A. N. Zaprudnova
Price: 0 руб.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.25807/22224378_2021_9_44
The article substantiates the importance of understanding education as an expression of
the formative power of labour. This makes it possible to develop a strategy for evaluating
educational initiatives from the point of view of their representativeness and significantly
limits relativistic trends in this area. Due to the concept of labour, education as a specific
anthropogenic activity can be conceptualised in the form of educational creativity,
including not only its applied, but also ideological, value and target aspects, which are
often presented only nominally in regulatory documents and in scientific research. In
contrast to assimilating education to pure art or technological practices (by formalising
and automating it), actualisation of the concept of labour avoids the trap of radical subject-object opposition. On the one hand, this opposition is repressive in relation to the object, on the other hand, it closes the subject within its own limits and creates the illusion of the subject’s autonomy, which turns out to be imaginary and only blocks creative intentions.
Keywords: labour, artifact, education, simulacrum, abstract autonomy of a subject,
constructivism.
References
1. Akhutin A. V. Tyazhba o bytii. M.: Russkoe fenomenologicheskoe obshchestvo,1996. 304 s.
2. Ashkerov A. Yu. Filosofiya truda // Sotsiologicheskoe obozrenie. Tom 3. No 2. 2003 S. 50–70.
3. Bodriy’yar Zh. Simulyakry i simulyatsiya / per. s fr. A. Kachalova (2011). M.: Ripol-klassik, 2015. 240 s.
4. Buzgalin A. V. Opredmechivanie, oveshchnenie i otchuzhdenie: aktual’nost’ abstraktnykh filosofskikh diskussiy // Voprosy filosofii. 2015. No 5. S. 124–130.
5. Gegel’ G. V. F. Raboty raznykh let. V dvukh tomakh. T. 1. Sost., obshchaya red. i vstupit, stat’ya A. V. Gulygi. M.: Mysl’, 1970. 668 s.
6. Gegel’ G. V. F. Sistema nauk. Fenomenologiya dukha // Soch. M., 1959. T. 4. 437s.
7. Kant I. Sochineniya v shesti tomakh. M.: Mysl’, 1995. T. 4. Ch. 1. 544 s.
8. Kant I. O pedagogike. Traktaty i pis’ma. M.: Nauka, 1980. S. 445-505.
9. Kirik T. A. Virtual’naya real’nost’ i eyo ontologicheskie prototipy: monografiya. Kurgan: Izd-vo Kurganskogo gos. un-ta, 2007. 134 s.
10. Marks K. Kapital. Kritika politicheskoy ekonomii M.: IPL, 1969. T. 1. 896 s.
11. Marks K., Engel’s F. Rol’ truda v protsesse prevrashcheniya obez’yany v cheloveka // Sochineniya, T. 20, 1961. M.: Politizdat, 1961. 827 s.
12. Marks K., Engel’s F. Pis’ma K. Marksa i F. Engel’sa / Sochineniya. Izd. 2-e. M., 1967. T. 42. S. 88–89.
13. Maslyanka Yu. V. Sistema obrazovaniya v usloviyakh tsennostno-smyslovogo krizisa: filosofskiy analiz // Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya. 2018. No 1 Vyp. 1. S. 36–44.
14. Mitasova. Vykhod iz temnoty: istoriya odnogo eksperimenta / «So-edinenie», fond podderzhki slepoglukhikh. M.: Eksmo, 2016. 252 s.
15. Ogurtsov A. Antipedagogika: vyzov postmodernizma // Vyssheye obrazovanie v Rossii. 2002. No 4. S. 54–68.
16. Smirnova N. M. Kognitivnye implikatsii fenomenologicheskogo konstruktivizma // Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki. 2018. No 2. S. 10–13.
17. Strel’chenko V. I., Ivanov E. A. Nachalo novoevropeyskoy nauki: opyt filosofsko-istoriograficheskoy refleksii // Nauchno-tekhnicheskie vedomosti SPbGPU. Gumanitarnye i obshchestvennye nauki. 2019. T. 10, No 2. S. 7–19.
18. Filosofiya tekhniki v FRG. Sbornik statey / Perevod s nemetskogo i angliyskogo. Sostaviteli: Ts. G. Arzakanyan, V. G. Gorokhov. M., «Progress», 1989. S. 404–419.
19. Kheyde L. Avtonomnost’ i neschastnoe soznanie // Filosofsko-literaturnyi zhurnal «Logos». 1999. No 9 (19). S. 4–15.
