Preview

Observatory of Culture

Advanced search

Otherworldliness and Otherscopeness as Metaphors of Social and Cultural Development of a Contemporary

https://doi.org/10.25281/2072-3156-2015-0-6-74-80

Abstract

A borderline state of the culture is reflected today in human social practices, revealing some new meanings. They are connected not only with the external reality but also with the spiritual state of society; they go into a special sphere of otherness in relation to the previous stages of human development. The transition beyond the bounds of actual existence into the space of consciousness objects creates a new type of otherworldly (average) man. The otherwordliness is, first of all, a classical characteristic, often forgotten and unclaimed by the young generation of Russians. When we say classics, we mean not only the art but also the manners, perceptions and, especially, ethics. The otherscopeness is a goal of the innovational development; it is reflected in the new ideal transmitted and created by the modern education, whose specifics the article is devoted to.

About the Authors

Vera A. Fortunatova
Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Russian Federation


Elena V. Valeeva
Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Russian Federation


References

1. Aristotle, O dushe [De Anima (On the Soul)], Aristotle, Sochineniya [Works of Aristotle], in 4 vol. Moscow, Mysl’ Publ., 1976, vol. 1, p. 369—447 (in Russ.).

2. Baudrillard J. Simvolicheskii obmen i smert’ [L’échange symbolique et la mort]. Moscow, Dobrosvet Publ., 2000, 387 p.

3. Hegel G.W.F. Iz filosofskoi propedevtiki [Aus Philosophische Propadeutik], G.W.F. Hegel, Estetika [Lectures on Aesthetics], in 4 vol. Moscow, Iskusstvo, 1973, vol. 4, pp. 7—209.

4. Deleuze G. Taina Ariadny [Misteria of Ariadna], Voprosy filosofii [Russian Studies in Philosophy], 1993, No. 4, pp. 48—53.

5. Kalashnikov M., Rusov R. Sverkhchelovek govorit po-russki. Moscow, AST Publ., Astrel’ Publ., 2006, 640 p.

6. Cassirer E. Filosofiya simvolicheskikh form [Philosophie der symbolischen formen], in 3 vol. Moscow, St. Petersburg, Universitetskaya kniga Publ., 2002, vol. 1 (Yazyk [Die Sprache]), 272 p.

7. Marcuse H. Eros i tsivilizatsiya. Odnomernyi chelovek : Issledovanie ideologii razvitogo industrial’nogo obshchestva [Eros and civilization <...>]. Moscow, AST Publ., 2002, 526 p.

8. Musil R. Chelovek bez svoistv [Der Mann ohne Eigenschaften], in 2 vol. Moscow, Ladomir Publ., 1994, vol. 1, 183 p.

9. Stepin V.S. U istokov sovremennoi filosofii nauki, Voprosy filosofii [Russian Studies in Philosophy], 2004, No. 1, pp. 5—13.

10. Trunov D.G. Kul’tura kak inomir. Available at: http://superinf.ru/view_helpstud.php?id=3920 (accessed 24.10.2015).

11. Fortunatova V.A., Valeeva E.V. Odnomernyi chelovek v mnogomernoi gumanitaristike: (problemy i puti ikh resheniya v sovremennom obrazovanii) [The one-dimensional person in the multidimensional humanity (problems and ways of their decision in modern education)], Voprosy kul’turologii [Russian Studies in Culturology], 2014, No. 8, pp. 53—58.

12. Freud S. Po tu storonu printsipa naslazhdeniya. Ya i Ono. Neudovletvorennost’ kul’turoi [Jenseits des Lustprinzips <…>]. St. Petersburg, Aleteiya Publ., 1998, 251 p.

13. Fukuyama F. Konets istorii i poslednii chelovek [The End of History and the Last Man]. Moscow, AST Publ., 2004, 592 p.

14. Hatcher W. Etika autentichnykh otnoshenii [The Ethics of Authenticity]. St. Petersburg, Edinenie Publ., 1999, 156 p.

15. Shichanina Yu.V. Fenomen inomernosti v sovremennoi kul’ture: (filosofsko-kul’turologicheskii analiz). Rostov on Don, 2004, 240 p.

16. Shaw B. Chelovek i Sverkhchelovek [Man and Superman] B. Shaw, Polnoe sobranie p’es [Complete Works], in 6 vol. Leningrad, 1979, vol. 2, 708 p.

17. Eco U. Srednie veka uzhe nachalis’ [The Middle Ages already begun], Inostrannaya literature [Foreign Literature] — 1994, No. 4, pp. 258—267.

18. Angus W. Mir Charl’za Dikkensa [World of Charles Dickens]. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1970, 308 p.

19. Epstein M.N. Konstruktivnyi potentsial gumanitarnykh nauk: mogut li oni izmenyat’ to, chto izuchayut? [Constructive potential of the Humanistics: Can they change what research?], Filosofskie nauki [Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences], 2008, No. 12, pp. 34—54.


Review

For citations:


Fortunatova V.A., Valeeva E.V. Otherworldliness and Otherscopeness as Metaphors of Social and Cultural Development of a Contemporary. Observatory of Culture. 2015;(6):74-80. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25281/2072-3156-2015-0-6-74-80

Views: 1215


ISSN 2072-3156 (Print)
ISSN 2588-0047 (Online)