Ideas and Ideals

The article distinguishes and analyzes two planes of discourses about death, as well as understanding of the cosmos: natural, independent of man, on the contrary, determining his life, and private, so to speak artificial, oriented towards man. Already in the works of Plato and further throughout history, these planes can be reconstructed. For example, they are demonstrated in the novel by Alexander Bogdanov “Engineer Manny”. The author shows that the private plane was initially independent; it was formed in the Ancient World on the basis of semiotic schemes that were invented as means of resolving problematic situations. The understanding of death and space is no exception. The corresponding schemes were understandable to man, as if they were created for his benefit, which is easy to explain, because it was man who invented the schemes that allowed him to understand what was happening and act effectively. Another matter is modern scientific explanations of the Universe and human death. They often describe (model) natural processes independent of man, which with iron necessity force him to follow these processes, but which man cannot understand. The isolation of the private plan, the author argues, did not benefit man. When the latter ignored the natural plan, realizing only his desires in the cognition of reality, the resulting reality became similar to the content of his consciousness without any correction from experience. The author illustrates this position by analyzing one of Carl Jung’s youthful memories. Based on the difference between these two plans, a brief understanding of the natural, humanitarian and social sciences, as well as death and the Universe, is offered. Although the Universe is a physical object, it is also an object of the humanities and social sciences. The latter can be understood in the sense that the Universe is a highly complex text and message that we have yet to understand, as well as a certain form of life, naturally, not biological, the nature of which, again, needs to be understood and explored. In conclusion, the article discusses the crisis of our civilization and a possible scenario for its resolution.

The felicitous turn of European civilization forms a critical industry – a set of ideas about what happiness should be and how to feel it correctly. In these conceptual ideas, the concepts of “success” and “happiness” are mixed or replaced, and the value experience of experiencing failure is not considered. Experiences of happiness are replaced by ambiguous emotional states associated with the practices of achievement and demonstrative strategies. The doctrine of social success is modal and deprives a person of the freedom to choose alternative lifestyles. The felicitous doctrine is based on the mechanism of social pressure, forcing a person to choose “happy objects”. Happiness in its social sense is imposed, a person is deprived of his free individual happiness.

We consider the concept of “happiness” in relation to its oppositions: success, failure. Success requires constant confirmation and carries risks of failure. Failure is seen as a form of happiness, filled with valuable experience necessary for building a future trajectory in life. This allows us to come to the definition of happiness, its socio-philosophical and sociocultural content, and to form a scientific understanding of the culture of happiness. The conclusions are based on the methods of systemic, sociocultural approaches.

The culture of happiness characterizes the felicitous experience of humanity. Happiness is a subsystem of the cultural system; it embraces eternal values with a single semantic content, dictates the norms of virtue, performs stabilizing and regulating functions, and manifests itself in symbolic design. The semantic content of happiness connects the terminal (noological) and instrumental (everyday) aspects of a person’s spiritual life and his social practices. Behavioral patterns and symbolism are distributed in accordance with the dual content of the concept of “happiness”.

When the orderly and ordered systemic character of classical scientifi c theories or philosophical concepts reproduces the supposed order of nature, the obvious and unproblematic nature of such correspondence does not require further refl ection. On the way to solving actual problems of conceptualisation of chaos, paradoxes arise: the stronger the ordering means and the more developed concepts, the less chaos remains in it, and vice versa, the more chaos, the less conceptual said concept will be. This paradox turns out to be a specifi c version of a bigger paradox – how do we conceptualise what ultimately escapes conceptualisation? How do we grasp something intangible by defi nition? This is ultimately maintained by the rigidity of classical binary oppositions, the removal of which allows one to avoid its most radical forms. Typical examples would be the problem of the Other or the attempts at consistent thinking of contradictions. The same thing happens with the conceptualisation of the non-systemic and the unstable. We need to systematise the non-systemic one way or another just to incorporate knowledge about it into the broader body of knowledge about complex systems. As for the unstable, it has to be stabilised to end up forming a concept. Even though ontology of the unstable has to correspond to what is being conceptualised, it cannot afford to be too unstable, or else it risks failing to be recognised by the academic community altogether. The paradox can be overcome if we use the means provided to us by post-non-classical approaches in philosophy, which reject classical interpretations of chaos, in turn allowing us to construct concepts fl exible and mouldable enough to actually approach chaos on a level that matches state-of-the-art epistemologies. This outlines a way to think about chaos chaotically, but also to avoid the self-destructive catastrophe of chaotic thinking. Some of the aforementioned concepts are: chaosmos, hyperchaos, magma, plasma and plasmagma. In the light of above considered ways and methods of overcoming the paradox of conceptualization of chaos or perhaps the possibility of avoiding the paradox entirely, it is clear that it is necessary to transform the very mode of our thinking, it is therefore necessary to rethink thinking itself in order to build suffi ciently fl exible and plastic post-non-classical concepts which stand a chance of making the comprehension of chaos accessible to begin with.

The purpose of the article is to reflect on the concept of Intelligent Design, the connection between the development of this theory and the development of scientific ideas about the world, as well as about free will and predestination.

As a basis in the methodological aspect, the authors applied the five Proofs of the Being of God, which were developed by Thomas Aquinas, namely, the proofs: 1) from motion, 2) from the producing cause, 3) from necessity, 4) from the degree of perfection, 5) from the purposeful cause.  After characterizing each proof, the authors of the paper refute or prove each of the proofs in terms of the concept of predestination and the Being of God. We believe that Thomas Aquinas’ proofs are based in part on Aristotle’s logic and hence on commonplace conceptions of the world. Aristotle, indeed, is the founder of a number of modern sciences that are key today. In addition, the authors refer to one of the greatest philosophers of the enlightenment era in relation to his views in the doctrines of expediency and aesthetics as a category of the beautiful and reasonable.

