Ideas and Ideals

At the turn of the 20^th-21^st centuries there was a rapid growth of popularity of the concept of diaspora and the term itself in scientifi c and socio-political sphere. It was accompanied by increasing criticism and even denial of its usage as a tool of scientifi c analysis. This is a sign of the crisis, which may lead either to drastic transformation of the concept or to rejection of it. Within the global science, including Russia as a part of it, the concept is being criticized from two sides. Some scientists refer the word ‘diaspora’ only to the Jewish history and deny its extensive usage. On the other hand, key provisions of traditional interpretation of the concept are being under constructivist criticism. Among these key points are: the idea of diaspora as a primordial group affi liation by birth; grouping as a mandatory interaction between migrants and their descendants in the host country; diaspora-forming role of the source countries and host countries and political boundaries in the context of transnationalism. Apparently, the radically changing nature of the object under study requires concept transformation or rejection of it.

In the post-Soviet space, especially in Russia, the term diaspora as the ideology of compatriots became the instrument of interstate relations. It was widely spread in socio-political practice to justify state regulation of public relations. In full accordance with R. Kozellek’s scheme, in addition to temporalization of the term (fi lling old words with new meanings), its democratization took place (going beyond the scope of academic fi eld, usage by the lowest and wide stratums of society), ideologization and politicization. In this case diaspora appears as an organized community with joint responsibility of its members, offi cially registered organization with mutual obligations and set membership. The use of the word diaspora to name completely different understandings in scientifi c discourse and in socio-political rhetoric makes it diffi cult to apply it as a scientifi c term and calls the possibility of instrumental usage of the concept into question.

At the turn of the 20^th-21^st centuries there was a rapid growth of popularity of the concept of diaspora and the term itself in scientifi c and socio-political sphere. It was accompanied by increasing criticism and even denial of its usage as a tool of scientifi c analysis. This is a sign of the crisis, which may lead either to drastic transformation of the concept or to rejection of it. Within the global science, including Russia as a part of it, the concept is being criticized from two sides. Some scientists refer the word ‘diaspora’ only to the Jewish history and deny its extensive usage. On the other hand, key provisions of traditional interpretation of the concept are being under constructivist criticism. Among these key points are: the idea of diaspora as a primordial group affi liation by birth; grouping as a mandatory interaction between migrants and their descendants in the host country; diaspora-forming role of the source countries and host countries and political boundaries in the context of transnationalism. Apparently, the radically changing nature of the object under study requires concept transformation or rejection of it.

In the post-Soviet space, especially in Russia, the term diaspora as the ideology of compatriots became the instrument of interstate relations. It was widely spread in socio-political practice to justify state regulation of public relations. In full accordance with R. Kozellek’s scheme, in addition to temporalization of the term (fi lling old words with new meanings), its democratization took place (going beyond the scope of academic fi eld, usage by the lowest and wide stratums of society), ideologization and politicization. In this case diaspora appears as an organized community with joint responsibility of its members, offi cially registered organization with mutual obligations and set membership. The use of the word diaspora to name completely different understandings in scientifi c discourse and in socio-political rhetoric makes it diffi cult to apply it as a scientifi c term and calls the possibility of instrumental usage of the concept into question.

The article examines the phenomenon of social practices and their signifi cance in the context of modern social development and substantiates the importance of their research at different levels of scientifi c knowledge. Through a theoretical and methodological analysis of the concept of ‘social practices’ and the mechanism of their formation and impact on social development in the concepts of social constructivism and structuralist constructivism, as well as in the theory of structuration, their importance in maintaining the structure of society, historical continuity and the formation of habitus is revealed. The dual nature of social practices is revealed, which consists in the fact that, on the one hand, they underlie the emergence of social processes, and on the other, individual social processes determine new social practices. Through the theoretical refl ection of the most important social processes of our time – globalization, migration, urbanization, and rurbanization (rural area), their interdependence with social practices is revealed.

The mechanism of determination of new social practices in the translocal living space is considered and their infl uence on the formation of trends in the development of social interaction and lifestyle is revealed. The pendulum migration has led to the emergence of both translocal living space and corresponding social practices. The localization of pendulum migration in the agglomeration determined the emergence of the process of urbanization based on translocal practices, which results in the transformation of both the lifestyle of the villagers and the habitus.

The interregional pendulum migration that has gone beyond the region has identifi ed new social challenges that have led to the formation of appropriate social practices in the context of the deterritorialization of family groups. Social practices are historically determined, refl ect the accumulated generational experience in each culture, and are a tool for maintaining intergenerational communication. The high rates of social dynamics have objectively led to the transformation of social practices and the formation of new ones in modern society. This process has manifestations at the level of their reproduction and at the same time affects the deep mechanisms of functioning of society, of which habitus and its transformation are a part.

