UDC: 140
https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2024-5-93
EDN: TYBBIZ


viewing

COMMUNITY OF FRATERNITIES AND THE STATE

S. A. Azarenko
Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin, Yekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: sergey_azarenko@mail.ru

Abstract.The article substantiates the topology of the brotherhood. The brotherhood is shown as a community based on a commonality of views and attitudes. N. F. Fedorov was the first thinker who, back in the 19th century, conceived the brotherhood community as a perfect community, and for all mankind. In Modern Philosophy, R. Barth and J. Agamben returned to the topic of the brotherhood community. Creating a perfect community is an urgent topic of our time. The purpose of the article is to model a perfect community based on the ideas of monastic brotherhood. As a result, the work shows that this community is generated by spiritual interaction and exists in a certain rhythm of its own (idiorhythm). The idiorhythm of the brothers, according to topological patterns, is expanded into a «house», and what is set in the rules in the behavior of the brothers is not just fulfilled by them, but is lived and transformed into a form of life. The scientific novelty lies in the topological orientation of the research. According to social topology, the realization of the «place» of time occurs through specific social interactions and practices. In understanding the scheme of sociality, we rely on the «ascending ontology» of M. Deland, which we complement with concepts such as «home» and «country». As a result, the scheme of sociality becomes as follows: «individuals – house – institutions – city – state – country». As the main conclusions, it is emphasized that fraternities are a perfect social form of community and are constructed in the form of «brothers – houses – practices – self-organizing and self-governing brotherhood – state – country». Interactions in the brotherhood are based on organic relationships, but nevertheless they carry the need for a state organization of communication between people who find themselves connected by spiritual solidarity, patriotic love, worthy and courageous deeds. Modernity has the character of a «posthuman sociality», people have to coexist with non–human beings – machines, robots, cyborgs and artificial intelligence. Humanity will be able to interact with artificial intelligence if it is spiritually transformed and is able to create a perfect community like a monastic brotherhood.

Key words: social topology, social time and space, scheme «individuals – houses – institutions – cities – state – country», idiorhythmia «brothers – houses – practices – self-organizing and self-governing brotherhood – state – country».

Cite as: Azarenko, S. A. (2024) [Community of fraternities and the state]. Intellekt. Innovacii. Investicii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 5, pp. 93–102. – https://doi.org/10.25198/2077-7175-2024-5-93.


References

  1. Agamben, J. (2020) Vysochajshaya bednost’. Monasheskie pravila i forma zhizni. [The highest poverty. Monastic rules and the form of life]. Moscow – Saint Petersburg. Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 216 p.
  2. Barth, R. (2016) Kak zhit’ vmeste: romanticheskie simulyacii nekotoryh prostranstv povsednevnosti [How to live together: romantic simulations of some spaces of everyday life]. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, 272 p.
  3. Berdyaev, N. (1990) Samopoznanie (opyt filosofskoj avtobiografii) [Self-knowledge (experience of philosophical autobiography)]. Moscow: International Relations, 336 p.
  4. Harichev, A. D. (2022) [Perception of Basic Values, Factors, and Structures of Russia’s Socio-Historical Development (Based on Research and Testing)]. Zhurnal politicheskikh issledovaniy [Journal of Political Research.]. Vol. 6, № 3, pp. 9–19. – https://doi.org/10.12737/2587-6295-2022-6-3-9-19. – EDN: EGEABU. (In Russ.).
  5. Delanda, M. (2017) [New ontology for social sciences]. Logos [Logos]. Vol. 27, No. 3 (118), pp. 35–56. – EDN: YMICEJ. (In Russ.).
  6. Dubrovskij, D. I. (2013) [Human nature, anthropological crisis and cybernetic immortality]. Global’noye budushcheye 2045. Konvergentnyye tekhnologii (NBIKS) i transgumanisticheskaya evolyutsiya [Global Future 2045. Convergent Technologies (NBICS) and Transhumanistic Evolution]. M. MBA Publishing House LLC, pp. 237–252. (In Russ.).
  7. Ilyin, I. A. (1993) [The Path of Spiritual Renewal]. Put’ k ochevidnosti [The path to evidence]. M.: Publishing house «Republic», 431 p. (In Russ.).
  8. Nancy, J.-L. (1991) [On the Event]. Filosofiya Martina Khaydeggera i sovremennost’ [Philosophy of Martin Heidegger and modernity]. Moscow: Science, pp. 91–102. (In Russ.).
  9. Solovyov, V. S. (1988) Sochineniya v 2 t. T. 2. [Works in 2 vols. Vol]. M.: Thought, 822 p.
  10. Fedorov, N. F. (1982) Sochineniya. Filosofskoe nasledie. Tom 85 [Essays. Philosophical heritage. Volume 85]. M.: Thought, 711 p.
  11. Florensky, P. (1993) Ikonostas. Izbrannye trudy po iskusstvu [Iconostasis. Selected works on art]. St. Petersburg: Mithril. Russian book, 366 p.
  12. Florenskij, P. A. (1996) [Proposed State Structure in the Future]. Sochineniya. V 4 t. T.2 [Works. In 4 volumes. Vol. 2]. Comp. and general. editors. of Hegumen Andronik (A. S. Trubacheva), P. V. Florensky, M. S. Trubacheva. M.: Publishing house «Thought», pp. 647–681. (In Russ.).
  13. Harauej, D. (2017) Manifest kiborgov. Nauka, tekhnologiya i socialisticheskij feminizm 1980-h. [Cyborg Manifesto. Science, technology and socialist feminism of the 1980s.]. M.: Ad Marginem Press, 128 p.
  14. Horuzhij, S. S. (2005) Opyty iz russkoj duhovnoj tradici [Experiences from the Russian spiritual tradition.]. M.: PARADE, 445 p. – EDN: QWMBVR.
  15. Braidotti, R. (2013) The Posthuman. Cambridge : Polity Press, pp. 60. (In Eng.).
  16. Simon, S. (2022) Reflections on the (Post-)Human Condition: Towards New Forms of Engagement with the World?, Social Epistemology, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 63–94. – https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2021.1893859. (In Eng.).