Trajectories of Education Development: from 1960s to 2000s

The article is devoted to the analysis of the formal and substantive aspects of the development of education in the process of forming a single European educational space. The formal conditions for the integration of education (the development of common quality criteria, the choice of educational trajectories, the mobility of students and teachers) were considered by default as arising from the European concept of individual rights and freedoms. The content of education in the post-industrial era, when society refuses to impose strict value and behavioral imperatives on the individual, is aimed at ensuring a level of autonomy of the subject that would allow him not only to realize his creative potential, but also to determine his life goals and meanings. In this regard, an important task is to develop the theoretical and conceptual foundations of the leading trends in the transformation of the educational system - personalization, autonomization of the subject, the introduction of projective techniques, recognition of the leading role of creative activity. The conditions for Russia's entry into the Bologna process and the thesis about the alienness of the standards introduced in this regard for national education are analyzed. It is shown that the cognitive foundations of design and creative activity, as well as the ideas of intellectualization of education, developed in the 1960s in Russian philosophy, psychology and pedagogy, can be used as methodological foundations for reforming Russian education. The possibilities of using the activity paradigm as a conceptual framework for developing a teaching methodology, a methodology for the formation of critical thinking and project activity are shown. This allows us to conclude that there is still variability in the trajectories of the development of domestic education, which can be based both on methodological and technological advances, as well as cultural and anthropological perspectives.

Intercultural Philosophy: A Polylogue of Traditions

This article provides an overview of the Seventh International Readings on the History of Russian Philosophy, entitled “Intercultural Philosophy: A Polylogue of Traditions”, which were held at the Sociological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences – a branch of the Federal Research Sociological Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The path of the intercultural philosophy began around the 1980ies and 1990ies in Germany and Austria as a criticism of Western-centrism in philosophy and as an ideological alternative to the Western style of thinking. In this conference, an attempt was made to transfer the principles and methods of intercultural philosophy (philosophy of polylogue) to the history of Russian philosophy. This article also offers a summary of the structure of the conference, the content of its plenary lectures as well as the reports on the intercultural subjects and polylogue methodology, including their applied aspects. The main parts of the plenary sessions, roundtables and seminars that were held within the conference are also analyzed. It is pointed out that the process of formation of intercultural philosophy has not been completed yet; its terminology has not been established; and, eventually, the methods and results have not received wide recognition. However, the period of declarations and of manifestos is coming to an end. The conference contributed to the popularization of intercultural philosophy and the philosophy of polylogue in Russia. Relying on the experience and traditions of non-Western thinking, it offers a solution to the problems facing modern humanity, it indicates a number of possible ways to overcome the crisis situations in culture and society, and it also provides some answers to the “eternal” philosophical questions.

Modernistskiy ekfrasis v esse Mariny Tsvetayevoy „Natal'ya Goncharova. Zhizn' i tvorchestvo”

This article examines Marina Tsvetaeva’s modernist perception of the personality and paintings of the greatest representative of the Russian avant-garde of the 20th century in the essay “Natalia Goncharova. Life and Work” (“Наталья Гончарова. Жизнь и творчество”, 1929). Goncharova’s paintings that Tsvetaeva describes in her essay are indicated. The principles of modernist poetics and ekphrasis are revealed (lyrical subjectivism, ontology, consonance, anagrammatic disclosure of the inner form of a word, mythologization, reader co-creation, dialogism). The similarity between Tsvetaeva’s understanding of painting and poetry is compared to the ontological understanding of art by Martin Heidegger. This can be explained by the tradition of ontological poetry (Friedrich Hölderlin and Rainer Maria Rilke), which is important for both. The ontology of Goncharova’s painting is also considered in the context of the ontology of animals in Russian philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century (Vasily Rozanov) and in the Tahitian Painting of Paul Gauguin. Special attention is paid to ekphrastic poetics (style, tropes, consonance), with the help of which Tsvetaeva authentically transfers the ontologism of Goncharov’s painting in its stylistic diversity (cubism, neo-primitivism, rayonism) to the verbal level. Tsvetaeva and Goncharova in the respective Russian and European context (Gauguin, Rozanov, Heidegger, Rilke) appear as exponents of the ontological turn in the culture of the first half of the 20th century.

