The article examines Danilevsky’s approach to the analysis of the role of influences on the formation and changes of cultural-historical types. Several contradictions in Danilevsky’s consideration of the phenomenon of influences are underlined. They were caused by an insufficiently clarified analysis of the correlation between the universal and the concrete historical, and by some monotheistic and typological aspects in the analysis of historical development. Danilevsky clearly underestimates the significance of the interaction between successive and synchronously developing cultures, which leads to a diminution of world-historical trends in the development of mankind. The article stresses a polemical character of a number of provisions of Danilevsky’s concepts. The urgent significance of the philosopher’s conclusions about the need to protect national cultural values is emphasized, which is especially important in the context of modern globalization processes. Additionally, some key risks of philosophical tendencies of Russian thought are pointed out in regard to the dream of world hegemony, or towards autocratic otherness. These dangers arise largely from the lack of practical and theoretical differences in the use of unprocessed European concepts, and therefore Russian history can often be viewed as a sequence of attraction to and repulsion from the West. The article also stresses that the “Russian idea” (which can be seen, in Solovyov’s understanding, from a religious standpoint as the one brought by the Russian people to the Last Judgment of the World as a unique contribution to universal human consciousness) is not a “dream” of world hegemony or the autocratic otherness”, according to which all good is always “one’s own”, and all evil is “somebody else’s”, but it is some antinomic perception of universal salvation, which was also noted by Dostoevsky, Florensky, Bulgakov, and others.

<p>Every Christian generation must rethink how it understands the mystery of Christ. Jesus, a practicing Jew, meditated on the Scriptures of the past, preferring the enigmatic and rich expression &laquo;Son of Man&raquo; to refer to Himself, while at the same time trying to understand the actions of the God of Israel in His time. This &laquo;Son of Man&raquo; Christology had the advantage of not evoking a political emancipatory Davidic Messiah, but instead hinted at a figure who would play a fundamental role at the end of time. Jesus, in his self-consciousness and in his teaching, gradually achieved a unique synthesis of three figures: the Messiah, the suffering Servant, and the Son of Man. The end of time is the time in which, from the point of view of faith, a person lives after the death of the &laquo;Son of Man&raquo; on the cross and His Resurrection, in accordance with the &laquo;no longer and not yet&raquo; of His Kingdom, actively awaiting victory over the last enemy &mdash; death. In Russian eschatology, both Orthodox and &laquo;secular&raquo; (in the sense of a specific &laquo;religiosity&raquo;, which also applies to Soviet and post-Soviet ideology), one can often notice a shift in the inevitable tension of the believer&rsquo;s heart (which, on the contrary, should accept and preserve both sides of Judeo-Christian eschatology) either vertically, towards liturgical or state triumphalism, or horizontally, towards utopia. Often the victim of these different kinds of radicalism is individual freedom.</p>

No abstract

The historical and hermeneutic dialogue between Nekrasov and Dostoevsky acquires special significance as an opportunity for a new dialogue between believers and non-believers, which is necessary for general social and cultural development. Nekrasov was actually a believing Christian, but he received a lot of resonance in Soviet education as a bearer of secular ideals. His new consideration today, after the religious renaissance of Russian culture, is an interesting and promising task. At the same time, Dostoevsky's question of «eschatological antinomianism» turns out to be decisive also in this context: the need to sanctify suffering and the necessary hope for its overcoming are two sides of the same ontological and epistemological paradox, which is always valid for all Christians as well as for all thinkers, preoccupied by common human destinies.

Greek thought is particularly concrete because, in one way or another, it is connected with what can or cannot be seen by everyone, both externally and internally. Today's mindset is different: it can be compared with a two-sided medal. One side of it is the extreme subjectivity that differs significantly from the subjectivity of the sophist Protagoras who was searching for what was useful to the city through a general discussion of individual ideas on the utility. Modern subjectivists, however, do not want to discuss anything: they are only interested in what they can see, and not what others can. But most importantly, they see no point in the discussion itself: that is what brings it together with today’s nihilism. On the contrary, we cannot say that the sophist Gorgias had nothing left after the denial of Arche: words withstood, open to common view again, and they were beautiful and useful. The other side of the modern mindset is the extreme abstractionism when concepts turn out to be very distant and conceptual. However, the modern passion for visualization might potentially prove to be a productive way to a new revelation of the deepest dialectics of the visible and the invisible in both didactics and science. The antique trust in the word is also the belief in the fact that the word can show and indicate to everyone a path to and a hope for the common happiness. Our report discusses this “verbal” pedagogical and political path to the happiness of the polis both in terms of birth and evolution of this path, as well as of its relevance.