The article examines the phenomenon of social practices and their signifi cance in the context of modern social development and substantiates the importance of their research at different levels of scientifi c knowledge. Through a theoretical and methodological analysis of the concept of ‘social practices’ and the mechanism of their formation and impact on social development in the concepts of social constructivism and structuralist constructivism, as well as in the theory of structuration, their importance in maintaining the structure of society, historical continuity and the formation of habitus is revealed. The dual nature of social practices is revealed, which consists in the fact that, on the one hand, they underlie the emergence of social processes, and on the other, individual social processes determine new social practices. Through the theoretical refl ection of the most important social processes of our time – globalization, migration, urbanization, and rurbanization (rural area), their interdependence with social practices is revealed.

The mechanism of determination of new social practices in the translocal living space is considered and their infl uence on the formation of trends in the development of social interaction and lifestyle is revealed. The pendulum migration has led to the emergence of both translocal living space and corresponding social practices. The localization of pendulum migration in the agglomeration determined the emergence of the process of urbanization based on translocal practices, which results in the transformation of both the lifestyle of the villagers and the habitus.

The interregional pendulum migration that has gone beyond the region has identifi ed new social challenges that have led to the formation of appropriate social practices in the context of the deterritorialization of family groups. Social practices are historically determined, refl ect the accumulated generational experience in each culture, and are a tool for maintaining intergenerational communication. The high rates of social dynamics have objectively led to the transformation of social practices and the formation of new ones in modern society. This process has manifestations at the level of their reproduction and at the same time affects the deep mechanisms of functioning of society, of which habitus and its transformation are a part.

The article is devoted to an attempt at a philosophical analysis of the genesis of the transhumanist worldview in the context of the explosive development of science and technology and the active use of convergent technologies that change the nature of interaction not only between humans and the environment, but also humans and the environment themselves.  The purpose of the article is to explicate the ontological risks of digitalization, which at the same time are harbingers of the strengthening of the transhumanist paradigm. The author distinguishes between the concepts of digitization and digitalization, further considering the latter as a factor in the transformation of a person’s way of thinking and life. The thesis is put forward that digitalization is the main tool for the initial stage of society’s transition to transhumanistic rails, being one of the anthropotechnics designed to infi nitely improve a person. The research focuses on the formation of a transhumanist worldview and the role digitalization plays in this process. The author of the article has established the cyclical nature of the digitalization process. The following stages of digitalization are distinguished as the ‘turns’ of the cycle: the emergence and spread of the Internet (the World Wide Web provided the necessary breeding ground for further processes); the spread of social networks and online services; the development and spread of neural networks. The author notes that digitalization was consolidated in public practice mainly through the dissemination of social networks and online services. It is determined that it is at this stage that there is a risk of cutting off human contact with reality. The author suggests considering the explosive development and proliferation of neural networks as the next phase of the digitalization cycle. It is clarifi ed that in the phase of dissemination and improvement of training programs, due to the peculiarities of their functioning, there are risks associated with neglecting reality by belittling the importance of data sources. In addition, there are risks to common sense and deductive thinking throughout the life cycle of digitalization. It is also possible to observe varying degrees of truncation of access to reality, threatening to ‘uproot’ a person from his life world. Based on this, the author explicated the ontological traps of digitalization, in fact, pushing people to practice transhumanist ideology. Proceeding from the thesis that the source of data, common sense and the ability to form general concepts are the ‘three pillars’ of the connection of human consciousness with reality and self– identifi cation, the author comes to the conclusion that it is precisely in these sensitive aspects that the ontological traps of digitalization are hidden – factors that imperceptibly ‘disconnect’ a person from his life world. The researcher cites the uncertainty of data sources, the discreteness of common sense, and a violation of the ability to form general concepts as such factors. The methods of ontological and structural analysis were used in the study.The article is devoted to an attempt at a philosophical analysis of the genesis of the transhumanist worldview in the context of the explosive development of science and technology and the active use of convergent technologies that change the nature of interaction not only between humans and the environment, but also humans and the environment themselves.  The purpose of the article is to explicate the ontological risks of digitalization, which at the same time are harbingers of the strengthening of the transhumanist paradigm. The author distinguishes between the concepts of digitization and digitalization, further considering the latter as a factor in the transformation of a person’s way of thinking and life. The thesis is put forward that digitalization is the main tool for the initial stage of society’s transition to transhumanistic rails, being one of the anthropotechnics designed to infi nitely improve a person. The research focuses on the formation of a transhumanist worldview and the role digitalization plays in this process. The author of the article has established the cyclical nature of the digitalization process. The following stages of digitalization are distinguished as the ‘turns’ of the cycle: the emergence and spread of the Internet (the World Wide Web provided the necessary breeding ground for further processes); the spread of social networks and online services; the development and spread of neural networks. The author notes that digitalization was consolidated in public practice mainly through the dissemination of social networks and online services. It is determined that it is at this stage that there is a risk of cutting off human contact with reality. The author suggests considering the explosive development and proliferation of neural networks as the next phase of the digitalization cycle. It is clarifi ed that in the phase of dissemination and improvement of training programs, due to the peculiarities of their functioning, there are risks associated with neglecting reality by belittling the importance of data sources. In addition, there are risks to common sense and deductive thinking throughout the life cycle of digitalization. It is also possible to observe varying degrees of truncation of access to reality, threatening to ‘uproot’ a person from his life world. Based on this, the author explicated the ontological traps of digitalization, in fact, pushing people to practice transhumanist ideology. Proceeding from the thesis that the source of data, common sense and the ability to form general concepts are the ‘three pillars’ of the connection of human consciousness with reality and self– identifi cation, the author comes to the conclusion that it is precisely in these sensitive aspects that the ontological traps of digitalization are hidden – factors that imperceptibly ‘disconnect’ a person from his life world. The researcher cites the uncertainty of data sources, the discreteness of common sense, and a violation of the ability to form general concepts as such factors. The methods of ontological and structural analysis were used in the study.

