201 research outputs found
Koinon: ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ, Π³Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡ, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΡΠ½Π΄Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ
The problem of being-in-common remains a fundamental problem of philosophy, social sciences and humanities. The purpose of this article is to analyze the changes in the nature of this problem, the incentives and prospects for its formulation and solution in the late XX β early XXI centuries. Being-incommon is increasingly shifting to the focus of human existence, acquires a decisive existential significance, acts as public opinion, and as a political motivation, and as a paradigm for the social sciences and humanities. The article argues that full awareness of the role of philosophy in describing and explaining the forms of being-in-common presupposes the need for a radical reorientation of both traditional philosophical constructions and the methodology of social and humanitarian cognition. Three dimensions of this reorientation are highlighted. Firstly, this is the βnew socialityβ, the undecidability between βglobalizationβ and βmondializationβ, as well as the need to deconstruct the very possibility of accepting a global or phenomenal world. Secondly, it is ontoheterology, which outlines the ways of overcoming ontological fundamentalism, building an βontology after ontotheologyβ. It exposes the understanding of being-in-common, the original sociality as groundless, anarchic, which arises as a direct correlate of the experience of groundlessness of existence, unrooted in any substance or common essence. Thirdly, this is postfundamentalism as a particular paradigm, style of thinking, postulating the transformation of the practices and techniques of thinking in response to the need to reposition the multiple real as immanent in thought itself. The article concludes that the three-dimensional βspaceβ of comprehending being-in-common sets a certain direction of philosophical and socio-humanitarian research, hidden behind them general methodological tendencies, and the relationship of these tendencies with the nature of social practice.ΠΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ° ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΡΡΠ½Π΄Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π½Π°ΡΠΊ. Π¦Π΅Π»ΡΡ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ, ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΠ»ΠΎΠ² ΠΈ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ² Π΅Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π² ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ Π₯Π₯ β Π½Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π΅ Π₯Π₯I Π². Π‘ΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ Π²ΡΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΡΠ΄Π²ΠΈΠ³Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π² ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π±ΡΡΠΈΡ, ΠΏΡΠΈΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°Π΅Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅Π΅ ΡΠΊΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅, Π²ΡΡΡΡΠΏΠ°Π΅Ρ ΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΌΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅, ΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΠΌΠΎΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠΈΡ, ΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠ³ΠΌΠ° Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π½Π°ΡΠΊ. Π ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠΆΠ΄Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ·Π½Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΈ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈ Π² ΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΡΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π°Π³Π°Π΅Ρ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΡ
ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ, ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π½Π°Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Ρ ΡΡΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ. ΠΠΎ-ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΡΡ
, ΡΡΠΎ Β«Π½ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΒ», Π½Π΅ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Ρ Β«Π³Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΉΒ» ΠΈ Β«ΠΌΠΎΠ½Π΄ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΉΒ», Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ Π΄Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠΉ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡ Π³Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΌΠΈΡΠ°. ΠΠΎ-Π²ΡΠΎΡΡΡ
, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΎΠ½ΡΠΎΠ³Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡ, Π½Π°ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ°Ρ ΠΏΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΎΠ½ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ½Π΄Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Β«ΠΎΠ½ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΎΠ½ΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈΒ» ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±Π½Π°ΠΆΠ°ΡΡΠ°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, ΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π±Π΅Π·ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ, Π°Π½Π°ΡΡ
ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ΅ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π΅Ρ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π½Π΅ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡ ΠΎΠΏΡΡΠ° Π±Π΅Π·ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ, Π½Π΅ ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π² ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠΉ-Π»ΠΈΠ±ΠΎ ΡΡΠ±ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ. Π-ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡ
, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΡΠ½Π΄Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Π½Π°Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠ³ΠΌΠ°, ΡΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠ»ΠΈΡΡΡΡΠ°Ρ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΊ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΈΠΊ ΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π² ΠΎΡΠ²Π΅Ρ Π½Π° Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈΠΌΠΌΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈ. Π ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ Π΄Π΅Π»Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΌ, ΡΡΠΎ ΡΡΠ΅Ρ
ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ Β«ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΒ» ΠΎΡΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π·Π°Π΄Π°Π΅Ρ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ, ΡΠΊΡΡΡΡΠ΅ Π·Π° Π½ΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ, Π²Π·Π°ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΠ²ΡΠ·ΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΉ Ρ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ
ΠΠΎΠ³ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ²: ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΠΈΠ²ΠΈΠ΄ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ° Π²Π·Π°ΠΈΠΌΠΎΠ²Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΡ
