Attempts to foresee the future, which began in antiquity, do not stop until now, although now they are presented as "scientific forecasting" in which there is no place for ideas and the plan of God. An example of a "theoretical justification" of the imminent future of mankind was the doctrine of Marx and Engels, which was modernized by other theorists under the pressure of circumstances. True, they well understood that modernity is a product of history and believed that science could predict the future on the basis of past experiences. Therefore, history has been the subject of careful, albeit biased, study. However, not having the opportunity to look deep into the past, scientists are content with historical information and some of them see the success of Western civilization in a rationalist worldview shaped by the influence of Christianity and Ancient democracy:
Classical rationalism made it possible to find the right, reasonable balance between the freedom of Antiquity and Christian morality (VOIN A.M. 2016, 41).
The triumph of classical rationalism led to unprecedented scientific and technological progress in the history of mankind. Currently, a rationalist worldview is in crisis and entails a systemic crisis (ibid, 42). If we characterize rationalism as classical, then we should recognize it as historical too. With this understanding, the role of prehistory is out of the question.
It is true, they were well aware that the present is a product of history, so history has been the subject of intense, though biased study. Historical events form the present in two ways. On the one hand, the chain of events caused a certain causal link between them. On the other hand, our subjective understanding of the past affects both the imperative of actual behavior of individuals as well as the policies of whole nations and thus participates in the formation of modernity. The picture of our past is formed by historians, let's call them observers. We know from quantum mechanics that observation of the physical process distorts its course. A historian is an observer who also distorts the picture of our past. A picture shown by him replaces real history. Historians are not a few, they can draw different pictures, but those pictures are taken to guide which more correspond with political ambitions. Unlike history, the prehistory of mankind can be restored only by analyzing real facts in the complete absence of subjective observers and this makes the analysis more reliable.
Faith lays in the heart of any knowledge, moreover, as pointed out by Pope Ivan Paul II, namely faith prompts the mind to find the truth, overcoming all kinds of obstacles. However, as Francis Bacon noted 400 years ago, a person is inclined to believe in what he prefers, while truth cannot always be interesting or useful for him. It concerns especially the questions about the origin of peoples and their early history. Mythic historiography can satisfy a person more than unusual and unrecognized results, which contradict traditional conception. However, the mistaken conception of the prehistory of peoples disturbs the causal relationship between prehistoric and historical events and its scientific value will be zero. The policy of the states based on false ideas led and can lead in the future to catastrophic consequences. A typical example gives the policy of Nazi Germany, based on the idea of the superiority of the so-called Aryan race, in spite of the fact that such a race does not exist at all, although the peoples known as Aryan are known in history, the Germans have a very distant relation to them. As usual, history has taught not all and the myth of the aria-oria still wakes people's imaginations, looking for the greatness of their peoples in the misty past. Various types of fascism were rested on such myths:
The imagination of former glory and the present decline was an ordinary element of fascist rhetoric. Most dictators claimed that they were guided by the desire to restore the historical role of their nation, its lost pride and dignity (ELEY G. 1988. Quoted by HEFFERNAN MICHAEL. 2011, 210).
The prehistory of mankind has been preserved primarily in the multitude of languages that exist now, constituting a complex structure in the form of a genealogical tree, the elementary particles of which are a set of sounds articulated by man. Since in our time it is considered indisputable that modern man originated from one species of humanoid animals somewhere in one place, all languages of the world had to go through similar processes of formation, associated with the general features of the apparatus of articulation and mental activity of man. The corresponding technique can allow us to reconstruct the history of the emergence of proto-languages of now existing macrofamilies. Such an attempt was made when applying Haeckel's principle "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" (STETSYUK VALENTYN. 2019)..
If we continue the conversation about linguistics, then until now the available onomastic material has not been sufficiently used. If the names of historical figures can still be interpreted in the languages of the people they represent, then solving the names of people unknown to us already presents great difficulties. However, the richest material of toponymy, which numbers thousands of units and retains information about the people who gave them names, is used only hypothetically. Meanwhile, toponymy helps to determine the ethnicity of archaeological cultures, the sites of which provide factual material for the restoration of the prehistory of many peoples. Unfortunately, the false theories applied in the processing of archaeological data only cloud the events of the past. The significance of written monuments is well known, but they must be treated critically.
