The article discusses the views of the ‘Tsargrad’ website participants and some methodologists on the revival of Russia and the salvation of the world. The peculiarities of their thinking and discourses are noted: a reflection of the aspirations and values of these participants themselves, utopianism and lack of evidence. A history of ideological influences on these views is outlined, which stretches from the works of P. Ya. Chaadaev, F. M. Dostoevsky, Konstantin Leontiev. V. Zenkovsky shows that, for example, Chaadaev’s thoughts on world history went through two stages. At the fi rst, he comes to the idea that it was in Europe that the ideas and plans of Christianity were embodied, and Russia remained on the sidelines, dropped out of the world historical process. But such a conclusion about Russia contradicted the very idea of the providence of the Creator. Therefore, at the second stage, Chaadaev comes up with ideas that form the essence of the tradition under consideration. Namely, Russia has its own purpose, it will come into play later, Russia will determine the historical development of Europe and the whole world, the main content of this future stage of history will be the revelation in the form of the ideas and practice of Orthodoxy. The central methodological figures of the reconstruction are Georgy Shchedrovitsky and Yuri Gromyko. It is suggested that the influence of methodologists is partly explained by the peculiarities of the consciousness of their followers. Here is a simplified understanding of reality, a circumstance that still appeals to many today, because it becomes clear what is happening and where to go. This understanding was inspired by the Marxist worldview (partly scientific, partly utopian, extremely social engineering), as well as a simplified understanding of history and sociality. If models and ideal constructions of methodology (activity and mental activity) are understood as heuristics and schemes that guide the methodologists’ own work of thinking, then everything is fine, there are no objections, but if – as an adequate description of the world and reality, then these models and ideal constructions are currently can be assessed either as a very poor and simplified representation of a complex reality, or as generally incorrect knowledge. The last part of the article discusses the civilizational transition from modernity to “future culture”, showing the impossibility of simple solutions and a simplified understanding of reality.
Вадим Маркович Розин (Thu,) studied this question.