Abstract:
In this article the author offers arguments in defense of the view that philosophical-historical views of K. Leontiev and his historical vocation of Russia cannot be included in the system of Eurasian views without significant restrictions. The similarity between the views of Leontiev and views of classical Eurasians 20-30-ies of the XX century is only superficial. A comparative analysis of Eurasian concepts with the views of Leontiev, taken in their systemic integrity, on the contrary, reveals the deep contradictions between them. While the Eurasians were concerned to make relevant state-political form peculiar and coherent Russian (Eurasian) culture, Leontiev claimed that Russia is a loose, amorphous and heterogeneous in cultural terms "body", the integrity of which is supported by external bonds of Russian statehood and the Church. "East project" in the process of working out which philosophical, historical and political views of Leontiev became systemic integrity, called for the creation in Russia of a new cultural and political center in Istanbul, around which in the distant future needs to encounter a fundamentally new world civilization (cultural and historical type). This civilization will unite in the synthesis of higher-order Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Islam, would include the Greek, Slavic, Romanian, Turkish, Persian, and other ethnic and cultural components. Russian culture and culture of other peoples of Russia will join this new civilization only along with many other ethno-cultural components. Thus, also the "East project" and the concept of the Eurasian cultural-historical specificity of Russia differ from each other in such essential traits as K. Leontiev considered as a direct predecessor of Eurasianism, in the author's opinion, hardly acceptable.