In contrast to erroneous ideas, reliable data about the prehistory of a people can be a good prerequisite for further reasoning. For historical background, reliable results can be obtained by using the mentioned above graphic-analytical method that allows to find the original places of settlements of ancient peoples and determine the ethnicity of archeological cultures, and according to them the peculiarities of the spiritual world of their creators. And as the earliest vocabulary lay the foundations of language and significantly influences its further development, so the spiritual culture of ancient peoples is the soil on which the ethnopsychological features, national character, mentality, the worldview of their descendants develop as the primary basis of their historical destinies. Let's try to demonstrate by the example of Europeans why their background determined their exceptional role in the events of the second millennium. Max Weber, comparing the development of science, culture, and national economy in different parts of the world, argues that some phenomena having received universal significance were evolved in these areas of human activity in Europa (WEBER MAX. 1950, 13-31). By asking himself why, for example, in China or India, neither science, art, state, or economy have not become rationalized what is characteristic for the West, he answered so:
In all the above-mentioned peculiar phenomena, the matter is in the specific “rationalism”, which is characteristic of Western culture [ibid: 25-26].
However, not always Europe formed and dictated to the world new intellectual and cultural values. On this basis, especially zealous critics of "Eurocentrism" are trying to prove that the Europeans did not have a unique historical advantage, some special quality of race, culture, or the environment, mind, or spirit that provided them with permanent superiority over other communities (BLAUT J.M. 1993). Perhaps someone argues about the eternal superiority of Europeans, but this is not the case here. Different peoples and races have their own unique features that can provide them with superiority in certain periods of history, to which we have convincing examples, but may never provide them. The Europeans have unique features, formed by prehistory but this does not mean that they guarantee them success in the future, what will be discussed further.
Thousand years ago nothing augured that Europe would soon come to the first positions in the world. Contemporaries thought that the Roman Empire fell forever, and its descendant Byzantium could not withstand the onslaught of the Muslim world, which, in addition to military successes, also demonstrated great cultural and scientific achievements. However, the pressure of the Ottoman Turks, which ended with the seizure of Constantinople in 1453, was the challenge that triggered the features of the European character awakened in the Renaissance. Despite the threat of Turkish invasion and the Islamization of the Christian world (and, possibly, under the influence of these processes), ideas of religious tolerance and refusal of wars on religious grounds arise in Europe. For the first time, they were expressed by Nikolai of Cusa (1401 – 1464) shortly after the fall of Constantinople in the work "De pace fidei" (On peace or coexistence of confessions). It is symbolic that in 1453 in Europe there were two more events, the consequences of which largely determined the course of further world history. The first event was the end of the Hundred Years' War, the course of which had a great impact on the development of new types of weapons and troops. This progress to a large extent allowed to resist the Ottoman aggression, and also contributed to the future of European conquest politics.
The second event was the publication of the first copies of the Bible by Johann Gutenberg, which activated the spiritual power of Western Europe. By the end of the century, there were already about two hundred printing houses, which produced about 40 thousand editions with a circulation of 12 million copies. Such a mass reading of books stimulated the development of philosophical thought, and at the very beginning of the 16th century, the works of the first Western European humanists that were decisive for the development of European culture and science – Erasmus's "Praise of Folly", "Letters of Obscure Men" by anonymous authors, among whom was Ulrich von Hutten, "Eye Mirror" and "Letters of Famous Men" by Johann Reuchlin, "Of a Republic's Best State and of the New Island Utopia" by Thomas More, "Gargantua and Pantagruel" by François Rabelais and others. Martin Luther's theses were supported by the masses only because they were printed in large numbers, and this provided the success of the Reformation. Of great importance for the development of science was the publication of Nikolai Copernicus' book "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) which was published in 1000 copies in 1543. Contrary to popular belief, Copernicus' book was interesting in the Catholic Church, which, after new calculations based on Copernicus' theory, reformed the calendar in 1582.
