Ideas and Ideals

The article is devoted to the study of the doctrine of society and the social ideal in the French personalism of Jean Lacroix and Emmanuel Mounier and in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. The research is carried out through a comparative analysis of the socio-philosophical, ethical, as well as religious-philosophical foundations of French personalism and Kantian philosophy.

The socio-philosophical concept underlying both the personalist and Kantian teachings on society is an integral synthesis of two ideas. First of all, this is the idea of the value of human personality itself. Secondly, this is the idea of the relationship between the personality form of human existence and his social format of existence. Based on this concept, personalist philosophers proclaim the principle of ‘immersiveness’ as an effective way of social development, which consists in improving forms of interpersonal communication based on cultivating the ideals of active love (‘involvement’), social solidarity and mutual responsibility of all members of society. In Kant’s philosophy, the antagonistic principle of ‘unsociable sociability’ is proclaimed as the main way of social development, based on the idea of the creative role of social contradictions and efforts to overcome them.

Both the personalists and Kant have two ideological principles at the heart of the doctrine of the social ideal. First of all, this is the principle of the direct influence of the moral improvement of each personality on the level of social development of society as a whole. Secondly, it is the principle of reliance on the religious and philosophical foundations of social progress. The idea of the moral development of members of society is enriched by the religious and philosophical foundations of social progress and acquires the necessary semantic depth in this combination. However, if the personalists choose spiritual communion with the personal divine being of the Holy Trinity as the religious and philosophical basis of social progress, then for Kant the religious and philosophical basis of social progress is the concept of moral religion developed by him, based on the principles of autonomous ethics.

Russian scientist N.Y. Danilevsky, in his fundamental work “Russia and Europe,” outlined his views on the phenomenon of humanity. The article, based on comparison, presents two different understandings, two different readings of the historiosophical thoughts of the famous scientist. One of the key aspects of the disagreement is highlighted which is the interpretation of the doctrine of cultural and historical types, the main positions are outlined from which the opponent is invited to consider in more detail the ideas expressed by the author of “Russia and Europe”. As a methodological principle of the study, the authors propose to use the known principle of unity in multiplicity, which allows us to find an approach to explaining real concepts, including the concept of personality, regardless of its scale.

The followers, scientists, well-known and novice researchers advocated Danilevsky’s conclusions throughout the existence of the book “Russia and Europe” – and this is more than 150 years, that evidences, on the one hand, about the relevance and significance of the problems seen by the domestic thinker, especially for Russia, historical fate of which was a real concern for Danilevsky. And on the other hand, it is necessary to recognize the high degree of the subjectivity of the nature of the socio-humanitarian sphere of knowledge. Danilevsky’s civilizational approach to the history of humanity has always been preventing the collective opponent in the person of V.S. Solovyov, F.M. Dostoevsky and, in this particular case in the person of Russian diaspora philosopher S.A. Levitsky, from building their own scientifi c theory about the universal goodness. The article suggests a hidden reason, probably not fully realized by Levitsky himself, for such a subjective understanding of Danilevsky’s work – created by Levitsky the theory of Russian solidarism, embraced, to quote Levitsky himself, by the “pathos of universality.” Being in pathos, it is difficult to maintain the ability to objectively hear the views of other person.

The authors have the additional motive for writing this article due the concern caused by the fact that Levitsky, working as a university tutor, shares his thoughts about Danilevsky as a thinker in the galaxy of Russian philosophers, about his role in the history of Russian philosophy with students, giving lectures on Russian literature and philosophy. Moreover, he publishes his subjective interpretation of Danilevsky’s views as part of a collection of essays on the history of Russian philosophy as a textbook.

