Contemporary philosophical thought, characterized as post-metaphysical, is associated with an ontological transformation: the idea of a single substance that underpins various social practices is being replaced by communications that become social ontology. The change in social ontology, in turn, actualizes the need to study the philosophical foundations of education in the context of transition from a classical to a non-classical style of thinking. In this regard, there is a need to turn to the ontology of education, which takes on a communicative form (which is expressed in the motives of openness, incompleteness, variability of the educational space and educational knowledge). In the research literature, despite the presence of a large number of works covering educational communications from a pedagogical perspective, an insufficient conceptualization of the communicative ontology of education has nevertheless been identifi ed. The author sees the methodological basis of the communicative ontology of education in the works of a number of non-classical thinkers of the 20th century: K. Jaspers, J. Ortega y Gasset, M. Mamardashvili, J.-F. Lyotard, A. Toffler. Based on the analysis of the works of these authors, connections are identified between the philosophical ideas they express and current educational practices and trends (humanization, humanitarization, digitalization, fundamentalization, etc.). An attempt is made to outline the contours of the communicative content of education based on the methodological concept of the School of Communicative Didactics (V.I. Tyupa, I.A. Zimnyaya, G.I. Petrova, Yu.L. Troitsky and others). A conclusion is made about the formation of a communicative ontology of education as a result of changes in philosophical discourse.
The article examines the changing role of the author-narrator as a defining feature of contemporary collective artistic practices and as a form of subjective narrative rupture. In this article, the term “narrative” refers to an artistic utterance organised through the sequential disclosure of meaning and presupposing an agency that holds this sequence together. The article argues that for understanding contemporary forms of distributed authorship, the relevant genealogical reference is not modernism in general but the specific institutional model of the Bauhaus: the workshop as a form of joint design production in which the artwork ceases to be an exclusively individual utterance. It traces a structural connection between this model and the curatorial concept of Documenta fifteen, where for the fi rst time a non-Western collective, RUANGRUPA, acted as artistic directors. It shows that the Indonesian idea of lumbung – a collective resource barn – does not bring about the destruction of narrative, but rather offers a different model of artistic coherence based on the distribution of authorship, resources, and responsibility. The methodological framework consists of structural analysis of narrative conventions, comparative art studies, and historical reconstruction.
The article develops the theme of rationality at the border of expressibility. The Indian doctrine of the four levels of speech (vaikhari, madhyama, pashyanti, para-vak) is considered in the context of mythological, philosophical and religious ideas of the East, West, and Ancient Rus’. The author highlights the common features of historically different teachings. The ontological interpretation reveals cosmic speech as the unfolding of the Universe during the period of activity of life (in Indian philosophy - during the period of Manvantara) from the original Voice Sound. The ontology of cosmic consciousness is identified with the ontology of speech, which realizes itself “from the inside out”, from the stage of internal emergence of an idea (ideation) to completion in external articulation (objectification of meanings in things, physical or mental). Focus on an object (intentionality) and the construction of mental images by cosmic demiurges are essential features of universal speech. The concept of “logos” of ancient Greek philosophy absorbed all the main components of universal speech as the formation of meaning and the construction of forms: the externally expressed word, internal speech without sound and voice, logic, number, proportion, elements, species and seed logos. The teachings of universal speech have had cultural interpretations, particularly in poetry and in the psychosomatic practices of yoga. The author offers interpretations of the principles of universal speech in the creative practices of technogenic civilization. To understand the teachings about universal speech, the author draws attention to the languages of nature, which served as prototypes of symbolic thinking: sound, color, geometric shape, number, sensory images. The evolution of intelligence has led to the development of analytical abstract-conceptual thinking abilities and the quality of awareness. Historically, the concrete figurative and symbolic languages of mythology preceded conceptual natural philosophy and science, but continued to evolve in science, and even more so in art. The author believes that the evolution of sensory perception and imagination (sensing thinking), together with the construction of phenomenal languages, will lead to the integration of intellect and straight-knowledge, to the formation of the ability to control the internal and external levels of universal speech.