In the 15th century, and in fact, after the voyages of Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama, the Age of Great Geographical Discoveries began, which was characterized by the oppression and annihilation of the population of open lands. And there were open two opposite features of a European character. Against the cruel treatment of the conquerors, the humanistic convictions of individual European intellectuals rose. The first to raise a voice in defense of the Indians and against the methods of their Christianization was the Spanish theologian and lawyer Francisco de Vitoria (1486-1546). His follower Bartolome de las Casas (1484 – 1566) took a more determined position and in a letter to Emperor Charles V wrote:
The cause for which the Christians have slain and destroyed so many and such infinite numbers of souls, has been simply to get, as their ultimate end, the Indians' gold of them, and so stuff themselves with riches in a very few days, and so raise themselves to high estates – without proportion to their birth or breeding, it should be noted – owning to the insatiable greed and ambition that they have had, which has been greater than any the world has ever seen before… [A]ll the Indians of all the Indies never once did aught hurt or wrong to Christians, but rather held them to be descended from heaven, from the sky, until many times they or their neighbors received from the Christians many acts of wrongful harm, theft, murder, violence, and vexation… (Bartolomé de las Casas. A short Account of the Destruction of the Indies,1542.)
The Dutch lawyer Hugo Grotius, who is considered to be a founder of modern international law, was also among the followers of Francisco de Vitoria. The protest against the inhuman attitude towards the aborigines was likewise shown by other European figures, and this position indicates a certain tendency among the European intellectual elite to limit the policy to legal and ethical standards. But it can not be argued that this trend prevailed in the mentality of the Europeans. It made her way into the atmosphere of the rigorism of spiritual life prevailing in Europe at that time. In same Spain, shortly before the voyage of Columbus, the papal inquisition was reorganized, whose activities took on cruel forms in a fanatical fight against heresy. And such forms were perceived in the public mind as quite normal and even were popular among the mass of Christians in Spain.
The single manifestations of the desire to be guided by legal norms in public life, tolerance to another, obviously reflect a certain feature among Europeans, thanks to which the ideas of humanism, originating in Europe since the Renaissance, developed. Born in the heads of brilliant thinkers, they, nevertheless, found a rather wide response. We do not observe anything of the kind in civilizations of other worlds. One might think that the humanistic idea may be related to the Christian doctrine widely accepted in Europe, but one can also assume that the very spread of Christianity in Europe is connected with the psychological archetype of Europeans. After all, this religion, despite the efforts of missionaries, was not heavily accepted in the civilized countries of Asia. Heinrich Heine once remarked that the final fate of Christianity depends on whether people need it or not. Obviously, not all needed it.
If we accept the difference in the ethnopsychology of the peoples of Europe and the East and look at the historical events of the Ancient World from this point of view, then we can see that, in contrast to the traditional despotism of Asian kings, European monarchs use softer forms of government. In Greece, unlike Egypt and Babylonia, the kings did not have absolute power and ruled with the participation of a council of elders (RUSSEL BERTRAND. 2001: 17). The Persians, having won all the Near East, joined it in the unitary empire that represented "the synthesis of Near Eastern political and cultural traditions under a single government that achieved stability not through military terror but through toleration" (HOLISTER C. W. 1991: 57). In particular, Jews were allowed to return to their homeland what allowed them to retain national and religious identity, so important for the subsequent history of mankind. Some Egyptian and Greek temples were restored too. The Persian "Kings of Kings" did not claim to divine origin, but an only divine appointment. Though they had absolute hereditary power, the state apparatus was added by council represented by seven noble persons, and the governors of provinces had large powers, although their rule was watched by special inspectors – the "eyes and ears of the King." Thus we see an example of this state-building not only a manifestation of tolerance but also democracy, unknown in other Asian countries. This difference in the form of government is evident due to the difference in mentality and psychology of those European and Asian nations.
