The article discusses an actual problem of the contemporary social theory – a problem of post-postmodernism that is the answer to the question: what comes to replace the supposedly outdated postmodernism. Post-postmodernism in an umbrella term that brings together various concepts like digimodernism, automodernism, metamodernism, hypermodernism, supermodernism, etc. One of the replacing postmodernism theories is the French curator and art theorist Nicolas Bourriaud’s concept that was called “altermodern” or “other modernism.” In his previous books Bourriaud proposed to rewrite modernism and, as the result, developed a new theory. The concept appeared in 2009 when Bourriaud presented the exhibition in London, timed to the publication of his manifesto Altermodern, and edited and published the book of collected papers of the same title. Globalization, which opened borders for art, is a central concept of the altermodernism theory. The main terms of altermodern are heterochrony (time diversity) and viatorisation (nomadism). The main social subject of the alternodern era is a free travelling artist, who interprets the meanings of “rewritten” art for the public. They are “rewritten” because Bourriaud proposes to use phenomena and products of past ages to make them work in a new way. However Bourriaud’s concept should be considered critically, as it was formerly done by several researchers. The article proposes a critical review that answers to the question: to what extent the idea of altermodern is heuristic and therefore it could compete with other concepts that abolish postmodern. The author gives a negative answer to this question first of all because altermodern just borrows a lot of elements of the language and apparatus of postmodernism and actually does not offer anything
new.

Postmodernism is considered as the historical stage of the transition of contemporary society from mature industrial capitalism to the qualitatively new technological and social production order. The real transformations of contemporary society’s factors (social structure, population employment, political activity, education level, qualification, people's welfare and migration, urban agglomerations, infrastructure and ecological conditions) have been brought into the correlation with the production changes that determine transition from Modern Age machine technologies to nanotechnologies. Existence of Postmodern society is presented as the borderland of historical ages, that is, as the period of the fading away of the Modern Age social forms and of the becoming of social activity’s new forms that are specific for the new age of the development of society and of the worldwide socionatural entity. The author analyzes theoretical and worldview potential of Postmodern philosophy and its inability to represent further postindustrial society evolution tendencies. Possible scenarios of Рostmodern society evolution are considered in the context of contemporary concepts on the changes in the human role in nature and society as well as in the context of the trends of socionatural Universe development. The paper reveals technical, technological and social presuppositions of the transition from the nature-historical stage of society development (prehistory) to the true historical stage of human development.

In the article, I analyze the current situation in the field of teaching philosophy and also other social sciences and humanities. The point is that in higher school, under various pretexts, many departments and philosophy councils are closed, hours for teaching philosophical courses and seminars are reduced. Teachers of philosophy and other disciplines in higher education, in addition to being overwhelmed, have to spend a lot of time on unnecessary reporting, which for the most part does not reflect the essence of the matter. The policy of education officials and their belief in the need for such reporting and reduction of hours are critically reviewed. I show that in addition to the well-known functions of philosophy, teaching philosophy is of crucial importance today is due to three important circumstances: we live, firstly, in a period of double transition (of the whole civilization and of Russia) and, secondly, in a period of an anthropological crisis and a crisis of reality, thirdly, due to a crisis of morality and ethics. Only philosophy, based on the methodology, as well as the humanities and social sciences can comprehend modern conditions. The question is about a new start to the practice of teaching philosophy. I propose to introduce a temporary moratorium on the compilation of new teaching programs and start a broad discussion in the philosophical and pedagogical community of the goals and content of the teaching of philosophy. In this regard, I offer my own understanding of the problems and the essence of the teaching of philosophy. I also share my personal experience in teaching philosophy, which includes lecturing and organizing the creative work of small groups of students.

The article is devoted to the significance of the irrational in education processes and to the role of teacher as an actor of psychological influence on the formation of child’s personality. Unfortunately, teacher education programs at universities do not properly introduce to the students all the aspects (including unconscious ones) of the interaction between people, in particular in the “teacher – student” system. At the same time, in the pedagogical literature there are no special works related to this issue. Psychological theories and methods of education, which are designed to form and develop a personality, can simply destroy the necessary qualities in a child that lead to his independence and self-affirmation. Teachers who are incompetent in pedagogical issues often defend themselves by appealing to the well-known names of scientists and their theories. The theories should not become a dogma and a main path in education. They should serve as an auxiliary instrument. The theory of education is obliged to revise the content and form of the organization of educational process in accordance with the understanding and sense of the rhythm of the New World, taking into account the integration of educational concepts that provide a balance of the rational and irrational in the cognitive activity of a student. This balance is necessary for the full and comprehensive development of child’s personality, for the formation of his/her identity. The author of the article believes that under the conditions of large-scale simulacrization, virtualization, digitalization of the educational space, it is necessary to strengthen the emotional component of the educational process to avoid the final elimination of the aura (W. Benjamin) of the class area from the sphere of human relations in the “teacher – student – teacher” system.

