DOI: 10.25136/2409-8728.2023.7.40380

Abstract: The subject of this article is the ideas in the field of philosophy and practice of education, proposed by the founders of pragmatism: C. Pierce, W. James, J. Dewey, R. Rorty. The concepts of these authors gave rise to one of the most successful philosophies of education, which has been and is being subjected to considerable criticism, but is still in demand and demonstrating effectiveness. The article analyzes the initial axioms of the philosophy of pragmatism and the principles on which, according to the philosophers-authors, this educational model should work. The modern criticism of pragmatism in English-language literature is also touched upon. Attention to the philosophy of pragmatism in education seems justified due to the search for a better educational model that is taking place in Russia today. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the analysis of the key philosophical principles of the educational model of pragmatism along with practical recommendations, as well as in the attention paid to Ch. Pierce and the place, significance, of his ideas in the educational model of pragmatism. Traditionally Ch. Pierce is taken out of the brackets when writing about pragmatism in education. Much more attention is paid to the ideas of W. James, J. Dewey, R. Rorty, while Peirce's prolegomena seem fundamentally significant in understanding pragmatism as a philosophy of education. The author discusses the current controversy around the relevance of pragmatism as a philosophy of education, about its strengths and weaknesses. It is concluded that pragmatism as a philosophy of education carries useful principles associated with consensual practices, critical thinking, dialogue, increased attention to experience and an active cognitive position, and therefore can be used as a counterweight to destructive (commercialization, deprofessionalization) trends in education.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2021.2.35364

Abstract: The subject of this research is the philosophy of the Tyumen philosopher Yuri Mikhailovich Fyodorov – a representative of the Tyumen philosophical tradition, who focused on the problems of ethics, namely practical implementation of the ethical in the context of development of the North and establishment of a new society from fundamentally different individuals. Tyumen philosophers were concerned with the question of how to form a single moral essence out of the agonistic society. For solving this problem, Yuri Mikhailovich Fyodorov turned to Neo-Platonism, cosmism, and Russian religious philosophy, as well as paid particular attention to the question of elevation of human to a moral entity. The ways for such subjectification proposed by Fedorov are examined in this article. The scientific novelty consists in the fact that the philosopher is not widely known, as well as in the emphasis on the process of subjectification, epimeleia heautou in interpretation of M. Foucault, or the self-nurturing practices. It is illustrated that creativity, freedom, kindness and love are the key practices of self-nurturing which Y. M. Fyodorov indicated as the procedures of subjectification. From his perspective, these four concepts are the goal and practice for an individual, who seeks to surpass his own foundations. The philosophy of Y. M. Fyodorov aims to substantiate the unity of man with man, man with being; as well as attach meaning, value and vector to human life; contra pose something genuine, profound and eternal to the concepts that deprive an individual of the right to power over himself and the right to the long-term existence.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2020.10.33223

Abstract: The object of this research is the situation of permanent modernity, interpreted as a phenomenon of culture, the ontology and dynamics of which is in the subject reviewed in Cartesian-Quantum tradition: as a free, creative, avocational individual who relies upon his own reason, answering the sapere aude enlightenment call, understanding the games of the micro-power (M. Foucault) and liberated from the power of the Big Other (J. Lacan), i.e. consciously and independently constructing own selfhood, Self=Self (J. Fichte), Self speaks of Self (J. Lacan); and through Self realizing cognition and creation of surrounding sociocultural space, where art and politics become the symptom and form of interaction between the subject and permanence of time. Leaning on the theoretical concepts of A. V. Pavlov, J. Lacan, A. Badiou and J. Rancière, the author examines the relations between art and politics within the structure of permanent modernity. The conclusion is made that modernity and postmodernity, civilization and culture, Intercivilizational era (A. V. Pavlov) are the forms of dynamics of permanent modernity, the attempts to capture Time (phenomenal, mental, cultural, conveyed from one subject to another in horizontality and verticality of time (physical phenomenon). Art is a symptom that speaks of the state of Time and assists the cognition of truth of the singular and plural, flowing into the politics – the procedure of mass affiliation to the truth of emancipation of human beings, the key processes of which are the fight for equality and freedom.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2017.6.20829

Abstract: The subject of this article is the modernity that is perceived as an immanent experience by a subject of its time, reflection over it, and creation in current temporality of the new symbolic space (the “big Other” in terminology of J. Lacan and S. Žižek). At the same time, the new symbolic register is created through the polylogue of subjects that interact on the temporal-rhizome platform in accordance with Theory of Communicative Action (J. Habermas). The object of this work is the subject of modernity – an attempt to provide its essential characteristics. The main conclusion of the conducted research lies in a particular view of modernity and subject of modernity. Thus, it is suggested to understand modernity as a situation, in which a subject faces the problematic of its own being and is obligated to give certain “answers” to the “challenges” before him, leaning on the resources of cogito and polylogue with other subjects. A subject is suggested to be considered a social actor with the following characteristics: ability to transformation (construction and reconstruction) of the symbolic order (J. Lacan), solid ethical position (ethics in understanding of I. Kant and ethical stage of S. Kierkegaard), pursuing the particular self-practices (M. Foucault), creativeness (utopic project as a version of the future structure), and intersubjectivity (existential polylogue between the subjects on the established polyfocal platform. However, it is implied to distinguish a subject from an individual and personality, depicting it as a highest stage of human evolution, at which he creates culture in cooperation with others.

DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2017.5.20475

Abstract:   The subject of this research is the process of subjectification from the perspective of M. Foucault: the formation of subjectivity inevitably begins since the moment of appearance of a human and continues throughout his entire life; genuine subjectivity is achieved by an individual in the mature age, but still not in the absolute. At the same time, the subject indicates the achieved a certain existential level individual, who undergone an evolutionary triad of subjectification: individual – personality – subject (A. V. Pavlov). Phenomenological approach allowed intuitively, precisely, descriptively, and analytically establish the differences and lead to clarity the phenomena of conscious life. The scientific novelty consists in the selection of initial point – the period of infancy of an individual, and suggests to focus on the problem of self-identification (finding the true identity) of a subject, which is expressed by J. Lacan in a so-called mirror stage, as well as the triad of Lacanian registers that indicate its peculiarities, and the process of institutionalization of a subject, universally and totally grasping the entire field of subject’s action. The author also plans to examine the proposed by M. Foucault self-practices that thoroughly explain the process of self-positing of a subject, as well as intersubjectivity, when the view and response of the Other is important for the formation of Self.