Realizing this difference, European scientists since the time of Charles-Louis Montesquieu (1689 – 1755) are looking for its cause in people's reaction to environmental influences, initially only in the climate, and later in other geographical conditions. Henry Thomas Buckle (1821 – 1862) distinguished three types of environments including natural conditions – climate, soil fertility, landscape, nature coast, etc., which he regarded as crucial factors in the formation of the psychic and physical structure of man and its social organization (BUCKLE H.T. 1863: 29). In general, he, and many other researchers, believed that too harsh environment oppresses a person, and too favorable one relaxes, and as a consequence, in both cases, the scope of his activities is limited to changing living conditions. The influence of the environment on the development of civilizations was considered in detail by A.J. Toynbee, who formed the theory of "challenge-response", according to which man is forced and has the opportunity to overcome adverse natural phenomena (TOYNBEE ARNOLD J. 1995: 97-133). Civilization developed successfully where people could successfully resist the forces of nature, i.e. mainly in the middle zone with limited food resources. Here in the fight against hunger and cold, man had invented new means of production, management methods, technologies, and materials that intensified its various activities and developed flexibility of mind.
The concept of the mind itself is somewhat vague, but it can be operated to a certain extent if we agree that the "mind" is formed under the influence of geographical features. The ancestors of modern Indo-Europeans, Turks, and Finno-Ugrians in remote prehistoric times came to Eastern Europe from Transcaucasia, where they lived in close proximity under identical geographical conditions and, apparently, had the same "mind". But their descendants now have distinctly different cultures and it cannot be explained the reasons for this difference between them otherwise, as only by the influence of the various geographical conditions under which they lived later. This is especially true for Europeans, so scientists are looking for reasons for their leadership, in particular, in economic geography and history. Perhaps, considering the significance of the prehistory of mankind for its further development, Yu. Pavlenko gives too much importance to very deep epochs, but to a greater or lesser extent this view, from his point of view, was held by quite a number of researchers:
… the whole civilizational history is something like the top of the iceberg, which the main massif is comparable to the era of hunting-collecting primitiveness. It was there that archetypal foundations of modern culture were laid, what was repeatedly noted by E. Taylor, E. Durkheim, Z. Freud, K. Jung, C. Levi-Strauss, M. Moss, and many other outstanding researchers and thinkers who had a sufficient idea of the primitive era (PAVLENKO Yu.V. 2004: 110).
Recognizing the role of natural conditions in the formation of psychic-somatic qualities of a person, one should keep in mind that certain features of the physical structure and character formed under the influence of the environment are transmitted genetically or by other mechanisms from generation to generation, which are now being studied by evolutionary psychology:
Genetics of behavior studies the basics of behavior and all that is associated with it – mental illness, a propensity for divorce, political preferences, and even a feeling of satisfaction with life. Evolutionary psychology is looking for mechanisms through which these features pass from generation to generation. Both approaches suggest that nature and education are involved in the formation of behavior, thoughts, and emotions, but in contrast to the practice of the twentieth-century nature has preference now (CSIKSZENTMIHALYI MIHALY. 2008: 89)
Having no reliable knowledge of the location of the Urheimat of the Indo-Europeans and, accordingly, the influence of the environment on the formation of their mentality, scientists can not understand the reasons for the success of their descendants since the middle of the second millennium AD:
Why capitalism and the associated geopolitical transformations were rooted in Europe is a matter of broad discussion. While numerous authors agree that Europe should be something exceptional, there is no agreement on the nature of this feature (HEFFERNAN MICHAEL. 2011, 31).
Restoration of the picture of social relations, beliefs, and forms of the cultural life of Indo-Europeans in most cases looks like a perfect fantasy based on false ideas about the way of their life in the steppes of Ukraine. These ideas are very common and they are based on the erroneous localization of the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans in the steppe zone. For example, Sergey Nefedov asserts that “already in the middle of the 5th millennium BC Indo-Europeans tamed wild horses, tarpans, which were found in the steppes, and used them for horseback riding" [NEFEDOV SERGEY. 2010, 39] while the Turks were the first to do it. Yuri Pavlenko, speaking about Indo-Europeans, get out of the situation, that their "economic activities were mainly oriented towards animal husbandry" [PAVLENKO Yu.V. 2004, 229]. He explains the expansion of the Indo-European cattle-breeding tribes by the use of the horse in expanding the area and searching for new pastures. Horse riding, raids on neighbors to steal livestock led to a redistribution of wealth, social stratification of society, the formation of tribes under the leadership of the leaders, who were also high priests. It is clear that such a way of life should form psychological traits in cattle breeders that differ from those which, say, farmers have. When it turns out, according to the made research, that the ancient Indo-Europeans were not pastoralists, two conclusions follow from this. In the first place, the cattle-breeding in itself does not develop the features characteristic of Indo-Europeans, especially since other peoples, in ancient times indisputably engaged in animal husbandry, show features different from Indo-Europeans ones. And, secondly, other explanations should be sought for certain features of the Indo-Europeans.