The 21st century has been marked by a surge of breakthrough digital technologies – global digital transformation has a significant impact on various aspects of human life, including social relationships. In the modern world, we are increasingly faced with a tendency to lose the value of individuality and spirituality in the pursuit of material success and digital technologies. In this context, it becomes especially important to preserve the conditions for the development of subjectivity as a key anthropological quality of becoming a full-fl edged personality. The manifestation of subjectivity in the digital environment is becoming increasingly important due to the lack of understanding of the factors that may hinder its development and manifestation, as well as the consequences of the transformation of subjectivity under the influence of ongoing changes. Modern man finds himself in a hybrid digital environment, where the real and virtual worlds are intertwined, which can lead to fragmentation of personality and alienation of subjectivity. The influence of “big data”, artificial intelligence technologies and algorithmic capitalism creates a threat to human freedom, individuality and autonomy. The integration of such technologies into the educational process requires special attention and a balance between innovation and preservation of the traditional educational system.  The emergence of LLM (large language model) based personal assistants announced by global corporations can potentially lead to the disappearance of the self (subjectivity, agency) as a result of interactions with artificial intelligence, in which individual consciousness will be subject to regular influence (manipulation) by a digital agent.

Based on the materials of a sociological survey, the article presents a study of the factors of readiness of graduates of pedagogical training areas of colleges and universities to work in their specialty. The purpose of the article is to identify and analyze the factors influencing the readiness of college and university graduates who have mastered pedagogical programs to work in their specialty in general education schools. To achieve this goal, a study of professional readiness based on a sociological approach was conducted. The results made it possible to divide the respondents into 3 groups: with a high degree of readiness, an average degree of readiness and a low degree of readiness to work in their specialty. The results of the study showed that slightly more than half of graduates of pedagogical fi elds have a high degree of readiness and plan to immediately get a job in their specialty. The revealed patterns allowed us to conclude that the willingness to work in a specialty is significantly influenced by three significant factors: the economic factor manifested in relation to wages; the level of professional competence, as well as the factor of professional vocation. Among them, factors have been identified that positively or negatively affect graduates, depending on their level of readiness. For example, graduates with a high degree of readiness to work in their specialty generally rated their professional competencies more highly than graduates with low and medium levels of readiness to work in their specialty. A low level of competence development was revealed among those young people who entered pedagogical training courses not by vocation, and, conversely, a high level among those who came to study by vocation. The low level of readiness to work in the specialty is expressed in the intention to change the vector of the professional and educational trajectory. The limitations of the study are the pilot nature of the implemented project. The prospects of the research are the possibility of conducting a comparative analysis between graduates of colleges and universities and the opportunity to complement the regular monitoring studies conducted by the VolRC RAS in the social sphere.

The article analyzes the problem of the relationship of two historical phenomena, which largely determined the appearance of an entire century and infl uenced the development of subsequent forms of culture. With the undoubted scientist orientation of positivism and Bonapartism in the middle and second half of the 19th century, the question of their kinship remains debatable. The author of the article opposes the hypothesis of the direct determining infl uence of positivism on Bonapartism. In order to substantiate this statement, the article considers the works of Louis Bonaparte, directly related to natural science topics. The work which was dedicated to sugar production in France essentially has political goals. Written by a political prisoner, it is directly polemical to government decisions made in France. Louis Bonaparte calls for focusing on the common interests of the country, taking into account the needs of producers, consumers and residents of the colonies of France. He gives a detailed description of the process of obtaining sugar from beets, mentions the introduced technical innovations. Political independence, in his opinion, requires the preservation and development of sugar production in the country. In his essay on the project for the construction of a canal connecting the Pacifi c Ocean with the Atlantic Ocean, he gives various considerations about the need for such an enterprise. In this work, Louis Bonaparte operates various geographical data, also seeks to show his acquaintance with hydraulics. He emphasizes the political importance of the project, as well as its commercial attractiveness. With positivism, the position of Louis Bonaparte brings together the idea of  progress, the call to rely in public life on science that has a practical application, criticism of speculative theories. He diverges from the ancestor of positivism in assessing the role of religion and republican institutions. Louis Bonaparte did not share the theory of the three stages of Comte and his encyclopedic law. Positivism and Bonapartism as special historical phenomena of one century have some related features, but do not fl ow from one another.

