The article examines the place and role of the conception of the so-called educational services in the Russian legislation, which is one of the topical ideological problems of modern Russian educational policy. The author argues that the discussion of this issue in Russian society, in scientific publications and media as well as in government structure does not have a purely theoretical content but includes the most important practice-oriented aspects and raises the issues of the goals of education, of the essence of the evolving system of educational relations, and, moreover, of the nature of the social system that has developed in Russia in general. According to the author, the conception of services is largely based on the desire to exclude the human factor from education, and it contradicts the specificity of educational relations, which implies the influence of a person on a person, the formation of a person by a person. The main content of the article is the analysis of alternative bills aimed at partial or complete exclusion of the conception of educational services from the legislation. The article analyzes the history of the issue, the arguments of supporters and opponents of the conception of educational services, as well as the parliamentary struggle and its results. The author substantiates that the discussed amendments to the Federal Law On Education in the Russian Federation is at best a half-way solution to the problem, and the work to improve federal legislation in this direction should be continued.

The article examines education from the perspective of its goals and functions. The development of thinking skills is considered as both the goal and function of education, and the process of thinking as a means of education. Education is broadly understood as the creation of an image, and narrowly as the complex of social institutions that carry out educational activity. As a mechanism of socialization, education is one of the most important historically formed tools for the training and development of thinking ability, which is the main instrument of the evolutionary strategy of homo sapiens. The article discusses the ontological status of thought as an attributive property of homo sapiens that defines human being. Thinking is a psychic reality rooted in biological processes, the fundamental basis of all cognitive and human activity-based processes. The author conducts a philosophical analysis of the concepts of thinking, good thinking, qualitative thought, and education. Philosophizing is considered as a special type of thinking, and the article researches its instrumental function, the potential ability to produce sanity, prudence, an analytical approach to any situation, and the ability to make independent decisions. Common to all philosophizing subjects will be that they will act as “demiurges” of their world, which they will be able to fill with their own meanings and values. Philosophical thinking is free thinking, which has a playful character, and therefore it can be defined as a game of meanings. The article describes existing approaches to the development of the philosophical education of children. The author draws attention to the advantage of the Russian system of higher education in connection with the compulsory teaching of philosophy, and argues to develop philosophical education for schoolchildren. The article concludes that the philosophical component of education at all levels, from elementary school to university, is an effective way to form high-quality thinking among students.

The paper addresses the issue of the potential for Russian higher education to become the core of an innovation-driven economy, an institution for the production of knowledge and its integration into society. In addition to the mission of learning, an indicator of this potential for Russian universities is the level of implementation of research and socio-economic development missions. The genesis of the second and third missions of universities is used as a theoretical basis in this study. The author gives prominence to four historical stages that characterize the University 2.0 development (learning and research) in the formation of a research model of cognitive attitudes. In the context of a comparative analysis of higher education development in Russia and Europe, the article examines the emergence of University 3.0 – the key institution of a knowledge society that fulfills three academic missions (learning, research, socio-economic development). The author proposes the NCI&E-model of University 3.0, which includes the basic models of Network University, Creative University, Innovative, and Entrepreneurial University, and provides a brief description and interrelations of these models. This work discusses issues associated with the failure of the Russian “5–100” project in terms of listing its participants in the top 100 of global university rankings such as THE, QS, and ARWU. The authenticity of the formation of the entry list for the “5–100” project is called into question. A comparative analysis of Russian and foreign universities concerning the implementation of the third mission is provided, including the use of the index of University 3.0 development prerequisites proposed by the author. The author concludes that Russian higher education has low potential for the development of University 2.0 at the global level and for the creation of University 3.0. The author offers recommendations for addressing the problem of Russian higher education modernization, considering the development of its scientific and theoretical base and forming a strategic complex of development programs.

The article discusses issues related to overcoming the crisis situation of non-Western countries, including Russia, caused by the uncritical acceptance of the neoliberal universalistic paradigm of development at the turn of the century. The intellectual response to the crisis led the initiative of civilizational self-identification of these countries based on the formation of a new principle of supranational organization in the form of a “civilizationstate,” which is perceived by Western analysts as a fundamental global challenge of modernity requiring a comprehensive theoretical understanding. As of the present time, in their opinion, China, India, and Russia can be classified as “civilization states.” It is asserted that the civilizational turn emerged as a result of the opposition of the “core” states (in the terminology of S. Huntington) of unipolar hegemony, which initiates the conflict potential for the development of the world community, threatening the integrity of the existing Euro-American order. Russian researchers, for their part, note the negative consequences of the universalistic aspiration to spread the model of the “nation-state” to the whole world, which occurs within the logic of limited sovereignty and is destructive for Russia. Actions to overcome the internal crisis discussed in the article include a transition to a national-civilizational form of identity and the implementation of the idea of a “Russian-centric world.” This corresponds to the global trend of forming macro-regional “civilization-worlds” based on common cultural and social values developed during a long period of coexistence. The article demonstrates that the revival of “civilizationalism” is taking place against the background of the worldwide trend of the split of modernity. There is an actualization of the project of the “East-Westphalian system,” called the “Eastphalian” world order, which rejects European universalism and opens the way to a new multipolar world order.