Philosophy of Inequality in the Context of Post-Humanism

In the article the author examines humanism criticism that does not result in post-humanism. The author shows that post-humanism is the reaction to the humanistic idea of man as the center of the world that was typical for west-European philosophy. At the same time post-humanism doe not negate the logic of humanism, but extrapolates it to the whole of non-human world. On the contrary, Russian philosophy is free from the original premises of humanism and it views the crisis of humanism in a different perspective. The author shows that Russian philosophy is not anthropocentric, but on the contrary – anthropologic. Its feature consists in viewing the man in the perspective of his ontological expansion. The idea of such ontological expansion is based on the philosophy of inequality. When west-European philosophy today conceptualizes total world democracy on the other side of man, Russian philosophy turns to the idea of metaphysical gaps that substantiate the idea of man’s freedom and anthropological necessity of self-restrictions.

“It is not a miracle, but grief...”: representations of Sergey Kozlov's on soteriological mission of the woman (based on the novella “Mother-Masha”)

This article analyzes the views of the contemporary Ugric writer Sergey Kozlov pertaining to mission of the women in 1990s – 2000s, which was the turning period for the country. The novella “Mother-Masha” demonstrates that it textual space, namely the woman becomes the symbol of justice of the Christian fabric of life, and is reflected in the sincere desire of the protagonist to establish good and justice in the world. The author contemplates on S. Kozlov's ideological and artistic views upon the role of the woman at the time of major transformations in the Russian history. Reference to the writer’s fictional prose, diaries, and interviews allows revealing the peculiarities of his axiological position in the context of the Russian philosophy of femininity. The scientific novelty of this research is substantiated by the need for articulation of the problem related to the study of specificity of female images in the creative heritage of Siberian writer Sergey Kozlov. Comprehensive analysis of the writer's novella “Mother-Masha” included into the book “Duty Angel” (2011) is carried out. The article introduces the sources, such as diary notes and interview materials, which have not been previously used in studying the works of S. Kozlov. The conclusion is made that soteriological mission was imposed on Mother Masha – the woman who proliferated the Divine Commandments to the world and is associated with the symbol of national salvation.

Praxis and Practice: Ways of Distinguishing

The article exposes diverse historical-philosophical meanings of the concepts of praxis and practice. Using the works of Aristotle, I. Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, K. Marx, H. Lotze, and H. Arendt, the author demonstrates the main ways of distinguishing between these two notions. The article clarifies meanings of praxis and prudence in Aristotle’s philosophy. The crucial transformation of the sense of practice in classical German philosophy, its further neo-Kantian and neo-Hegelian interpretations are also considered. The author reveals a range of categorical forms of comprehending the practical and traces the basic directions of the development of definitions of praxis and practice, indicating the historical-philosophical contexts of their evolution. The article compares the conceptions of the acting subject developed by I. Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, K. Marx, and H. Lotze. Special attention is given to the explication of H. Lotze’s practical philosophy in building and distributing the conception of active life. Marxist and Lotzean approaches to praxis are compared, and their role in the formation of its current interpretations is revealed. These interpretations are problematized, taking into account the partly reconstructed initial meanings of praxis in Aristotle’s philosophy. The author justifies the relevance of H. Lotze’s legacy in Russian philosophy, examining the categories of social action and active life, the acting subject and society. The article demonstrates prospects for their reconsideration in social philosophy by approaching H. Lotze’s practical philosophy. The conclusion highlights consequences of the replacement of the Aristotelian definition of praxis with the Lotzean version, the possibility and necessity of reproducing the initial sense of praxis as different from practice in diverse historical-philosophical interpretations.

Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev): A Researcher and Commentator of Priest Pavel Florensky’s Legacy

The article examines the life and research activities of Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev). Hegumen Andronik was a member of the Liturgical Committee of the Russian Orthodox Church and served as the abbot of the Valaam Monastery of Savior Transfiguration, participated in the publication of the Priest’s Handbook, Orthodox Encyclopedia, and other projects. Hegumen Andronik authored many liturgical texts and articles dedicated to Russian Saints (Venerable Sergius of Radonezh, Venerable Paphnutius of Borovsk, Venerable Ambrose of Optina, etc.). However, his most significant contribution was made to the study of Russian philosophy. The main work of Hegumen Andronik was analysis and preparation for publication of materials from Pavel Florensky’s archives. The article describes important points in the biography of Hegumen Andronik and the difficulties he overcame in his major activities. Hegumen Andronik did not only “re-discover” Florensky for Russian philosophy and theology but also proposed and substantiated the position according to which the works of the priest can be adequately understood. He substantiated that Florensky’s legacy is a part of the corpus of Christian philosophy, Christian science, and Christian art. In the opinion of Hegumen Andronik, this unique heritage can provide material for the development of theology, but in itself it is not theology. It becomes obvious that Florensky’s works are also of interest in other areas of human knowledge, since methodologically they go back to the ideas of “integral knowledge” and “theurgy,” according to which all areas of knowledge and human activity do not mix or lose their specificity but are synthesized in a common relationship with religion and worship.