The article offers comparative analysis of philosophical research into the national principle in Russia and Europe. The views of M. Mamardaschvilli, N. Berdiaev, V. Solovyov, M. Scheler and O. Spengler are compared. We also identify similarities and differences between their definitions of national consciousness. The means of harmonizing various concepts are defined, each of which is suitable for explaining some forms of national consciousness in specific historical circumstances. Metaphors of unity and integrity no longer give exhaustive descriptions of modernity. The complicated relationship of different cultures and peoples is impossible to describe through a universal theory. We must deal with each individual case using various conceptual systems and identifying common prerequisites and assumptions. Today the responsibility of intellectuals is to restore national identity without causing a “genius of war.” Without questioning the need for compliance with the formal requirements of tolerance, it is proposed to restore the theoretical and ethical principle of neighbourhood and hospitality, ensuring the peaceful existence of the people doomed to live its neighbors. Refs 13.