The article discusses the understanding of the Transcendental Beginning in the philosophical teachings of the XIX-XX centuries, which fulfills the function of replacing the deity in them. The authors reveal ad hoc individual motivation for the meeting of a philosopher with the Transcendence. At the same time, it is not always an obvious, sometimes carefully hidden, mutual influence of leading philosophers, which is likely to be contradictory cooperation in polemics reminiscent of theological disputes of the distant past. For every philosopher, what is declared to be universal human values is not conventions, but unshakable constants. At the same time, in a philosophical (as well as in a theological) dispute, they defend even the highest values β universal or divine β as the only possible ones for themselves. The insight into the origin of the world, which gives it a beginning, is considered in the material of the works of A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, A. Bergson and M. Heidegger (the authors of the article show both similarities and differences in philosophical ideas about the fundamental ontological).Π ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠΆΠ΄Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π’ΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΠ°ΡΠ°Π»Π° Π² ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΡ
XIXβXX Π²Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ², ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ΅ Π²ΡΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΡΠ΅Ρ Π² Π½ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΠΈΡ Π·Π°ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π±ΠΎΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π°. ΠΡΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π²ΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ°Π· ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΠΈΠ²ΠΈΠ΄ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΠΌΠΎΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠΈΡ Π²ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ° Ρ Π’ΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΉ, Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠΌ β Π½Π΅ Π²ΡΠ΅Π³Π΄Π° ΡΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ΅, Π° ΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΈ ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠΊΡΡΠ²Π°Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ΅ Π²Π·Π°ΠΈΠΌΠΎΠ²Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠ΅ Π²Π΅Π΄ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ², ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ΅ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ΄Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ Π² ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΊΠ΅, Π½Π°ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΈΠ½Π°ΡΡΠ΅Π΅ Π±ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ Π΄ΠΈΡΠΏΡΡΡ Π΄Π°Π»Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ. Π’ΠΎ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΡΠΌΠΈ, ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠΌ ΠΈΠ· ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ² Π½Π΅ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΊΠΎΠ½Π²Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ, Π° ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π½Π΅Π·ΡΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡ, Π½ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠΌ Π² ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ (ΡΠ°Π²Π½ΠΎ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ Π² ΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ) ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠ΅ Π΄Π°ΠΆΠ΅ Π½Π°ΠΈΠ²ΡΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ β ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ β ΠΎΡΡΡΠ°ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΡΠ΅ Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠ΅Π±Ρ Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎ. ΠΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΠΎΠΈΡΡΠΎΠΊΠ° ΠΌΠΈΡΠ°, ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π°Π³Π°ΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ Π΅ΠΌΡ Π½Π°ΡΠ°Π»ΠΎ, ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Π΅ ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡ Π. Π¨ΠΎΠΏΠ΅Π½Π³Π°ΡΡΡΠ°, Π€. ΠΠΈΡΡΠ΅, Π. ΠΠ΅ΡΠ³ΡΠΎΠ½Π° ΠΈ Π. Π₯Π°ΠΉΠ΄Π΅Π³Π³Π΅ΡΠ° (Π°Π²ΡΠΎΡΡ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ, ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ Π² ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎ ΡΡΠ½Π΄Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-ΠΎΠ½ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ)
ΠΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡ: ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ Π΄ΠΈΠ°Π³Π½ΠΎΠ·
The paper examines the event of the pandemic in three aspects: a metaphor of our age, an issue of ethics, a new phase of anthropogenesis. As the metaphor of the era, the pandemic stars as Belikov (A. Chekhovβs The Man in the Case): the form of bio-phobia and socio-phobia, the growing sterility of contacts, socializing over distances, closeness, and the priority of packaging (covers) before the procedures of openness, nudity, fusion. There appears a change in genres: the detective as a genre based on the revelation and removal of a shroud of mystery, the punishment of crime, gives way to the genre of the protectIva (from protegere: to shroud, to pull the veil, to shield). The protective is a genre to avert a catastrophe, protect against crime that has already become a norm, β the experience of survival on edge. There emerges homo tegens, βman who enclothesβ, who pulls a veil over everything including himself. The pandemic as an issue of ethics poses a multitude of ethical challenges and choices (between utilitarianism and egalitarianism, the principles of "not doing bad things" and "doing good"). The pandemic as the dawn of a new phase of anthropogenesis demonstrates the transformation of a man climbing and walking upright into a man sitting (in front of the screen) β Homo Sedens. With the development of civilization and the transition to intellectual work and a sedentary lifestyle, sight and hearing gain superiority. These organs are of remote perception, and in this sense, they meet the requirements of social distance and self-isolation that favour the preservation of man as a species. Physical sensitivity and tactility in the culture of Late Modern times have a paradoxical linkage with a change in the concepts of tact and decorum, with the ability to keep a distance, not to impose their views on another person. The author expects the consequence of the pandemic to be the movement of the frontier of civilization deep into the virtual worlds. Globalization is moving from an extroverted stage to an introverted one. The author concludes that when faced with a common danger that does not make national, ethnic, or religious distinctions, humankind becomes a concrete reality that one used to feel vague.Π‘ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π² ΡΡΠ΅Ρ
Π°ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠ°Ρ
: ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΡΠ° Π½Π°ΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΠΏΠΎΡ
ΠΈ, ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ° ΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ, Π½ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ ΡΠ°Π·Π° Π°Π½ΡΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π΅Π·Π°. ΠΠ°ΠΊ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΎΡΠ° ΡΠΏΠΎΡ
