The article examines the transformation of the understanding of humanism from the Renaissance to the modern era, focusing on the mechanism of exclusion that defines the key framework of social action, including in the present day. This social mechanism pushes declared values beyond observable reality, generates cognitive paralysis, and ultimately points to the existence of an alternate reality that dominates a morally depleted society. The replacement of reality with constructs fabricated by various doctrinal groups is identified as a major delusion (...) of our times, luring people into self-deception, seducing them with illusory values, and confusing the noble with the ignoble. The mechanisms of exclusion serve as the essential foundation for excluding thought, values, and ideals from everyday social life. This exclusion is evident in ancient democracy, which despised slaves; in Russian literature, which flirted with serfdom; and most notably in modern autocracy and liberalism, which focus solely on their own kind. The article takes as its starting point the transitional state of society where, under the conditions of the Reformation, Renaissance values understood as humanism are reduced to post-Renaissance “humanism.” From this perspective, the treatise of F.I. Niethammer is analyzed for its contribution to the modern understanding of humanism in contrast to the educational philanthropinism of J.B. Basedow. The article reveals the connection between the term “humanism” and German anti-Semitism, showing that humanism, as conceived in the German context, was intended for ethnic insiders and educationally stood as an antithesis to the Frankfurt Philanthropin, the largest German educational institution opened in a Jewish ghetto for children from poor families. The author concludes with historical parallels and findings that identify the characteristics of modern societies shaped by the discussed mechanism of exclusion. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

The fundamental ontology of the phenomenon of education remains an insufficiently developed scientific problem. However, it serves as the foundation for the science of education, enabling it to transcend its purely applied and quotidian nature and finally attain the genuine status of a science. Fundamental ontology provides the support and substantiation for the concepts developed by science for its own purposes. This is precisely what characterizes science as science. Previously, I developed a part of the fundamental ontology of education, which (...) I termed the instituting ontology. It includes such basic structural forms as ontological essence and relation to truth, primary constituents (universals), and non-Kuhnian paradigms, which comprise three dimensions: justificatory, universal, and paradigmatic. In the present work, the subject of my research is the anthropo-positing ontology of the phenomenon of education, in which two dimensions are distinguished: the existential-transcendental and the human-world dimensions. This article briefly examines the first dimension, which characterizes the educational movement of humans toward their essence, designated as the path to oneself. The starting point is the question of choosing authentic methods of scientific-cognitive activity for various groups of students. It is demonstrated how an individual’s problem-cognitive program illuminates the path to oneself in the sense of seeking and constructing the human foundation. Explanations are provided for the essence of the concepts “problem-cognitive program” and “non-Kuhnian paradigms,” which are necessary for understanding the presented ontological conception. The article outlines the fundamental categories of the existential-transcendental dimension of the phenomenon of education, which are defined as self-knowledge, self-expression, the spiritual, and the moral. In the category of self-knowledge, the opposition between individualization and individuation is presented, while in the category of self-expression, the opposition between reproductive and productive cognition is explored. The category of the spiritual characterizes the essence of the sphere of the spiritual in the individual and the sphere of the spiritual in the nation. It is shown that the spiritual represents the constitutive principle of personality, but not of the human being as such. The highest essential principle of the human being as such is the moral, which plays a unifying role in the quaternary of the existential-transcendental dimension of the fundamental ontology of education. (shrink)