Self-awareness is a sign of a thinking person and a spiritual person. Over time, after answering the questions "Who am I?", "Where am I?" "Where am I going?", The following arises: where is the world we live in moving? People want to know: is the world moving towards good or evil? Interestingly, this began to worry Poltava residents who turned to Ukrainian intellectuals for an answer. The thoughts of digital thinkers in our time can be easily found on YouTube, if you enter in the search in Ukrainian: "Where is the world heading and the place of Ukraine in the world."
The answer to the direction of the world depends on the chosen philosophical paradigm and the conceptual apparatus used by intellectuals. The best way to understand whether we are heading for evil or good is in the archaic-modern-postmodern model. This model has a special dictionary, the terms of which claim accuracy, completeness and clearness. This model can be abandoned, but if you offer the best with the best glossary. It is possible to try to give an answer outside the system of qualitative generalizations, but it will not have any result, and there are such efforts. Trying not to associate oneself with evaluative categories of good and evil makes any reasoning on this issue meaningless. In general, finding the direction of the world with a retrospective analysis of the past without trying to assess the current ideas of decarbonization, immunization, emancipation, etc. is a little-needed activity in society.
Returning to the Poltava initiative, we can say that the closest to answering the question "where is the world moving?" in the ethical context, the Kharkiv philosopher Oleksandr Filonenko approached, reminding that in the second half of the twentieth century it was indecent and vile to be a modernist. Modernism is an immoral choice, not an ideological mistake.
It is clear that after the horrors of World War II, there could be no other. But the ideas of modernism should be called great utopias, which served as a kind of glue for society and that these ideas and this glue led to humanitarian catastrophes. This does not explain all modernism and the reasons for the transition to postmodernism, even if we present postmodernism as a platform for communication, which served as a glue instead of the usual large vertical ideas. It is a somewhat simplistic view of man and the world that hides the main remote problem: trying to resolve previous unbalanced contradictions without understanding their nature will sooner or later lead to the same unbalanced contradictions and humanitarian catastrophes. The forerunner of these catastrophes today is not seen only by the short-sighted.
Thus, the idea of modernism is the idea of man, aimed at satisfying his utilitarian and metaphysical needs. The idea of man replaced the idea of God. The idea of modernism is a life-affirming idea of progress, which gradually supplanted the tension and anxiety associated with the anticipation of the end of the world and the need to save the soul. Art Nouveau is to be here and now.
At the same time, modernism is also vertical ideas and leadership, it is the indoctrination of society - filling the consciousness of the masses with beneficial content for the ruling class content of mass consciousness in social, ideological, political and psychological terms in the form of beliefs, images, attitudes and stereotypes.
In the middle of the twentieth century, for some reason, it was decided that all the nightmares of modernism are associated exclusively with leaders and their great social utopias. And the people seem to be here for nothing. In fact, everything that happened bad and terrible (communism, Nazism, fascism) is a mutual guilt of both subjective leaders and non-subjective masses. The people did not perform their "expert" function, the essence of which is very simple - to follow their own conscience. If the leader's ideas coincided with the feelings of conscience of the person, then it was possible to go, and if not, it was not necessary to go. But the average followed anything but conscience. That's all.
The wrong "diagnosis" is expected to lead to the wrong "treatment" - intellectuals of the mid-twentieth century adopted a doctrine that provided for the rejection of large vertical ideas. In postmodernism, everyone is allowed to come up with ideas. Everyone became leaders. As President Zelenskyy said: now you are all presidents. Today, leaders are trained anywhere, from training to leadership academies. Thus postmodernism, in contrast to modernism, gave subjectivity to everything.
This is all, of course, good - everyone has become a leader, everyone has become a subject, only people have not followed their own conscience, and do not go. In general, there is a paradox. Postmodernism allowed everyone to be a subject, allowing everyone to feel. But instead of conscience, people feel their own shortcomings from which they invent more and more new identities. And with this bouquet of identities, being a unique leader, a postmodern person is ready to calmly unify and depersonalize with a QR-code.
These days I was lucky to get acquainted with the manuscript of the forthcoming monograph of the Ukrainian author "Utilization of Art Nouveau". It interestingly formulates the main problem of reality. According to the author, the problem is not in the illusory nature of the new world, but in the fact that in the new reality, which displaces the familiar meanings, we do not have time to give our own names and definitions. "Our language and our thinking become fragmented and situational. We no longer have language as the home of our own existence (L. Wittgenstein), to which we could give order and meaning. "
What do I think about this. Art Nouveau is to be. Yes, not everyone was, but the subjects were. Postmodern is not to be. Hitler, Stalin, Churchill - were. Milovanov, Macron, Kira Rudyk, Angela Merkel - they are gone. All these people are ghosts. Lack of names and titles - secondary. What is not there does not need names. This is the second paradox of postmodernism, because its idea is to give subjectivity to everyone, everyone should be, and it is not easy to be, but to be presidents, as Volodymyr Zelenskyy once said.
So, what conclusions can we already draw. Until recently, we at least knew the names of the guilty wrong ideas and understood the wrongs. Today we are unaware of the source of ideas and do not have time to give our own names and definitions, we do not understand the mistakes. And this is a direct path to a new catastrophe.
This is how it happens when they try to correct a defect without understanding the nature of this defect.