ΠΈ ΠΏΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π΅Ρ Π² ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·Π΅ ΠΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ²Π° (Π. Π§Π΅Ρ
ΠΎΠ² Β«Π§Π΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊ Π² ΡΡΡΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Β»): ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ΅ Π±ΠΈΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΎΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΠΈ, ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΎΠ², ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΠΈ, Π·Π°ΠΊΡΡΡΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΏΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΊ (ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΡΡΠΈΠΉ) ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΎΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΎΡΡΠΈ, ΠΎΠ±Π½Π°ΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, ΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΡ. ΠΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π² ΠΆΠ°Π½ΡΠ°Ρ
: Π΄Π΅ΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ² ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΆΠ°Π½Ρ, ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΠΉ Π½Π° ΡΠ°Π·ΠΎΠ±Π»Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠ½ΡΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ² ΡΠ°ΠΉΠ½Ρ, Π½Π°ΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΡΠΏΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ, ΡΡΡΡΠΏΠ°Π΅Ρ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΎ ΠΆΠ°Π½ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΠ²Π° (ΠΎΡ protegere: Π·Π°ΠΊΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ, Π½Π°ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠΎΠ², Π·Π°ΡΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΌ). ΠΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ² β ΡΡΠΎ ΠΆΠ°Π½Ρ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΎΡΠ²ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΊΠ°ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΠΎΡΡ, Π·Π°ΡΠΈΡΡ ΠΎΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΡΡΠΏΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ, ΡΠΆΠ΅ ΡΡΠ°Π²ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ Π½ΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΠΉ, β ΠΎΠΏΡΡ Π²ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅. ΠΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π΅Ρ homo tegens, Β«ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊ ΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΊΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠΉΒ», Π½Π°Π±ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΡΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΡΠΎΠ²Ρ Π½Π° Π²ΡΠ΅, Π² ΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΈ Π½Π° ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π±Ρ. ΠΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ° ΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ ΡΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π²ΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈ Π²ΡΠ±ΠΎΡΠΎΠ² (ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Ρ ΡΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΌ ΠΈ ΡΠ³Π°Π»ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΌ, ΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΡΠΈΠΏΠ°ΠΌΠΈ Β«Π½Π΅ Π΄Π΅Π»Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΠ»ΠΎΡ
ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΒ» ΠΈ Β«Π΄Π΅Π»Π°ΡΡ Ρ
ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ΅Π΅Β»). ΠΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π½Π°ΡΠ°Π»ΠΎ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ°Π·Ρ Π°Π½ΡΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π΅Π·Π° Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π²ΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ° Π»Π°Π·Π°ΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΡΠΌΠΎΡ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ Π² ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ° ΡΠΈΠ΄ΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ (ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄ ΡΠΊΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠΌ) β Homo Sedens. Π‘ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ Ρ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΌ ΠΊ ΡΠΌΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΌΡ ΡΡΡΠ΄Ρ ΠΈ ΡΠΈΠ΄ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·Ρ ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½ΠΈ Π²ΡΠ΅ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π²Π΅Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½Ρ Π·ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΡΠ»ΡΡ
Π° β Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½Ρ Π²ΠΎΡΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡ ΠΈ Π² ΡΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠ΅Π±ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Β«Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠΈΒ» ΠΈ Β«ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠΈΒ», ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ Π±Π»Π°Π³ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡ ΡΠΎΡ
ΡΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ° ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π°. Π€ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ Π² ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°Π΄ΠΎΠΊΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½Π° Ρ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠΈΠΉ Β«ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΒ» ΠΈ Β«ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΒ», Ρ ΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ±Π»ΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡ Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΡ, Π½Π΅ Π½Π°Π²ΡΠ·ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΎΠΌΡ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΡ ΡΠ²ΠΎΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ. Π‘Π»Π΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄Π²ΠΈΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠΎΠ½ΡΠΈΡΠ° ΡΠΈΠ²ΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π²Π³Π»ΡΠ±Ρ Π²ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ². ΠΠ»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡ ΠΈΠ· ΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ°Π²Π΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠΈ Π² ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠ½ΡΡ. ΠΠ΅Π»Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΌ, ΡΡΠΎ, ΡΡΠΎΠ»ΠΊΠ½ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΡΡ Ρ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ, Π½Π΅ Π΄Π΅Π»Π°ΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
, ΡΡΠ½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
, ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠ³ΠΈΠΎΠ·Π½ΡΡ
ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΉ, ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΡΡ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΡ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°Ρ ΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π»Π°ΡΡ ΡΠΌΡΡΠ½ΠΎ
