Abstract

Purpose of the paper is to highlight the methodological role of social philosophy in the processes of optimizing the democratic system, modernizing the content of the category of freedom and responsibility ‑ through the philosophical analysis of definitions by representatives of various political forces and the humanities. The task is to reveal the causes of the ambiguity of the concept of democracy through the analysis of the polysemy of the notions of freedom and responsibility and to prevent the danger of the transformation of democracy into a dictatorship or ochlocracy. Theoretical basis is the fundamental research of prominent philosophers such as B. Spinoza, G. F. F. Hegel, G.-V. Leibniz, F. Nietzsche, J.-J. Russo, J.-P. Sartre, E. Fromm, M. Berdyaev and others; the basic principles of social philosophy ‑ social determinism, the concreteness of truth, rationality, interconnection and development, the requirements of comprehensiveness and criticism. Originality of the research is: in substantiating the significance of contemporary philosophical analysis of the content of key concepts of democracy ‑ «freedom» and «responsibility»; in revealing the mechanism of the functioning of concepts of freedom and responsibility in different ideologies and various spheres of public life; in conducting a philosophical analysis of the notion of responsibility, in revealing the reasons for the paradoxical nature of its manifestations; in outlining the scientific and didactic potential of the philosophical research of categories of freedom and responsibility in the practice of democratic processes; in posing the question of the need to take into account the hierarchy of the content of freedom. Conclusions. As a result of the study, it was found that the philosophical understanding of the basic principles and concepts of democracy, especially freedom and responsibility, must precede the optimization of the democratic system, and the results of philosophical analysis must be taken into account in the practice of everyday life of the state. The model of the constant reproduction of the existing state of spiritual differentiation of a person's worldview should be contrasted with the model of harmonization of the democratic system, only reducing its internal contradiction to the non-antagonistic and the formation on this basis of self-limitation, self-determination of personalities ‑ as a consequence of understanding the relativity of freedom, full awareness and acceptance responsibility for their intentions and decisions.