The purpose of this study is to identify the characteristics and patterns of development of Soviet private collecting. The article describes the sociocultural mechanisms of the historical dynamics of domestic private collecting within the context of the political, social, and economic processes of Soviet society and state policy. The phenomenon of Soviet private collecting is examined both in its holistic, institutional characteristics and in its individual manifestations. The following periods of Soviet history are analyzed: the early years of Soviet power, the NEP period, the Stalin period, the Thaw, and Gorbachev’s perestroika. The analysis included: a study of government documents, an analysis of the activities of state and public organizations charged with working in the field of private collecting, a description of the activities of domestic private collectors, and the fate of their collections. The methodology is based on a micro historical method, which allows us to highlight the role of individuals in history through the analysis of personal documents. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the use of the pendulum metaphor. As a result, it was established that the history of Soviet private collecting follows a pendulum-like pattern: increased state surveillance of citizens’ lives, making legal collecting impossible, was followed by a period of relaxed private initiatives in this area, and then a reversal. This shift in the country’s political course led to the active movement of cultural treasures, the emergence of new ways to locate collectibles, the formation of new types of collectors, and forms of communication between private collectors and with state institutions. As a result of the study, the author concludes that private collecting not only reflects the logic of the country’s historical and cultural processes but also has its own developmental logic. Studying collecting practices, the forms and methods of assembling collections, and the nature of the relationships between the state, state museums, and private collectors can be useful not only for understanding the historical process but also for understanding the ways in which national identity is formed and maintained and cultural heritage is preserved.
N.A. Berdyaev develops and elaborates the principles for comprehending the national idea, previously formulated by V.S. Solovyov. The founder of the philosophy of All-Unity linked the meaning of a nation’s existence with the destiny of the Christian world, the Universal Church. According to Solovyov, the national idea has universal character, it consists in what God thinks of the nation in eternity. In his works Berdyaev examines the Russian idea in the context of the establishment of God-manhood formation, emphasizes the priority of a universal, objective Divine will, calls for the renewal of Christianity and all aspects of social life. The personalist philosopher connects the impending religious revival with the development of the personal principle. He perceives Christianity as a revelation about the person, and the Western European idea of knighthood as the threshold of Christian anthropology. The most important component of the realization of the Russian people-nation is the knightly ideal – the basis for forming a new religious consciousness, an alternative to ‘worldly philistinism’ and total self-sufficing statehood. Initially, Berdyaev’s attention to the “Russian Idea” was connected with his reflections on the causes and consequences of the First Russian revolution of 1905-1907. He came to the conclusion that Russia was destined for a great mission – to become a bridge between the Christian East and West, to unite humanity in its progressive historical improvement. To fulfill this mission, the Russian people must overcome their inherent shortcomings and create favorable conditions for perfecting the personal principle within its bounds. In the Russian person, who has absorbed knightly virtues, Berdyaev believes, the individualism of the West is superseded, and a synthesis of the two vectors of historical development, East and West, is realized. The theme of Russia’s world-historic world mission becomes urgent in Berdyaev’s work in connection with the country’s entry into the First World War, and especially after the overthrow of the autocracy in February 1917. He views the victory of democracy in Russia as an external condition for the emergence of spiritual knighthood, whose thoughts are directed beyond the empirical world. The Russian philosopher hopes that the revolution will liberate spiritual forces of the people and will be accompanied by the formation of national aristocracy of the spirit. But in the summer of July 1917, Berdyaev observes that Russia is being sacrificed to the revolutionary element. He considers the Russian person’s inclination towards social utopias a consequence of centuries of slave-like existence of the people, the absence in the Russian national character of a sense of duty and responsibility. The Bolsheviks’ victory in the struggle for power in the autumn of 1917 confirmed Berdyaev’s worst fears. He states that in Russia, the forces of negation and degeneration, the force of chaos and disintegration have prevailed. There is no genuine revolutionary movement, no creative development. Class consciousness destroys respect for the human person. The triumph in Russia of the bourgeois ideal of prosperous existence in the material world, of equality and justice, over the hierarchical principle of the universe’s order, was symptom of the degradation of the Russian people and meant the collapse of N.A. Berdyaev’s “Russian Idea”.