ΠΠ²ΡΠΎΠΏΠ°, Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΠΈ Π²Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ
Since the European Union began to play a growing role in the relationships between the Member States and the Non-EU Mediterranean countries, the policymakers in Brussels have devoted a great deal of attention to devise and implement actions and programmes aimed at promoting peace, stability and growth to the area. The effects of such involvement have been not as significant as expected but not even insignificant. Tension has almost always floated over the Mediterranean waters because crises and violent conflicts have followed one another though never breaking all relations down. The present paper takes a cue from this feature of the Mediterranean area and proposes to watch the territory from a different angle of view. Contrary to the prevailing view of the Mediterranean as an area unaffected or scarcely affected by the dominant world policies, the paper analyses the impact of the world policy-making institutions and policies on the Mediterranean area. It also draws the readersβ attention towards the participation and, in significant cases, the non-participation of the governments of the area in the world institutions and policies. Accordingly, the first section highlights the concepts useful to analyze the world as the political space in which policymaking institutions have been established for building policies that respond to world-scale problems. The second section outlines the significant security and economic world policies that have been established for responding to world problems and, consequently, for bringing order to the world, the Mediterranean area included. In the third section, the focus is on forecasting the world and Mediterranean politics of the coming years by drawing the readersβ attention to the confrontation of three big powers, the USA, China and Russia. The difficulty to keep unaltered the Western coalition could not impede the renewal of the US hegemony should disorder be unsustainable to loads of countries. The Chinese model of economic openness and the non-interference of the investing companies may not work in all the Mediterranean countries. By acting as a troublemaker and game-changer in security complex settings like the Mediterranean area by bolstering authoritarian regimes, Russia mostly wants to create a situation in which the United States and the European countries find it impossible to make any decisions without its participation. Accordingly, the paperβs conclusions call for building knowledge about the reconfiguration of the world coalitions and the change of the existing order and institutions. Especially the revisionism of the three states competing for world leadership requires careful investigation. Research on the influence of such a global process on the wider Mediterranean area and the involvement of the Mediterranean countries in such a process is of paramount importance.Π‘ ΡΠ΅Ρ
ΠΏΠΎΡ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΠ²ΡΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΠΉΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΠ· ΡΡΠ°Π» ΠΈΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΡ ΡΠ°ΡΡΡΡΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ»Ρ Π² ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Ρ Π³ΠΎΡΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡΡΠ²Π°ΠΌΠΈ-ΡΠ»Π΅Π½Π°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π°ΠΌΠΈ, Π½Π΅ Π²Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠΈΠΌΠΈ Π² ΠΠ‘, ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ Π² ΠΡΡΡΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ ΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈ ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΡΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΎΠ΅ Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠΊΠ΅ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π΄Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠΉ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΌ, Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
Π½Π° ΠΏΠΎΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΌΠΈΡΠ°, ΡΡΠ°Π±ΠΈΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ Π² ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π΅. ΠΡΡΠ΅ΠΊΡ ΠΎΡ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΡ ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π»ΡΡ Π½Π΅ ΡΡΠΎΠ»Ρ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎΠΆΠΈΠ΄Π°Π»ΠΎΡΡ, Π½ΠΎ, ΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π½Π΅ ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π΅, ΠΎΡΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΠΌ. ΠΠ°ΠΏΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π²ΡΠ΅Π³Π΄Π° Π²ΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΎ Π½Π°Π΄ Π²ΠΎΠ΄Π°ΠΌΠΈ Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΌΠΎΡΡ, ΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠΌΡ ΡΡΠΎ ΠΊΡΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ»ΠΈΠΊΡΡ ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π»ΠΈ ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ½ Π·Π° Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΠΌ, Π½ΠΎ Π½ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ³Π΄Π° Π½Π΅ ΡΠ°Π·ΡΡΡΠ°Π»ΠΈ Π²ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΠ°ΡΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Ρ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π° Π½Π° ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π»Π°Π³Π°Π΅Ρ Π²Π·Π³Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΡΠΎΡ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΠΎΠ½ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ³Π»ΠΎΠΌ Π·ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΊΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ±Π»Π°Π΄Π°ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΌΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΎ Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎ Π·ΠΎΠ½Π΅, Π½Π΅ Π·Π°ΡΡΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π½Π΅ Π·Π°ΡΡΠΎΠ½ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠΌΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ, Π² ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠ΅ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π²Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈ Π΄Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠΉ, Π²Π»ΠΈΡΡΡΠΈΡ
Π½Π° Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΠΎΠ½. ΠΠ²ΡΠΎΡ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²Π»Π΅ΠΊΠ°Π΅Ρ Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ ΠΊ Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ, Π° Π² Π½Π΅ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ
ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ
β ΠΊ ΠΏΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΡΠ² ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π° Π² ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΠ°Ρ
ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅. Π‘ΠΎΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎ, ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΡΠΉ ΡΠ°Π·Π΄Π΅Π» ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π»Π°Π³Π°Π΅Ρ Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅ΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΠΈ, ΠΏΡΠΈΠ³ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΡΠ΅ Π΄Π»Ρ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° ΠΌΠΈΡΠ° ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ²Π°, Π² ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ Π±ΡΠ»ΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ·Π΄Π°Π½Ρ ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΡ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ, ΡΠ΅Π°Π³ΠΈΡΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΡΠ°Π±Π°. ΠΠΎ Π²ΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ°Π·Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅ ΠΈΠ·Π»Π°Π³Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΠΊ Π±Π΅Π·ΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ Π±ΡΠ»ΠΈ ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠ°Π½Ρ Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠ΅Π°Π³ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π° ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ ΠΈ, ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ, Π΄Π»Ρ Π½Π°Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΄ΠΊΠ° Π² ΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅, Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ°Ρ Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΠΎΠ½. Π ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠ°Π·Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ΅ Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³Π½ΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΉ ΠΈ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ Π±Π»ΠΈΠΆΠ°ΠΉΡΠΈΡ
Π»Π΅Ρ Ρ ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠ΅Ρ
Π²Π΅Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΈΡ
Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠ°Π² β Π‘Π¨Π, ΠΠΈΡΠ°Ρ ΠΈ Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΈ. ΠΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΡ Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠΎΡ
ΡΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π² Π½Π΅ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΌ Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ Π·Π°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΈ Π½Π΅ ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΎΠ±Π½ΠΎΠ²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π³Π΅Π³Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΈ Π‘Π¨Π, Π΅ΡΠ»ΠΈ Π±Π΅ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΄ΠΎΠΊ ΠΎΠΊΠ°ΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π½Π΅ΠΏΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΌΠ»Π΅ΠΌΡΠΌ Π΄Π»Ρ Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π° ΡΡΡΠ°Π½. ΠΠΈΡΠ°ΠΉΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π΅Π»Ρ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΡΠΊΡΡΡΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ Π½Π΅ΠΉΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΉ-ΠΈΠ½Π²Π΅ΡΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ² ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠ°ΡΡ Π½Π΅ Π²ΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΅Ρ
ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π°Ρ
Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ. ΠΠ°ΡΡΡΠ°Ρ ΡΠΏΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΉΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΠ»Π° ΠΈΠ³ΡΡ Π² ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΡΠ»ΠΎΠ²ΠΈΡΡ
Π±Π΅Π·ΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΠ΅, ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Ρ Π°Π²ΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌΡ, Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΈΡΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ·Π΄Π°ΡΡ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ, Π² ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ Π‘ΠΎΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π¨ΡΠ°ΡΡ ΠΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ Π΅Π²ΡΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΠΉΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Ρ Π½Π΅ ΠΌΠΎΠ³Π»ΠΈ Π±Ρ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°ΡΡ Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π±Π΅Π· Π΅Π΅ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΡ. Π‘ΠΎΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎ, Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ·ΡΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΊ Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎΠΏΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π·Π½Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΎ ΡΠ΅ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠΈΠ³ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΡΡ
ΠΊΠΎΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΉ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΡΠΎΠ±Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎ ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΡ ΡΠ΅Π²ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ° ΡΡΠ΅Ρ
Π³ΠΎΡΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡΡΠ², ΡΠΎΡΠ΅Π²Π½ΡΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΡ Π·Π° ΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ Π»ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΡΡΡΠ²ΠΎ. ΠΠ΅ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΡ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π²Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π³Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ° Π½Π° Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠΈΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΠ°ΠΉΠΎΠ½ Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΈ Π½Π° ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ·Π΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ Π² ΡΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ΅
Koinon: Being-in-common, Heterology, Post-fundamentalism
Received: 27.09.2020. Accepted: 12.10.2020.Π ΡΠΊΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΏΠΈΠ»Π° Π² ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡ: 27.09.2020. ΠΡΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠ° ΠΊ ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ: 12.10.2020.The problem of being-in-common remains a fundamental problem of philosophy, social sciences and humanities. The purpose of this article is to analyze the changes in the nature of this problem, the incentives and prospects for its formulation and solution in the late XX β early XXI centuries. Being-incommon is increasingly shifting to the focus of human existence, acquires a decisive existential significance, acts as public opinion, and as a political motivation, and as a paradigm for the social sciences and humanities. The article argues that full awareness of the role of philosophy in describing and explaining the forms of being-in-common presupposes the need for a radical reorientation of both traditional philosophical constructions and the methodology of social and humanitarian cognition. Three dimensions of this reorientation are highlighted. Firstly, this is the βnew socialityβ, the undecidability between βglobalizationβ and βmondializationβ, as well as the need to deconstruct the very possibility of accepting a global or phenomenal world. Secondly, it is ontoheterology, which outlines the ways of overcoming ontological fundamentalism, building an βontology after ontotheologyβ. It exposes the understanding of being-in-common, the original sociality as groundless, anarchic, which arises as a direct correlate of the experience of groundlessness of existence, unrooted in any substance or common essence. Thirdly, this is postfundamentalism as a particular paradigm, style of thinking, postulating the transformation of the practices and techniques of thinking in response to the need to reposition the multiple real as immanent in thought itself. The article concludes that the three-dimensional βspaceβ of comprehending being-in-common sets a certain direction of philosophical and socio-humanitarian research, hidden behind them general methodological tendencies, and the relationship of these tendencies with the nature of social practice.ΠΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ° ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΎΡΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΡΡΠ½Π΄Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π½Π°ΡΠΊ. Π¦Π΅Π»ΡΡ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠ° ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ, ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΠ»ΠΎΠ² ΠΈ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ² Π΅Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π² ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ Π₯Π₯ β Π½Π°ΡΠ°Π»Π΅ Π₯Π₯I Π². Π‘ΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ Π²ΡΡ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΡΠ΄Π²ΠΈΠ³Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π² ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π±ΡΡΠΈΡ, ΠΏΡΠΈΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°Π΅Ρ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅Π΅ ΡΠΊΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅, Π²ΡΡΡΡΠΏΠ°Π΅Ρ ΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΌΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅, ΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΠΌΠΎΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΠΈΡ, ΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠ³ΠΌΠ° Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π½Π°ΡΠΊ. Π ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ ΡΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠΆΠ΄Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ·Π½Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΈ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΈ Π² ΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΡΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π°Π³Π°Π΅Ρ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΡ
ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ, ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π½Π°Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Ρ ΡΡΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ. ΠΠΎ-ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ²ΡΡ
, ΡΡΠΎ Β«Π½ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡΒ», Π½Π΅ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Ρ Β«Π³Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΉΒ» ΠΈ Β«ΠΌΠΎΠ½Π΄ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠ΅ΠΉΒ», Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ Π΄Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠΉ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡ Π³Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΌΠΈΡΠ°. ΠΠΎ-Π²ΡΠΎΡΡΡ
, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΎΠ½ΡΠΎΠ³Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡ, Π½Π°ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ°Ρ ΠΏΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΎΠ½ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ½Π΄Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Β«ΠΎΠ½ΡΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΎΠ½ΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈΒ» ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±Π½Π°ΠΆΠ°ΡΡΠ°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, ΠΈΡΡ
ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π±Π΅Π·ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΉ, Π°Π½Π°ΡΡ
ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ΅ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ°Π΅Ρ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π½Π΅ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΡΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡ ΠΎΠΏΡΡΠ° Π±Π΅Π·ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ, Π½Π΅ ΡΠΊΠΎΡΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π² ΠΊΠ°ΠΊΠΎΠΉ-Π»ΠΈΠ±ΠΎ ΡΡΠ±ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ. Π-ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΡ
, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΡΠ½Π΄Π°ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Π½Π°Ρ ΠΏΠ°ΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠ³ΠΌΠ°, ΡΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ, ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠ»ΠΈΡΡΡΡΠ°Ρ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΊ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΈΠΊ ΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π² ΠΎΡΠ²Π΅Ρ Π½Π° Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠΆΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈΠΌΠΌΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΡΡΠ»ΠΈ. Π ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ Π΄Π΅Π»Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΌ, ΡΡΠΎ ΡΡΠ΅Ρ
ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ Β«ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΒ» ΠΎΡΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠΎΠ²ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π·Π°Π΄Π°Π΅Ρ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π³ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ, ΡΠΊΡΡΡΡΠ΅ Π·Π° Π½ΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ, Π²Π·Π°ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΠ²ΡΠ·ΠΈ ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΠ΅Π½Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΉ Ρ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ
ΠΡΠ΄ΡΡΠ΅Π΅ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΆΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΆΡ ΠΎ Π±ΡΠ΄ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ: ΠΎΠΏΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² ΠΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½Π±ΡΡΠ³Π°
The purpose of the article is to analyze the essential components of the image of the future of student youth β their social ideals, social expectations, moods and life planning. The authors based their conclusions on the results of an empirical study of third-year Yekaterinburg universities students enrolled in undergraduate programs (N = 2000). According to the results of the study, a reasonably close planning horizon was revealed among students. According to the students themselves, significant uncertainty and variability of the situation prevent them from planning their future for the long term. The authors see the main reasons for the student youth uncertainty in their future processes reflected in the respondentsβ social phobias β economic risks β fears of becoming poor or unemployed, and political ones β feelings of insecurity from discrimination for political opinion, police violence and corruption of officials. The data revealed found that the image of the social future of Yekaterinburg students has a clearly expressed conflict character: the sharpest contradiction takes place between the social ideals of youth, including the achievement of a high standard of living, economic well-being, respect for human rights, a democratic society, equality and justice, and its social expectations, which are mostly negative β among them are rising prices, inflation, declining living standards, environmental degradation, political unrest and protests, conflicts, deterioration of relations with other countries. At the same time, despite the pessimism in assessments of the probable future of Russian society, the majority of the students surveyed believe that young people have opportunities to influence the development of society and achieve changes for the better.Π¦Π΅Π»ΡΡ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π²ΡΡ
ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π»ΡΡΡΠΈΡ
ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·Π° Π±ΡΠ΄ΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΆΠΈ β Π΅Π΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π°Π»ΠΎΠ², ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΎΠΆΠΈΠ΄Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ, Π½Π°ΡΡΡΠΎΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΈ ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠ»Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ. ΠΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄Ρ Π°Π²ΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ² Π±Π°Π·ΠΈΡΡΡΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ°Ρ
ΡΠΌΠΏΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ ΠΊΡΡΡΠ° Π²ΡΠ·ΠΎΠ² ΠΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½Π±ΡΡΠ³Π°, ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΡ
ΡΡ ΠΏΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΌΠ°ΠΌ Π±Π°ΠΊΠ°Π»Π°Π²ΡΠΈΠ°ΡΠ° (N = 2 000). ΠΠΎ ΡΠ΅Π·ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°ΡΠ°ΠΌ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π±ΡΠ» Π²ΡΡΠ²Π»Π΅Π½ Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ Π±Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΊΠΈΠΉ Π³ΠΎΡΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ½Ρ ΠΏΠ»Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Ρ ΡΡΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ². Π‘ΠΎΠ³Π»Π°ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΌΠ½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ², ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΆΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°Π΅Ρ ΠΏΠ»Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°ΡΡ ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ Π±ΡΠ΄ΡΡΠ΅Π΅ Π½Π° Π΄Π»ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄ Π·Π½Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½Π°Ρ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ. ΠΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠΈΠ½Π°ΠΌΠΈ Π½Π΅ΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΆΠΈ Π² ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ΠΌ Π±ΡΠ΄ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌ Π°Π²ΡΠΎΡΡ Π²ΠΈΠ΄ΡΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ, ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ΡΡ Π² ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΠΎΠ±ΠΈΡΡ
ΡΠ΅ΡΠΏΠΎΠ½Π΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ²: ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ°Ρ
β ΠΎΠΏΠ°ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΡ
ΡΡΠ°ΡΡ Π±Π΅Π΄Π½ΡΠΌ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Π±Π΅Π·ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΠΈΡΠΊΠ°Ρ
β ΠΎΡΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΡ
Π½Π΅Π·Π°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΎΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅ΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π·Π° ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ±Π΅ΠΆΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ, ΠΏΡΠΎΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»Π° ΠΏΡΠ°Π²ΠΎΠΎΡ
ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΎΠ² ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΈΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»Π° ΡΠΈΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ². ΠΠ±Π½Π°ΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΎ, ΡΡΠΎ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π· ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π±ΡΠ΄ΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ ΡΡΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² ΠΠΊΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ½Π±ΡΡΠ³Π° ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π΅Ρ ΡΠ²Π½ΠΎ Π²ΡΡΠ°ΠΆΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ»ΠΈΠΊΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅Ρ: ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ°Π·Π²Π΅ΡΡΡΠ²Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Ρ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π°Π»Π°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΆΠΈ, ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ
Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π²ΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π½Ρ, ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ Π±Π»Π°Π³ΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠ΅, ΡΠΎΠ±Π»ΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ°Π² ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ°, Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠΊΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ, ΡΠ°Π²Π΅Π½ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ ΠΈ ΡΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π΅Π΄Π»ΠΈΠ²ΠΎΡΡΡ, ΠΈ Π΅Π΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΎΠΆΠΈΠ΄Π°Π½ΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ Π½ΠΎΡΡΡ, Π² ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΠΎΠΌ, Π½Π΅Π³Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠΉ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅Ρ β ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈ Π½ΠΈΡ
Π»ΠΈΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡΡ ΡΠΎΡΡ ΡΠ΅Π½, ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ»ΡΡΠΈΡ, ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠΎΠ²Π½Ρ, ΡΡ
ΡΠ΄ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ, ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ Π±Π΅ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ΄ΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ, ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ»ΠΈΠΊΡΡ, ΡΡ
ΡΠ΄ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Ρ Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π°ΠΌΠΈ. ΠΡΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠΌ, Π½Π΅ΡΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΈΠΌΠΈΠ·ΠΌ Π² ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΊΠ°Ρ
Π²Π΅ΡΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π±ΡΠ΄ΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΌΠ°, Π±ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ ΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
ΡΡΡΠ΄Π΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² ΡΡΠΈΡΠ°Π΅Ρ, ΡΡΠΎ Ρ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ΄Π΅ΠΆΠΈ Π΅ΡΡΡ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Π»ΠΈΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° ΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠ±ΠΈΡΡΡΡ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΊ Π»ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ
Koinon: the Coexistence of Geniuses or Flight of Ideas in the Air?