The problem of creativity institutionalization at the university entails an identification and building a model of interrelated socio-epistemic structures (both internal and external), functionally ensuring creative activities of a heterogeneous subject of cognition in line with the university’s academic missions (educational, research, socio-economic). The paper gives a socio-philosophical analysis of transformation of the creative-type cognitive relationship (attitude) in the process of University 3.0 historical development. The author classifies the approaches to the definition of creative spaces and outlines the main provisions of the author’s concept of creativity institutionalization in a modern university. It is shown that the creative function of a modern university develops under the influence of public expectations, economic conditions and new technologies that call for effective educational environments, innovative learning methods, new forms of literacy. The author distinguishes four historical stages in the University 2.0, which differ in types of creative activity of a subject of cognition with respect to learning and research: education as the comprehension of truth, conjunction of research and teaching, conjunction of research and learning, learning through scientific researches. It is shown that University 3.0 takes its origin at the end of the 20th century as a result of commercialization of scientific researches, where scientific- and socialentrepreneurial creativities are added to various types of educational and scientific-research creativity. The paper presents the approaches to conceptualization of creative spaces at the University: environment model, model of cognitive processes, complex “environment as a mode of cognition” model. The concept of generativity is a core element of the author’s model of creative space, which is applied as a social-epistemological characteristic to the processes of learning and the environment of cognition. The creative space is deemed as a cognitive-generative system that interconnects creative-type cognitive processes with the cognitively active environment.

The article is devoted to the actively discussed question of the uniqueness of Net generation. The digital natives have been credited with the ability to multitask and high-speed information processing, greater efficiency in online work. According to many researchers, the high technological skills of digital generation require an educational approach radically different from that of previous generations. According to S. Benett and K. Maton, these appeals for revolutionary changes in educational policy and practice turn into “moral panic.” The analysis of contemporary empirical researches show that the digital skills and competencies attributed to the new generation are significantly overvalued, they need to be shaped and developed. The question regarding the ability of digital generation to adopt and adapt digital technologies remains controversial. The main characteristics of digital generation are distractibility, low attentional control and memorization ability, the problem with cognitive control, and, as a result, reduced educational achievements. The modified reward system and reduced self-control may lead to the Internet addiction formation. This article presents scientific evidence showing that designing education that assumes the presence of these abilities hinders rather than helps learning. However, this does not mean that we have to abandon the idea of   technological modernization in education, this only means that new technologies should be used at the right time in the right place.

The article considers L.N. Tolstoy not only as a thinker who represents but also accomplishes Enlightenment. Through a comparison of his ideas with philosophy of Spinoza and Diderot, the author clarifies the aspects of the transition from Enlightenment to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. A special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview of Tolstoy and Diderot. The contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers is revealed. The author also researches their philosophical interpretations of the nature of creative thought. Diderot describes the nature through the concept of paradoxism, Spinoza describes it with the concept of integrity, and Tolstoy uses the method of cohesion that he founds in literary works. If for the philosophers of European Enlightenment, the way of thinking is directly related to human nature, which is presented as a unity of natura naturans and natura naturata, then Tolstoy considers that the most important is a certain a priori sense of life, which is imbued with faith in God and with an instinct of self-giving that is love for the Supreme and other people. The method of cohesion leads Tolstoy away from the direct continuation of educational ideas, stressing the significance of appealing not only to reason but also to creative intuition. Tolstoy gradually moves away from rational perception of Life to its religious and existential foundations. Tolstoy’s worldview undergoes transition from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a human being who lives by commandments of Christ. Starting from the worldview of Enlightenment, Tolstoy comes to the creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which is relevant to early 20th century.

The article explores the parallels between the theory of sympathy developed by Max Scheler and the understanding of the foreign I in Russian philosophy. Russian philosophy has been developing the topic of foreign psychic life since the 1880s, and it regards Scheler’s theory as unable to raise above the level of emotional contagion. True sympathy is possible, when the Other is already present to the I, or, according to Nikolay Lossky, there is an original gnoseological difference between “the lived” (perezhivaniye) and “the observed” (predmet nablyudeniya). Russian philosophy emphasizes the hermeneutical aspect of the problem – the original division and the search for understanding, as does Vasily Rozanov, who also shifted the accent from the general to the individual, particular and even intimate. Semyon Frank pointed out that the feelings of another person will only form a shell of meaningless observation, if not connected to the living knowledge through the human ability to resonate with something transcendent. And Russian philosophy assumes the fact of the original collectiveness of consciousness. This is the impulse given to it by the philosophy of Sergei Trubetskoy and developed in the philosophy of Russian neo-Kantianism, with Ivan Lapshin depicting a creative person, taking up the collective function of experimenting over the psyche to create and expand the map of human feelings.