DOI: 10.25136/2409-868X.2023.6.40852

Abstract: The object of the authors' research is the theory of social progress in the works of such prominent historians as N.I. Kareev, M.M. Kovalevsky and I.V. Luchitsky. To analyze the problem, the comparative method, a systematic approach and the principle of individuality of B. Russell are used in the work. The authors pay special attention to the methodological prerequisites for the rejection by Russian historians of the positions of G.V.F. Hegel for the development of theories of social dynamics and the transition to the foundations of positivism. The article highlights the main theoretical differences between historians of the "Russian School" and other domestic concepts of social progress at the end of the XIX century.   The novelty of the research lies in the fact that the authors of the article clearly show the contradictions in the theories of social progress of representatives of the "Russian School". The article demonstrates that despite the denial of the scientific nature of empirical and metaphysical concepts of historians such as M.N. Petrov and V.I. Guerrier, prominent representatives of the "Russian School" could not refuse the criteria of social development proposed by them. In conclusion, the authors emphasize the importance of the dispute between N.I. Kareev, M.M. Kovalevsky and I.V. Luchitsky about the role of the statistical method, the Marxist approach to history, the relationship between history and sociology for understanding the general and special in their interpretations of social progress.

DOI: 10.25136/2409-8728.2023.5.40550

Abstract: In the present work the concept of social progress in the works of historian M. N. Petrov is considered from the positions of comparativist method, system-historical aspect of systematic approach and B. Russell's principle of individuality. The work describes the theoretical and methodological basis of the concept, its application to the study of historical process and moral education of man. In the work it is pointed out that in spite of the originality of his approach the historian does not go beyond the general problems of Russian philosophical thought on social development, referring to the ethical comparison of the progress of man and humanity, as well as the question of justification of violence for the benefit of the future. The article analyzes similarities and differences with the views of such prominent contemporary historians as V. I. Herier, N. I. Kareev, M. M. Kovalevsky, and I. V. Luchitsky. According to the conclusions of the article, the evolution of historiosophic knowledge in the Russian historical science led to a rapid transition from empirical and metaphysical views to empirical and ethical ones and fading of interest to the concept of M. N. Petrov. The paper proves that the criteria of social progress, developed by the scientist of Kharkov University, formed the basis for the study of progress by Russian religious philosophy and Eurasianism.