| Summary: | Introduction. The purpose of this study is to reveal the specificity of the relationship between ethnogenesis and cultural Genesis in the philosophical works of L. N. ENU, which requires solving a number of interrelated tasks: to define the concept of "ethnogenesis and cultural Genesis", to establish their correlation, dependence and interdependence; to analyze the phenomenon of passionarity and its role in cultural Genesis; to characterize the specificity of ethnogeny two superethnoi (Kievan Rus and Muscovy) in the process of ethnic history.Materials and methods. The material of the research is the works of the outstanding thinker of the twentieth century L. N. Gumilev, including those devoted to the problems of ethno - and cultural Genesis. Traditional methods for historical and philosophical research are used: historical-logical, comparative, system-structural.Results. As a result of the study, it was found that "ethnogenesis" and "cultural Genesis" in The philosophical work of L. N. Gumilev are concepts lying in "different planes", so ethnic diversity only to a certain extent determines the diversity of cultures. At the same time, it is important that ethnogenesis is a necessary condition of cultural Genesis, because the ethnos is preserved and protected by the accumulated culture.According to Gumilev, the most important element of cultural Genesis is passionarity-a phenomenon that determines the intensity of cultural development at different stages of ethnogenesis: thus, the growth of passionarity generates an original culture, the decline allows the ethnic group to borrow from other ethnic groups in order to preserve and develop their own.The author reveals the features of studying the culture of ethnic groups indicated By L. N. Gumilev, which would allow to create an integral and consistent picture of the cultural achievements of a particular ethnic group: thus, the diachronic approach is the most preferable, while the synchronous analysis of culture can lead to errors in understanding and assessing the place and role of this ethnic group in history.Finally, the author characterizes the thinker's attitude to the contemporary history of Russia and his understanding of the further development of the Russian state, the main condition of which is the preservation of the ethnic and cultural identity of the Russian superethnos.Discussion and Conclusions. For L. N. Gumilev it is obvious that ethnogenesis is a necessary condition for the development of cultural Genesis. No crisis can completely destroy, destroy culture. The ethnos is protected and preserved by the accumulated culture. But the logic of ethnic history differs significantly from the logic of cultural history. Given the specifics of the ethnogenesis of the Russian superethnos, the thinker defines the stages of the ethnic history of Russia, which by the end of the twentieth century enters the "phase of quiet life", but, warns Gumilev, the events of the 90s have clearly shown that the main condition for further development is the preservation of our ethnic and cultural originality and identity.
|
|---|
