The concept of deliberation in the Ukrainian philosophical discourse is both underestimated and overestimated. Underestimated — as a self-sufficient category that is not reducible to another con- cept, even if it is the concept of consensus or the concept of democracy. Deliberation appears pri- marily as a careful weighing and selection of arguments when making an important decision. Collegiality may or may not be present here, as well as openness. Therefore, the concept of deliber- ation is somewhat overestimated as something (...) that necessarily improves the quality of democratic procedures, and therefore, supposedly, deliberation itself is something democratic in nature. American political philosopher Joshua Cohen drew attention to the fact that deliberation can be of at least three types: individual deliberation, jury deliberation, and oligarch deliberation. The article analyzes these three types of deliberation and found that the closest to the democratic type of government is individual deliberation, or rather, joint deliberation of responsible citizens. While the deliberation of the jury is mostly closed, it is naturally limited access to the extent of the necessary competence of its possible participants. The deliberation of the oligarchs is even more closed and often even secret. However, the article states that it is more appropriate to replace the name «oligarchs» with the term «captains of business»: then the deliberation of the oligarchs ceases to be a cartel conspiracy, and turns into a coordinated protection of the interests of the national economy. However, for this, de- liberation itself is not enough, so not procedural, but other, namely, value factors of decision-making are needed. Democracy benefits from deliberation when the latter is complemented by the liberal and patriotic values of the participants in the deliberation. Already John Locke convincingly argues the importance of citizens achieving a common conscious agreement in state matters. However, for Locke, the very fact of having property was important, while in practice, achieving an effective agreement requires mechanisms for reconciling the positions of owners with very different amounts of property. To some extent, this problem can be solved by John Rawls` concept of justice. (shrink)

The defeat of russia on the battlefield must be accompanied by the delegitimization of the “russian world”, that is, the loss of attractiveness for the russians themselves of the concept of the supremacy of everything Russian over everything non-russian. Cultivating russia’s greatness as a key task of “russian world” is one of the main reasons for the current Russian armed aggression against Ukraine, but also for Russia’s aggressive foreign policy in the world in general. The purpose of this article is (...) to clarify the main features of the delegitimization of the “russian world” in the regime of social education. To do this, the definition of “russian world” as a special symbolic system, which the modern russian political regime is trying to adjust from the standpoint of aggressive russian geopolitical subjectivity, has been previously clarified. This leads to the performative selfdenial of the “russian world”, which can be traced at the level of the accumulation of symbolic capital, the establishment of political elites (the authorities and the opposition), as well as at the level of the development of civil society. Social learning involves the search at the level of civil society for new forms of communicative self-organization at various levels of collective formation. A way out for such performative self-denial is possible only through the ways of social learning, the search for a change in one’s own identity, and not through attempts at autistic self-affirmation characteristic of the modern russian political regime, as well as the destruction of all political and cultural alternatives to the stateapproved canon. Social education is a way of soft and non-violent delegitimization of the “russian world”, in contrast to rebellion and revolutions, which in russia traditionally only lead to the emergence of even more brutal forms of state dictatorship. The monologic nature of the russian political space provokes the reation of new forms of social consensus outside the russian political system – in the sphere of culture, counterculture, and subcultures. (shrink)

Motivation is a key factor in getting involved in education, as well as in other things. After all, the existence of objective prerequisites for education is only a necessary basis for its success, but the use of these conditions properly depends to a large extent on the adequate motivation of participants in the educational process. Therefore, proper motivation is a sufficient basis for making efforts to achieve a better result. However, efforts also need to be directed correctly: there is not (...) enough to be passionate about, something must be done in a way that is acceptable to others and understandable to them. Therefore, motivation is inevitably more or less related to legitimacy, i.e. the provision of normative activities. For each case there is the best motivation for it and proper legitimacy. Motivation refers to the identification of basic values of a certain type of activity, legitimation requires a clear understanding and recognition of certain norms that are generally accepted in this activity. At different stages of adulthood, the motivation and legitimation of its activities alternately play a priority role, although both of them are more or less present at all stages of personality development. Therefore, both the excessive opposition of motivation and legitimacy and attempts to consider one as part of the other are wrong – these are relatively self-sufficient mechanisms to ensure the success of individual behavior. Motivation and legitimacy are closely linked to the individual's acceptance of certain obligations and responsibilities, which are the basis for the individual's acquisition of certain rights. Unsuccessful motivation and inappropriate legitimation of an individual's behavior is a sign of his unsuccessful socialization, which risks losing the connection of the individual with the main social institutions of society – especially with the state. In the case of their successful implementation, motivation and legitimacy are an important means of effective inclusion of the individual in the functioning of social systems, as well as – in the improvement and development of such functioning. (shrink)

Колективні емоційні стани раніше досліджували переважно як чинники соціальної аномії, тоді як соціальну норму асоціювали переважно з втіленням понять у соціальні норми. Цей підхід останні роки зазнає суттєвих коректив: українські та закордонні дослідники розглядають колективні емоційні стани як соціальну норму і постійну основу для досягнення стійкого раціонального консенсуса. Більше того, дослідники вже не стільки протиставляють емоції з інтелектом, скільки виявляють все більше взаємозв’язків і взаємозалежностей між ними. Це змінює уявлення про сутність легітимації та статус мотивації у перебігу соціальних процесів. Мотивація (...) постає не стільки як надто мінлива суб’єктивна психологічна характеристика, скільки як постійна колективна характеристика соціальних спільнот. Мотивація зумовлює соціальну ідентичність через постійне спрямування людей як членів соціальних спільнот до досягнення певних спільних бажаних цілей. Легітимація також постає як процес постійного визнання людьми одне одного під час встановлення спільно визнаних соціальних норм. У такому визнанні колективні емоції відіграють вирішальну роль. Біологічні основи емоційної поведінки людей не так редукують їхню поведінку до біологічних чинників, скільки емоції сприяють сублімації цих біологічних чинників до соціально прийнятних цілей. Емоційна основа утвердження національної ідентичності має свої негативні і свої позитивні сторони: якщо негативний вплив емоцій може викликати загострення радикального націоналізму, то позитивний вплив емоцій сприяє згуртуванню нації у ситуації екзистенційних викликів – таких як війна. Легітимація справедливої війни є одним із головних завдань спрямування колективних емоцій, зокрема праведного гніву, на мотивацію до соціальної мобілізації нації до спротиву збройній зовнішній агресії. (shrink)