Not having the opportunity to look far into the background, but placing great importance on the influence of natural conditions on the formation of cognitive schemes of people, the Australian scientist, known for his work in the field of environmental philosophy, the philosophy of culture and the metaphysics of process philosophy, argued that Western civilization is based on the fusion of Greek and Hebraic culture. Greek culture is the more important of these since Hebraic culture, but the latter, like other cultures that had a great influence on the formation of Western civilization was interpreted in terms of Greek thought. (GARE ARRAN. 1996: 73). At the same time, the fusion of the Hebraic culture with Greek metaphysics involved a radical transformation of Greek thought, by pouring into it elements of the engineering mentality of the Romans (ibid, 83). Thus, the author suggests that the ancient Greeks and Romans already had a different mentality.
Certain differences in the mentality of the Greeks and Romans, of course, were. But a much bigger difference was between the mentality of the Greeks and the Jews. A good example of such a distinction is the absence of the word "conscience" in the Hebrew language, which is proved by the absence of this word in the Old Testament. Judging by the texts of the New Testament, the first to use it is the apostle Paul, who spoke Greek, which had the word existedσυνειδησις, composed of συν "with, together" and ειδος "kind", "form", "state", "kin" and used in the meaning of "conscience". In Latin, it corresponds to conscientia "awareness", "agreement", "self-awareness", a little like loan translation from Greek. Most likely, words with such meanings came into use in accordance with the general mentality of Indo-Europeans associated with a common origin and living in the same environmental conditions:
Individuals assimilate the environment to interpretive schemes while at the same time accommodating these schemes to the environment. In other words, cognitive schemes which facilitate intelligent interaction with the environment are developed through their analogical use from one situation to another… Through generalization of schemes from one situation to another, and by forming the interpretive basis for transformations of nature, they also come to be embodied in the humanized environment, so that all kinds of human action and products of human action in traditional societies come to reflect each other, from the manner of economic production and the cooking of meals to ritual ceremonies, the manner of dressing and the layout of buildings and villages. (ibid, 66, 67).
If one agrees that the unity of culture comes from the generalization by the analogy of the ways of involving the world from one situation to another, resonating with the prevailing ways of influencing the environment, then the peculiarities of this environment need to be known in order to plausibly explain the development of the succession of cultures on a common cognitive basis.
The Proto-Indo-Europeans, who were the ancestors of most modern Europeans, since the 5th millennium BC inhabited the middle and upper Dnieper basin with a branched river network (STETSYUK VALENTYN. 1998: 44). There were no conditions for the development of livestock and farming, but nevertheless, the number of Indo-Europeans grew with time, that they began their expansion into Central and Southern Europe, Asia Minor, and Central Asia. Obviously, they had in their Urheimat a sufficient food base. Hunting could not provide such base, the more – gathering. It remains to assume that Indo-Europeans owe their quantitative growth to fishing, for the development of which there were here excellent conditions.