The relationship between ontological randomness, quantum physics, and issues of freedom of choice and predestination is analyzed. The authors then draw on the aforementioned philosopher’s writings on free will and Genesis to reflect on the theses of causality, and conclude that freedom is God, and God is where there is choice.

Public intellectuals, using their position in the media, social networks, universities, expert groups and think tanks, are an infl uential force for social change. The article analyzes the experience of American conservative intellectuals and their think tanks, which have played an important role in the public consciousness of the American nation and in politics over the past half century. The article discusses four interrelated topics. The fi rst is the role of intellectuals in modern politics, using the conservative movement and its relationship with the Republican Party and elected authorities as an example. The second topic is the reasons for the protest of a number of conservative public intellectuals against Trump (Never Trump, Resist Trump), its ideological, stylistic, personal and material motives. The article analyzes the crisis and the following splitting of the conservative movement into several directions, including the emergence of a new direction – populist conservatism. The top-down, elitist brand of politics that dominated the United States for many years – both under Republican and Democratic administrations - has led to a decrease in public trust in social institutions controlled by the elites. There is a need for leaders who could fi nd a common language and understanding with society and voters. As a result, populism is on the rise in the United States, i.e., politicians directly addressing the people, their needs and interests, over the heads of the elites and their institutions. The third topic is the forms and practices of infl uence of the populist wing of the conservative movement on the ideology and program of the Republican Party, its attempts to cooperate with the Trump administration, other government bodies, the MAGA movement and its social base. The new direction of conservatism has multiplied its experience of “soft” infl uence on the presidential administration and Congress by developing its proposals, in particular, “Project 2025” as a mandate from voters to change the course of the country and rebuild political structures. “Project 2025” also addresses the social base of conservative movement and the independent voter. The fourth topic is the change in positions of “never-Trumpists” in Trump’s second term and the lessons of their resistance. The author draws conclusions from the case of “non-Trumpism” and points out the innovations of conservative intellectuals in their interaction with the authorities.

The author proposes a hypothesis of two types of mechanisms of social self-organization: its launch and maintenance of structural integrity. These are two fundamentally different mechanisms. Social self-organization requires four mandatory conditions: (1) a set of interacting elements (individuals), homogeneous in origin and creating, due to their common habitat, a behavioral population system; (2) the obligatory identification of a pacemaker in the population, which “captures” the activity rhythms of other individuals, which is a condition for the emergence of heterogeneities in behavioral activity; (3) the lifetime of a population system must be significantly longer than the lifetime of an individual element; (4) the homogeneity of individuals and the complexity of their behavior in a long-existing population create conditions for functional subordination (heterarchy, in general sense).

The behavioral mechanism of self-organization in populations with complex behavior of individuals is reciprocal altruism. Altruism presupposes a hereditarily determined ability for sacrifi cial behavior. Its natural basis is the universal phenomenon of individual recognition and preference. The author examines four sociological concepts of self-organization, in which altruism is presented as a mechanism of self-organization: Ibn Khaldun, E. Durkheim, P.A. Kropotkin and P.A. Sorokin.

The mechanism for maintaining an already formed structure is different in nature; it is aimed at continuously ensuring solidarity. This is a “Game” that is implemented in two forms – competition (game) and performance (play). Game is not a specifically human attribute of social life. The content of the “game” satisfies the basic conditions of self-organization. The “game” has three important attributes: (1) isolation of the playing space and temporary organization; (2) the immutability and binding nature of the rules that set the order of actions and form a special ethos and ritual; (3) the game determines the emergence of associations that strive to survive and spread. The associations are based on altruistic behavior. The expansion of the game leads to the creation of male “alliances”; their forms are the basis of solidarity.

Digital transformations of the social system, observed by researchers in its various fi elds, make it relevant to study network phenomena that are related to the problems of modern Russian society. “Iamamother” is a vivid example of those; we view it as a symptom of devaluation of motherhood. The latter takes different forms, including virtual ones, and passes from different actors. For a more detailed analysis we identify the levels at which the importance of the very fact of giving birth and raising children is questioned and a specifi c woman in the role of a mother is downgraded; we also consider the relationship of this process with network mechanisms. Devaluation at the personal level is analyzed from the perspective of Jungian research: a number of scenarios for diminishing the maternal principle are presented. To identify the characteristic features of devaluation of motherhood at the interpersonal level, we examine the situation from the standpoint of social constructionist theory and of the concept of epistemic injustice. The emergence of “Iamamother” phenomenon is analyzed as a case of inverted hermeneutic injustice which requires identifi cation, acting at present as a simulacrum having no valid grounds for conceptualization. As a result of the study of the network level that embraces judgmental statements of Internet users, in particular members of thematic virtual communities, we present the main types of content devoted to the issue of “Iamamother”. Several types of actors come out as a result of the qualitative content analysis of the commentary background from a relevant source. Summing up the outcomes of the study, we state a lack of tolerance in the discursive space of “Iamamother” phenomenon and put forward an alternative defi nition of the concept: this is an attributed deictic statement about oneself by a female individual who has a child / children, which determines her actions; it is an interpellated identity that differs from the traditional, normative image of motherhood in Russia. As an element of the dominant discourse this sign reinforces and spreads negative ideas of society about certain models of maternal behavior, which leads to devaluation of motherhood in general.

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.