Where did the diversity and differences in civilizations come from?
It should be noted that immediately asserts itself supporter of historical pluralism or particularism: do not confuse the history of civilization and civilization theory. There is no single history. Each civilization has its own history and civilization theory applies to all civilizations and is the theoretical basis of the first. The main problem of the theory of civilization to clarify the question: how come the diversity and differences of civilizations?
Originality theoretical position is that he is trying to confirm the primacy of civilized approach to the philosophy of history as opposed. The historical roots of the relationship between culture and civilization as the main content and meaning of cultural historical process he sees German that cultural phenomena contrasted the facts of civilization.
The division then contrasting cultures and civilizations is, according to Joanna F from W. von Humboldt. The latter he attributes this understanding of civilization, where it denotes a special process of transformation of individual nations in humanity through the universalization of institutions and practices and the associated national identity spirit. Culture is manifested in science and arts. Of course, it is difficult to establish adequate reproduction looks W. von Humboldt. Note that barely altered. Humboldt may be considered those responsible for methodological dichotomy of the concepts of “civilization” and “culture” that played a fatal role in the fate of the philosophy of history. Moreover, Art. Humboldt has represented a healthy trend of historical thought and acted against the oppositions natural and spiritual in man and society. He really felt just a mistake of all previous philosophy of history that most of the attention is given only to the culture and civilization of progressive perfection, and therefore there are degrees of excellence and critical germ of which should be great, go unnoticed.
Thus, Art. Humboldt did not consider the process of civilizational movement of infinite perfection, and in this respect differed from supporters of the theory of progress, but the main thing he saw history as the self realization of the human race, in which spirit and nature are not opposed to each other, but rather, the spirit uses the creative power of nature. Humanity in its manifestations can live and work only in proprietary nature; Similarly, it includes part of the nature. The spirit that prevails in it lasting more than an individual; so important in understanding world history to observe the development and sometimes death of the spirit. So do not wait for the progress of civilization, it is unworthy of the name, because it destroys itself. In W. von Humboldt pronounced fit enough problems right dialectic spiritual and natural history. His historicism at all abstraction was sensitive enough not to crown laurels of contemporary civilization, but he did not curse it, seeing it as just a form of realization of humanity that goes beyond her revolution lead to new forms, any death consolation in loss compensation.
Outlined the distinction of civilization and culture on the basis of internal and external opposition as mainstream German speculative philosophy of history, inclined to think that this distinction is rather arbitrary and tends to isolation civilization itself as the main category of analysis and measurement units historic rate.
What methodological grounds justifying this approach? In fact, this defect naturalism as says, because he constantly convinced of the existence of basic civilization which is common with respect to all civilized countries. In contrast, the scientific inductive method states that are divided civilization, often unrelated. In such cases, should not speak about the history of civilization, the history of civilizations. It is incorrect to talk about the history of mankind: the historian there is no universal, holistic humanity. Already at this point shows the fundamental difference between positions W. von Humboldt. And if the first, seeing limited opportunity, dignity and existence of contemporary civilization as a specific phase of world history, it finds itself commensurate with the existence of the human race, the second breaks’ humanity, presenting its parts as independent integrity their own destiny.