The philosophy of nature, which encompasses the comprehensive study of the natural world, became intimately linked with the interdisciplinary approach of self-organization theory, or synergetics, as it was revealed in the latter third of the 20^th century. This novel understanding of reality and its connection to synergetics becomes evident when comparing the panlogism of G.W.F. Hegel and the dialectical materialism of F. Engels, both based on 19^th-century scientific achievements, with contemporary issues in natural science. This comparison is justified as the worldviews formulated by Hegel, Marx, and Engels significantly influenced the development of civilization in the 20^th century. Similarly, synergetics appears poised to become the cornerstone of the emerging scientific worldview. The philosophical legacies of these classical thinkers play a crucial role in shaping the theory of self-organization. Hegel examined the question of self-development within complex systems and analyzed culture through this perspective, consequently, he can be considered a precursor to synergetics. His viewpoint on the philosophy and methodology of science as a means of reflection within the domain of knowledge remains influential. The evolutionary approach, which Engels regarded as one of the major accomplishments of 19^th-century science, now serves as the foundation for numerous contemporary scientific disciplines, including synergetics itself. The philosophical approach to seeking elementary entities, from which the properties of the whole could be discerned, emerged as the driving force in the development of 20^th-century science. Concurrently, the challenges confronting humanity have significantly transformed the realm of scientific knowledge. Emphasis has shifted toward the laws governing the interactions of elementary entities, as well as the associated issues of structure, chaos, and self-organization. The roles of mathematical modeling, intra-scientific reflection, and large-scale projects have proven to be more critical than initially anticipated by the classical philosophers. The ongoing humanitarian and technological revolution necessitates new responses to the profound and significant questions originally posed by Hegel and Engels.

This article investigates the approaches to understanding human transformation in the underexplored works of Russian cosmist philosophers Alexander Konstantinovich Gorsky and Nikolai Alexandrovich Setnitsky. As disciples of cosmism’s founder; Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov; these scholars contributed original ideas to the development of philosophical thought amid the tumultuous early 20^th century; marked by the First World War; the Great Russian Revolution; and a period of political repression. The paradigms established by Gorsky and Setnitsky hinge on the idea that human action can not only strive towards and achieve an ideal but also engender change in the world and the universe. They perceive issues of individual subconsciousness as manifestations of an unknown and all-encompassing inner world within humans. Echoing Fedorov; they identify the theanthropic (God-human) aspects of Christianity and address questions of culture; creativity; and history through human participation in fulfilling both the moral and existential teachings of Christ. Despite their shared philosophical positions; each thinker emphasizes different aspects of human and world studies. Gorsky envisions the path to a new reality through human creativity and the transformation of one’s own flesh; while arguing that an exclusive focus on scientific and technological progress is insufficient. Setnitsky; on the other hand; posits that external technological forces must be transformed into internal human forces throughout global and cosmic evolution. Gorsky and Setnitsky’s philosophical concepts of human transformation revolve around the enhancement of the inner world and the recognition of potential that remains invisible and incomprehensible. The article concludes that; in the 21^st century; when scientific and technological advancements are transforming not only the world but the very nature of human beings; the legacy of Gorsky and Setnitsky; with their boundless faith in both scientific progress and spiritual self-improvement; holds particular relevance.

This review analyzes the book Rental Society: In the Shadow of Labor, Capital, and Democracy. The book’s authors consider factors and conditions for the transition from a social state and a society of mass labor to a rental type of society. The main reasons for this transformation are the depletion of resources on a global scale and the replacement of humans by machines, which entails the growth of social groups living off various forms of rent (benefits, unconditional basic income, additional payments, etc.). Meanwhile, fewer and fewer people are involved in the production of wealth. Under these conditions, the only active political subject becomes a non-democratic and non-egalitarian state, which distributes rents to various social groups. Simultaneously with the transformation of economic, political, and social structures, the content of moral consciousness also changes during the transition from a labor society to a rent society. There is a transition from labor morality to rent-parasitic morality, which, in view of the objective conditions for the existence of the rent majority, is internalized and gradually becomes a new moral norm. Two possible scenarios for the further development of the rental society are discussed. The positive scenario is a formation of a new type of economy due to the development of science, personality, new socialization forms. Negative scenario is associated with the deepening and globalization of rent processes, leading to “neoliberal feudalism,” to a society without mass labor and economic growth but with a hierarchy of class-rent groups, between which the state distributes rents and privileges using non-economic methods. In addition, the article shows significant shortcomings of the reviewed research: inconsistent understanding of the concept of rent, overly broad understanding of the subjects of rental processes, unjustified extrapolation of rent relations to the whole history of mankind (so called rent presentism).

The article provides a summary of “Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky and European Culture” International Scientific Online Conference, held by the International Laboratory for the Study of Russian-European Intellectual Dialogue of the National Research University Higher School of Economics in cooperation with the Dostoevsky’s Moscow House Museum Center. At the conference, leading experts in various fields of the humanities presented various reports on the mutual influence of Dostoevsky and European culture. Research attention was paid to the problem of the influence of the Russian writer on the creative development of European philosophical and artistic thought. The speakers demonstrated the history of translations of Dostoevsky’s novels into foreign languages. The participants of the conference also reflected the influence of the concepts of Western European philosophy, literature, and culture on the fiction and religious thought of the writer. A number of conference reports were devoted to the cultural and philosophical problems of Dostoevsky’s works. The researchers examined the religious and philosophical dialogues of the novel Demons, paying special attention to the controversial image of the protagonist of the novel – Nikolai Stavrogin. Leading Dostoyevsky specialists turned to the littlestudied aspects of his journalism, defining the role of the “Jewish question.” The conference presented literary critics’ interpretations of Dostoevsky’s novels, the history of screen and musical adaptations of his works in European and Russian art.