Let us imagine how fishing practices affect the development of the psychological qualities of people who deal with it. Natural resources were perceived by man differently than products of his own production, especially when they are available in sufficient quantities. If the products of agriculture and cattle breeding are closely connected with the producer and form the concept of property, which must be protected from the encroachments of aggressive or envious neighbors, the fish stocks of rivers and lakes are perceived by people as a heaven gift. No one had to fight for possession of them with a neighbor and they were abundant on the Indo-European homeland at that time. Such a situation did not develop in people's excessive aggressiveness, rather led to the formation of relatively peace-loving character traits. Fishing can be practiced both individually and collectively. This forms in people the features of independence, self-sufficiency, and at the same time ensures, if necessary, the ability to achieve a goal by joint efforts. In such conditions, the role of one leader in economic life is significantly reduced. But leadership qualities of the leader can be shown in the spiritual sphere. Hence intertwining of the secular and spiritual authorities arises, of which Pavlenko writes, but does not explain reasons of it (PAVLENKO Yu.V. 2004: 230). Not knowing precisely the prehistory of the Indo-Europeans, but only relying on the erroneous statements of T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov, he, drawing the spiritual world of the Indo-Europeans, gives complete freedom to his imagination, however, like many other philosophies as many other philosophers especially antique ones. A good opportunity for imagination is provided by individual fishing alone with nature when a person is waiting for a catch had a lot of time for thinking and reasoning about himself and people in general, the environment, and the connections between them all. It is not for nothing that Jesus Christ gathered his disciples, future apostles, from among the fishermen. Not knowing the reasons for the mysterious natural phenomena, the man gave vent to his fantasies and this feature was preserved among the Indo-European peoples, some of them have it even to this day.
The consequence of this inclination is that such a genre of literature as utopia has developed only in Europe. It was started already in ancient Greece, where Plato thought about the perfect device of human society. The result of his thought was the work of "The Republic", which in our view is a complete utopia, but then there was no such concept. It appears in the Renaissance after the writing of the novel by Thomas More with the long name of the island of Utopia, where there was a state built on rational but deeply humanistic principles. The book gave impetus to the development of such a flow of European social thought as utopian socialism, which followers were Campanella, Francis Bacon, Étienne Cabet, and many others. A Russian philosopher Berdyaev rated the role and importance of this movement as follows:
Utopias play a huge role in history. They should not be identified with utopian novels. Utopias may be a driving force and can be more real than the more reasonable and moderate directions. Bolshevism was considered utopian, but it was more real than the capitalist and liberal democracy… Man wounded by the evil of the world has a need to imagine evoke an image of perfect and harmonious order of social life. Proudhon, on the one hand, Marx, on the other hand, should be recognized to be the same extent utopians like Saint-Simon and Fourier. J. Rousseau was utopian too (BERDYAEV N. 1951: 156-157).
Now we will look at another feature of Europeans, which is characterized as rationalism. It was told a lot by Max Weber in his work "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism". Herewith, he emphasizes that rationality can appear in different forms and spheres of human activity. He mentions rationalism of economy, technology, research, education, war, law, management, said on the rational use of capital and the distribution of wealth, and stresses that rationalism is a historical concept, which contains "a whole world of opposites". The rationalism of Europeans was formed in prehistoric times in accordance with the mode of existence of their ancestors. Many philosophers, in particular E. Fromm, consider modes of existence radically different according to two principles – possession and being. These principles are allegedly reflected in the languages of nations when expressing attitudes toward property by the formulas "I have something" and "there is something at me". The first one corresponds to the existence according to the principle of possession, and the second one – to the principle of being in accordance with the meanings of the used verbs “to have” and "to be". The formula “I have something” is used in the overwhelming majority of European languages, while in Turkic, Finno-Ugric, Hebrew, and others, possession is expressed by the formula “there is at me". In Russian, the last expression is borrowed from Finno-Ugric, and in Ukrainian and Belarusian – from Russian, because the expression “I have” is more commonly used in them. On the basis of such a distinction in relation to property, scholars argue that Western Europeans, unlike many other nations, live by the principle of possession and therefore their society is mainly gravitating towards acquiring property and making a profit (FROMM ERICH. 2010: 41).
At the same time, it is overlooked that these verbs, being predicates, in both formulas do not refer to the same object. In one case, the possessor is expressed by the main part of the sentence, that is, by the subject, and in the other, by the object, when the subject is a thing of possession. Thus, the verb “to be” does not refer to the owner, and there is no reason to say that he lives according to the principle of being. This is a purely formal evaluation, especially since possession is a consequence of being. Nevertheless, the formula “I have something” makes it possible to speak about the special rationalism of Europeans, since the emphasis is placed on the owner, and the possession is in close subordinate connection to him. On the contrary, in the expression “there is something at me”, this something exists as if by itself and due to some circumstances turned out to be at the owner. At the same time, saying "I have," the owner emphasizes his importance as an individual, and this confirms his self-esteem, which entails the development and awareness of his rights in the person. Such a character trait develops in the process of successful human activity.
