The author points out the inappro priateness of assessing the theory of cultural historical types as historiosophy due to Danilevsky’s rejection of the idea of “universal” progress, which is present not only among Russian Westerners, but also among Slavophiles. The article substantiates the interpretation of Danilevsky’s theory as a variant of culture morphology, in the light of which the characteristics of Europe’s influence on Russia in the teachings of N. Danilevsky and O. Spengler are compared. The article shows the limitations of interpretation of Danilevsky’s doctrine from the point of view of the theory of local civilisations and in the light of the position of isolationism.