Received: 4.10.2020. Accepted: 19.10.2020.Π ΡΠΊΠΎΠΏΠΈΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΡΡΡΠΏΠΈΠ»Π° Π² ΡΠ΅Π΄Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΡ: 4.10.2020. ΠΡΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠ° ΠΊ ΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ: 19.10.2020.The article by A. V. Pertsev, professor of the Ural Federal University, on the example of Weimarβs life as a βGerman cultural capitalβ at the time of I. V. Goethe (1749β1832) discusses the specifics of the organization of informal intellectual communities that defined the existing forms of culture in Europe and Russia. The paper analyzes such a humanitarian koinon as a form of coexistence and cooperation of creative people, which emerged in a particular historical situation and is supported by βenlightened authoritiesβ. The figure of the bearer of power as a βcultural managerβ and his formation of βcultural centresβ following his ideas of a worthy human life are as well under consideration. As the author of the article demonstrates, the state cultural policy is concealed in such a way that its central figure is the βenlightener on the throneβ himself and the βleading personnelβ he has chosen. This aristocratic cultural policy is opposed to a market-democratic one with a focus on βmass demandβ.Π ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅ Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½ΠΈ ΠΠ΅ΠΉΠΌΠ°ΡΠ° ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Β«Π½Π΅ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΡΒ» Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ Π. Π. ΠΡΡΠ΅ (1749β1832) ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π½Π΅ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅Π»Π»Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ², ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ»ΠΈ Π½ΡΠ½Π΅ ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΡΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΡ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΡ Π² ΠΠ²ΡΠΎΠΏΠ΅ ΠΈ Π² Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΈ. Π’Π°ΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π³ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠ°ΡΠ½ΡΠΉ koinon Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΊΡΠ°Ρ Π² ΠΎΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ° ΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ΄Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
Π»ΡΠ΄Π΅ΠΉ, ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΊΡ ΡΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ ΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡ Β«ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ Π²Π»Π°ΡΡΠΈΒ». Π Π°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ ΡΠΈΠ³ΡΡΠ° Π½ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Ρ Π²Π»Π°ΡΡΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Β«ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π΄ΠΆΠ΅ΡΠ° ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΡΒ» ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΠΌ Β«ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠΎΠ² ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΡΒ» Π² ΡΠΎΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΡΡΠ²ΠΈΠΈ Ρ ΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΎ Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠΉΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠΈΠ·Π½ΠΈ. ΠΠΎΡΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½Π°Ρ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ½ΡΡΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅Ρ Π°Π²ΡΠΎΡ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ, ΡΠΊΡΠΎΠ΅Π½Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊ, ΡΡΠΎ Π΅Π΅ ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΠ³ΡΡΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠ½Π°Π΅Ρ Π²ΡΡΡΡΠΏΠ°ΡΡ ΡΠ°ΠΌ Β«ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»Ρ Π½Π° ΡΡΠΎΠ½Π΅Β» ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠΌ Β«ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°Π΄ΡΡΒ». Π’Π°ΠΊΠ°Ρ Π°ΡΠΈΡΡΠΎΠΊΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΠΊΡΠ»ΡΡΡΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΡΡΠΎΠΈΡ ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎ-Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠΊΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΠ°Ρ ΠΎΡΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π° Π½Π° Β«ΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΎΠ²ΡΠΉ ΡΠΏΡΠΎΡΒ»
- β¦