The article substantiates the distinction between social and sociality as two levels of social ontology. The concept of the invariant of sociality is introduced to denote the ability of a set of active agents of natural or artifi cial origin to form a stable homogeneous or heterogeneous unity by orienting each agent to the coordination and coordination of interactions. The analysis of the polemics between J. Habermas and K. Popper regarding the explanation of the mode of emergence of symbolic objects that are part of intersubjective life worlds allowed the author to clarify the peculiarities of interactions in digital communications. If the life world of an individual is constructed for him in the space of the technosystem, and is not a product of the cultural tradition of practices of a certain community, then the content of symbolic formations necessary for interactions with other individuals also arises in the information space organized and fi lled with the technosystem. The conditions of the possible transition of society to a post-social state are considered. According to the author, post-sociality emerges as a format of patterns of interactions between individuals in interactions with imaginary Others. These patterns are objectifi ed symbolic formations and are incorporated into the practices of interactions with the Other in three parallel spaces: a) in the space of direct interpersonal interactions, b) in the space of network interactions mediated by patterns of virtual origin, and c) in the space imposed by network platforms in the form of ‘digital twins’. These three spaces in the intersubjective life world are now being formed as regulators of the behavior of individuals not only in the interhuman, but also in the space of inseparable connection with the digital technosystem.

The article discusses one of the possible trajectories of global development leading to humane orders through the growth of authority and infl uence of international law and international courts. The well-known aggravation of confl ict in the fi rst decades of the current century has already led to polarization, the logical conclusion of which could be a new period of the Cold War. Two camps are being formed again, each of them including several centers. Variants of names are discussed and arguments in favor of choosing the pair ‘The World of Rules’ and ‘The World of Traditions’ are given. Humanistic development presupposes the prevention of wars, which is possible only if confl icts are resolved on the basis of law and the priority of judicial decisions, backed by the solidarity of the leading powers. The highest barrier to this is the commitment of the strongest states to maintain the fullest possible sovereignty in their foreign and domestic policies. Not only authoritarian regimes but also liberal democracies are not ready for any limitation of their sovereignty. A deep worldview gap in the attitude of politicians, experts, and societies to the future in terms of war and peace is revealed. The imperative to expand consciousness and language to overcome this gap, to include these centers in the legal world order, for the subsequent involvement of the global Limitrophe, i.e. a multitude of non-aligned states, is substantiated. It is shown that Immanuel Kant’s bold political ideas were only partially realized in the 20th century. Kant’s insights about the humanistic meaning of history through the achievement of ‘lawfulness’ primarily in interstate relations remain relevant and require their realization.

Since the 19th century, one of the main areas of dispute in the framework of social philosophy concerns the role of spiritual factors, psychology and culture in the development of society in general and in the formation of capitalism in particular. To overcome disagreements, it is necessary to understand what is the real role of spiritual factors (the spirit of capitalism) in the formation and functioning of the system of rational capitalism. The initial methodological premise of the study is that a multifactorial approach to historical explanation is required, in particular to explain the phenomenon of the emergence of capitalism. The emergence of rational capitalism is not so much a manifestation of the iron law of history as the result of a unique constellation of social factors. Most of these factors are of a material (in the sociological sense of the word) nature. Nevertheless, we can confi dently say that the formation of the spirit of capitalism was one of the necessary factors in the formation of a system of rational capitalism. The spirit of capitalism is a combination of culture, ideology and the prevailing psychological mood that motivate economic agents to act according to the principles of a market economy, to strive for enrichment, but not by any methods, but only those that contribute to the formation of a rational capitalist system, productive and capable of sustainable self-development. The spirit of capitalism does not exist initially and is not formed automatically by the capitalist system in the course of its functioning. In particular, its formation and maintenance require a certain ideological activity of the humanitarian intelligentsia.

In the context of recent international events, issues of national identity have once again appeared on the agenda, which for the fi rst time clearly sounded in the domestic humanitarian discourse since the middle of the XIX century. The events of the last ten years have clearly shown that Russia, having experienced multifactorial external infl uences, is not а part of the Western or Eastern cultural and geographical worlds, but has its own ‘civilizational face’ and its own tasks in world history. In order to rationalize and systematically comprehend the basic categories of national identity, it is necessary to turn to the analysis of such concepts as ‘Russian civilization’, ‘Eurasian civilization’, ‘Russian world’.