Debates on the use and regulation of artifi cial intelligence tend to highlight the ambiguity of its impact on the democratic political process in terms of risks and opportunities. The spread of artifi cial intelligence technologies may affect individual and collective autonomy, either by changing the social and political practices that shape individual choices in different ways or by directly affecting fundamental rights. The danger lies not in short-term manipulations but in the long-term erosion of the infrastructural conditions of the public sphere. A detailed study of the interplay of artifi cial intelligence technologies and democratic development, taking into account specifi c aspects of the political life of society, is necessary to better understand the reconfi guration of the changing options for individuals, corporations and states. This article analyzes the terminological ambiguity of the concept of artifi cial intelligence in the context of its impact on politics and the democratic process and notes that artifi cial intelligence research addresses this issue through various forms of discursive critique, where attention is focused not on defi nitions but on modes of interpretation and their consequences. In analyzing the relationship between artifi cial intelligence and politics and democracy, the article pays special attention to such aspects as political self-determination, political participation and democratic governance. It emphasizes the importance of effective oversight by government and civil society over companies developing and using artifi cial intelligence technologies, which implies, in particular, the creation of effective institutions capable of defending public interests and civil and democratic rights, including in spite of technical capabilities and economic incentives. It is concluded that the infl uence of artifi cial intelligence on the political process and democracy will increase, which leads to the need to professionalize and develop its systematic interdisciplinary research.

The problem of rationality at the border of expressiveness and possibilities of human thinking is discussed when comparing natural and artifi cial intelligence (AI). A distinction is made between the concepts of intelligence and thinking. At the same time, intelligence is defi ned as rationality, always working within the limits of expressibility, and thinking includes inexpressibility in its structure. It is possible to better differentiate intelligence and thinking through an appeal to AI by formulating groups of restrictions for it, which together with this are the limits of expressiveness.

Four groups of AI limitations are considered: 1) the material support of big data storage, where we come to the resource limitation of AI; 2) the computational capabilities of the program code, where we come to the fundamental incalculability of the human brain; 3) a group of spatio-temporal conditions of the computational procedure, which is decompressed by 6 types of restrictions of this type. 3.1) AI as a time-closed system with a degraded future. 3.2) AI as a time-closed system with a degraded not only future, but also past. 3.3) Heterogeneity of G. B. Minkovsky’s space-time. 3.4) Biological space-time of V. I. Vernadsky. 3.5) Kairos. 3.6) Real time. 4) Civilizational conditions for the development of society, where the limit of AI is determined by the Noosphere according to V. I. Vernadsky.

When transferring this scheme of limitations for artifi cial intelligence to human consciousness, it is possible to more accurately defi ne the ‘boundary’ between natural intelligence and thinking. Thinking is defi ned as a part of consciousness that is outside the intellect and determines the development of both the person himself and artifi cial intelligence. From this defi nition, a natural scheme of human interaction with artifi cial intelligence is derived.

Since the invention of printing, mankind has not experienced such a revolutionary situation in relation to the preservation and reproduction of information as it is experiencing now. We live in an environment where new technologies and social media have become an integral part of everyday life. The application and use of such technologies have made a person addicted to them. A distinctive feature of this environment is the visualization of space saturated with visual images and signs. What had previously been presented as a full-fl edged text was transformed, the visual component began to prevail over the verbal one. In connection with this phenomenon, communication is changing qualitatively: if previously written speech consisted mainly of verbal text, now it is increasingly presented in the form of a creolized text, the texture of which consists of two inhomogeneous parts: verbal and non-verbal, and sometimes it is completely replaced by the language of ideograms and emojis. This phenomenon transforms our perception, speech, and language in general, as well as forms new habits and ways of communication in the modern world. In the long term, given the current rate of text replacement by visualization, this may lead to degradation of language communication and the mental level of the future person as a whole. After all, if in the 20th century scientists recorded the so-called Flynn effect. An article was published in 1984 which stated that the average IQ of US residents increased by 15 points in 1932-1978 – by about 3 points for each decade. Studies conducted after 2000 have shown what is now called the “reverse Flynn effect”: IQ growth slows down, stops, or even gives way to a recession. So, the accelerated overlay of visualization which replaces the dominance of verbality, negatively affects the intellectual level of new generations. Therefore, there are serious reasons to believe that among other things this is due to the growth of visualization of communication tools.

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.

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.