Rationalism is a very broad category and the rationality of being can be viewed from different points of view, which gives Weber the basis to share the rationalism of the Catholic and Protestant worlds. If the rationalization of private law, based on Roman law, sprouted in Catholic countries of southern Europe, the protestants of the North showed an attitude towards economic rationalism less pronounced at Catholics. Pointing to the successes of the Protestant nations and the predominance of Protestants among capital owners, entrepreneurs, and the highest skilled workers, he finally concludes that the reason for this is Protestant ethics.
However, M. Weber emphasizes that the Protestantism of its founders that is of Luther, Calvin, Knox, and Voet was very far from what is now called the "progress" (WEBER MAX. 1950, 44). In addition, the Anglican Church can be only conditionally classified as Protestant, and meanwhile, capitalism in the definition of Weber, based on the expectation of profit through the use of exchange opportunities, began to develop in England. Also, the organization of medieval workshops in Europe, which has no analogs in other parts of the world, is also rational. This suggests that the development of capitalism in the countries of Northern Europe is connected not with the conversion to Protestantism, but with the rationalism of a special kind that developed among more northern peoples and manifested itself in both the spiritual and material spheres, therefore it should be recognized that rationalism underlies the protestant movement. Heinrich Heine, in his work “On the History of Religion and Philosophy in Germany”, states that Christianity eventually took one form or another in Europe depending on the popular faith that preceded it. In the north, it was more pantheistic than in the south and with the deification of many phenomena and elements of nature. The adoption of Christianity transformed an adorable nature into a demonic nature. However, if the cheerful south could not easily and completely perceive this transformation, then in the north the world of the devil became as strict and gloomy, like the northern nature itself. It was the difference in ideas about the Antichrist, according to Heine, that was the reason for the birth of the Reformation (HEINRICH HEINE. 1966: 60-70). Similarly, harsh nature and climate have shaped such public consciousness at the peoples of Northern Europe, where the rational component was more pronounced than that of the peoples of the South.
Heine was a poet and therefore explained the transition to Protestantism poetically. Bertrand Russell believed that the Protestant movement was due to many reasons. This was a rebellion of the northern peoples against the domination of the rotten religion of Rome, which was fueled by national, economic, and moral motives, generally rational and shaped precisely by the harsh northern nature (RUSSELL BERTRAND, 1995: 11).
Indo-Europeans settled throughout the wide expanses of Europe and Asia at different times, and the formation of popular beliefs also took place at different times and in different natural conditions, what explains the difference in the ethnopsychology of various European peoples. Also, in the course of these resettlements, they absorbed more or less ethnic groups of different cultural traditions, in other places they assimilated among the autochthonous population. Therefore, we can not now speak of any typical psychological traits of Europeans, we can only say that some of them are more manifested than those of other peoples, and some Europeans may exhibit features that are not generally expressed in others.
Perhaps the Europeans have a trait that can generally be described as restlessness, desire for a new search, and discovery. In particular, it was clearly shown during the Period of Great Discoveries. Gunnar Heinson connects the activity of the Portuguese and Spaniards at this time with a phenomenon, which he calls "youth bulges", that is an excess of, especially young adult male population. Endowed with energy and ambition, "an excess number of young people with the same success, as always, leads to bloody expansions, as well as to the creation and destruction of empires" (GUNNAR HEINSON. 2006: 11). He proves this thesis by numerous examples of different times for different people and it looks pretty convincing, but this explanation is not always convincing for Europeans. For example, from the late 16th century and later Russian Cossacks conquered vast areas of Siberia and the Far East without much reason for this whereas they could use their energy for other purposes. Moreover, no violation of the demographic structure of the population in Russia was not observed at that time. In contrast, China, where the demographic imbalance was common in ancient times, never intended to conquer neighboring northern lands. It is difficult to expect any adventures from people who profess Taoism with its principle wu-wei, which means "inaction" in literal translation meaning negating purposeful activities that contradict the natural course of events. On the contrary, Europeans manifest in history a willingness to take risks for becoming dubious success very often, and this feature must also have some explanation.