To avoid extremes and modern temptations in their assessment, the methodology of such study must be based primarily on the position of such Russian thinkers as N.A. Berdyaev, K.N. Leontiev, N.S. Trubetskoy. They rightly noted that autocratic Russian imperialism and cosmopolitanism are opposed to both true patriotism and genuine humanity.  The infringed in the past Russian national identity is subjected today to nationalist temptations and threats of ideological excesses, which is refl ected in the extremely broad interpretation of the concept of the ‘Russian world’. The article gives the author’s assessment of this concept, which is based on the ethnocultural understanding of the Russian world. The necessity of overcoming its identifi cation, on the one hand, with the Eurasian civilization or the Eurasian cultural and geographical world, and on the other hand, with the civilization of Russia, is substantiated.  In the spiritual aspect, the Russian world is devoid of geographical, political, ethnocultural and linguistic ties, refl ecting the primordial human right to freely acquire one’s spiritual identity. But such self-identifi cation should be purely voluntary, especially in a multinational Russia. The civilization of Russia, in addition to the Russian world (or Russian subcivilization), also includes the Turkic, Mongolian and Ugro-Finnish ethno-cultural worlds (subcivilizations) from the standpoint of classical Eurasianism.

In the context of recent international events, issues of national identity have once again appeared on the agenda, which for the fi rst time clearly sounded in the domestic humanitarian discourse since the middle of the XIX century. The events of the last ten years have clearly shown that Russia, having experienced multifactorial external infl uences, is not а part of the Western or Eastern cultural and geographical worlds, but has its own ‘civilizational face’ and its own tasks in world history. In order to rationalize and systematically comprehend the basic categories of national identity, it is necessary to turn to the analysis of such concepts as ‘Russian civilization’, ‘Eurasian civilization’, ‘Russian world’.

To avoid extremes and modern temptations in their assessment, the methodology of such study must be based primarily on the position of such Russian thinkers as N.A. Berdyaev, K.N. Leontiev, N.S. Trubetskoy. They rightly noted that autocratic Russian imperialism and cosmopolitanism are opposed to both true patriotism and genuine humanity.  The infringed in the past Russian national identity is subjected today to nationalist temptations and threats of ideological excesses, which is refl ected in the extremely broad interpretation of the concept of the ‘Russian world’. The article gives the author’s assessment of this concept, which is based on the ethnocultural understanding of the Russian world. The necessity of overcoming its identifi cation, on the one hand, with the Eurasian civilization or the Eurasian cultural and geographical world, and on the other hand, with the civilization of Russia, is substantiated.  In the spiritual aspect, the Russian world is devoid of geographical, political, ethnocultural and linguistic ties, refl ecting the primordial human right to freely acquire one’s spiritual identity. But such self-identifi cation should be purely voluntary, especially in a multinational Russia. The civilization of Russia, in addition to the Russian world (or Russian subcivilization), also includes the Turkic, Mongolian and Ugro-Finnish ethno-cultural worlds (subcivilizations) from the standpoint of classical Eurasianism.

The article examines the origin of the concepts of ‘politarism’ and its derivatives ‘political mode of production’, ‘political society’, which are quite often used in the Russian domestic socio-historical and socio-philosophical literature. It is shown that the immediate predecessor of this concept was the ‘Asian mode of production’ and its various analogues (‘Eastern despotism’, ‘the era of Asian kings’ etc.) in the works of K. Marx, which remained mainly in manuscript form. The fi rst discussion around the Asian mode of production (AMP), which unfolded in the USSR in the 1920s, although it was suppressed by harsh administrative methods, nevertheless brought a signifi cant revival to the Soviet social philosophy, which was already under the powerful pressure of the dogmas of the ‘historical materialism’ and the so-called fi ve-term scheme of socio-economic formations. A second similar discussion, which took place in the 1950s and 1960s, also played such a role, prompting, among other things, a signifi cant part of professional orientalists to large-scale and conceptual socio-historical generalizations. The activities and works of the recently deceased professor Yu. I. Semenov, whose name is directly related to the appearance of the term ‘politarism’ in Soviet and then Russian social philosophy, are specially considered. Y.I. Semenov’s original historiosophical concept, created and developed by its author in the conditions of his conscious opposition to the aggressive ideological environment and administrative dictate, has become a valuable component of the conceptual and scientifi c understanding of the historical process, retaining its heuristic signifi cance to this day. The concepts used by Y.I. Semenov and, in general, his very approach to understanding social and political reality deserve attention as one of the versions of non-dogmatic, creative Marxism, which occupies a noticeable niche in modern domestic and foreign academic discourse.