There are two points of view on the systemic approach and its use: according to the first, this approach is conceived as universal, suitable for any disciplines and practices, according to the second, it includes a specific objectivity, should grasp the features of a certain field of knowledge. In order to choose one of them, the author analyzes on the basis of two cases (“The Critique of Pure Reason” by I. Kant and the works of G.P. Shchedrovitsky) the formation and features of the systemic approach, showing that it is the design of an object of study in a special epistemic situation. Its feature is, on the one hand, the presence of several objects that describe the proposed object, on the other hand, the belief in the existence of an ontology and laws in accordance with which this object can be designed. The systemic approach in this version (as the configuration of various objects and the design of an object based on this process) is compared with humanitarian and socio-humanitarian research and development (A.S. Pushkin’s personality research and the successful Donor project), which make it possible to do without systemic ideas and thinking. They are replaced by methodology and research in the subject. The author draws attention to the fact that the ideas of identifying and searching for the integrity, nature and boundaries of the phenomenon under consideration, taking into account connections and influences, the correlation of synthesis and analysis, and a number of others that are today referred to as a systemic approach, were developed meaningfully (in other non-systemic concepts and languages) throughout the entire history of the development of philosophy, methodology and science. As a result, it turns out that it is necessary to distinguish between the methodology of a systemic approach and other methodologies that allow systemic problems and tasks to be solved, so to speak, non-systemically.