The article is dedicated to a comparative analysis of Western European and Russian philosophical traditions, revealing their methodological and ontological differences. The authors emphasize that the analysis focuses on the dominant trends of each tradition, while acknowledging the presence of internal oppositional currents—critique of rationalism in Western philosophy (from Romanticism to Existentialism) and elements of rationalist thinking in Russian thought (Hegelianism, Marxism). The relationship between Western rationalism (ratio), which traces back to antiquity and reached its peak in Hegelian philosophy, and Russian philosophy, based on the concept of Logos as a synthesis of reason, faith, and wisdom, is explored. The authors note that the Russian philosophical tradition can be seen as the second historically significant attempt to revive integral knowledge—since the philosophical inquiries of Nicholas of Cusa, who in the 15th century proposed a synthesis of Christianity and Platonism. The article employs an existential-phenomenological approach, methods of comparative-historical and ontological analysis, interdisciplinary synthesis, and hermeneutics. Through the lens of the works of V.F. Ern, V.S. Soloviev, N.A. Berdyaev, S.L. Frank, and other thinkers, it demonstrates that Western rationalism, despite the technological achievements largely conditioned by it, has led to a crisis of humanism, fragmentation of knowledge, and desacralization of being. In contrast, the Russian tradition, grounded in the ideals of integral knowledge and unity, offers a holistic approach in which truth is revealed through creativity, moral ideals, and existential experience. The scientific value of the article lies in the systematic comparison of Western European and Russian philosophical traditions. It is also manifested in the analysis of the epistemological origins of the crisis of Western rationalism, which has subsequently turned into an existential crisis. It is shown that the Russian philosophical tradition, cultivating openness, dialogue, and metaphysical integrity, demonstrates a path to overcoming theoretical reductionism through the concepts of unity, sobornost, and theurgical creativity.
Melikov et al. (Fri,) studied this question.