Select your language

Urgency of the research. In the postmodern era, cultural practices are resolutely rethinking the trajectories of their development and content. The negation of rationality as a self-sufficient basis of culture in general, and the culture of thinking in particular, produces a qualitatively new type of discourse both as descriptive practice and as a technology of meaning-making. Postmodernism postulates a global worldview crisis, which is directly embodied in the semiotic field of modern culture.

Target setting. There is an urgent need for a fundamental analysis of current worldview determinants regarding the prospects for further development of culture in view of its metaphysical content.

Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. In modern worldview practices, discussions continue on the content, meaning and historical framework of the philosophy of postmodernism, especially in the context of the declared rejection of the metaphysical principles of cognition. P. J. Hiett notes a common position on the statement of the impossibility of finding the Absolute in postmodernism, which is limited to a focus on finite things, utilitarian or ironic. N. Frangipane argues that despite the postulates of the end of postmodernism, the ideas articulated by him take place in modern culture, in particular in fiction. I. Hassan argues that postmodernism can be defined as a continuous exercise in self-determination. H. De Dijn substantiates metaphysics as a method of cognition does not contradict not only the modern realities of socio-cultural life, but is organically united with science in the highest forms of its objectification and pragmatism. H. de Vries is convinced that the critique of metaphysics is an integral attribute of metaphysics itself. The variability of the use of metaphysics as a method is convincingly noted by J. Barris. He argues the system-formalizing content of metaphysical thought. A. Shepperson and K. J. Tomaselli argue that the study of culture and its worldview principles are important in solving the most pressing humanitarian problems of our time.

The research objective. The apotheosis of freedom (nominal, of course), postulated by the philosophy of postmodernism, is dangerous for real social cataclysms. Accordingly, there is a need for a conceptual analysis of the "metaphysical core" of postmodern studies.

The statement of basic material. The problem of discreteness and continuity of time and space correlates with the problem of the whole and the general. If ontology is presented as a world of individual things, and metaphysical systems describe the world as a whole, then the philosophy of postmodernism questions and criticizes classical examples of the postulation of integrity. The result of such a worldview disposition is an existential-horizontal vector of goal-setting and expediency as such. The development, or rather, the "habitation" of space in time occurs as its marking - the establishment of marks, leaving traces and cartography. All the monumentality of culture is, thus, a sign-symbolic system that reformats the world in a human-sized format. The temporality of subjectivity is not only an existential tragedy, but also a sacred gift of an essential vision of things and phenomena. Even if in postmodernism this sacredness is legitimized by society and culture, not by the eternity of the universe.

Conclusions. Confusion and disorientation of man against the background of the semiotic space of the culture of the unconscious requires radical solutions. It is impossible to master reality in its spatiotemporal definitions of both physical and social dimensions. A plausible solution to this age-old problem of adapting the world to human needs and demands is to propose the creation of a virtual reality, or a collective consciousness as a monument to the technical and civilizational progress of mankind.

Keywords: postmodernism, deconstruction, simulacrum, space, time, culture, subjectivity, sociality.

 

References:

  1. Barris, Jeremy 2015. ʻMetaphysics, Deep Pluralism, and Paradoxes of Informal Logicʼ, International Journal of Philosophical Studies, Volume 23, Issue 1, рр. 59-84. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2014.961506>. [21 August 2020].
  2. Boghossian, P & Lindsay, J 2018. ʻWhat comes after postmodernism?ʼ, Journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, Volume 50, Issue 14: Special issue: What Comes After Postmodernism? pр. 1346-1347. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1462520>. [20 August 2020].
  3. De Dijn, Herman 1999. ʻThe vicissitudes of metaphysics in the Modern Ageʼ, South African Journal of Philosophy, Volume 18, Issue 1, рр. 61-73. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/02580136.1999.10878178>. [21 August 2020].
  4. De Vriese, Herbert 2008. ʻThe Myth of the Metaphysical Circle: An Analysis of the Contemporary Crisis of the Critique of Metaphysics. Inquiryʼ, An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, Volume 51, Issue 3, рр. 312-341. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00201740802120772>. [21 August 2020].
  5. Frangipane, Nicholas 2016. ʻFreeways and Fog: The Shift in Attitude between Postmodernism and Post-Postmodernism from The Crying of Lot 49 to Inherent Viceʼ, Journal Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction, Volume 57, Issue 5, рр. 521-532. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00111619.2016.1138441>. [21 August 2020].
  6. Fry, T 2006. ‘Object-Thing Philosophy’ and Design: Review of B. Latour and P. Weibel Making Things Public; G. Harman Tool-Being and Guerrilla Metaphysics; Peter-Paul Verbeek What Things Doʼ, Journal Design Philosophy Papers, Volume 4, Issue 1, рр. 21-39. Available from: <http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/144871306X13966268131316>. [21 August 2020].
  7. Hassan, I 2003. ʻBeyond postmodernism. Angelakiʼ, Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, Volume 8, Issue 1, рр. 3-11. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/09697250301198>. [21 August 2020].
  8. Hiett, PJ 1995. ʻPostmodernism - A cross cultural perspectiveʼ, Asian Philosophy, Volume 5, Issue 2, рр. 197-208. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/09552369508575420>. [21 August 2020].
  9. Lăzăroiu, G 2018. ʻPostmodernism as an epistemological phenomenonʼ, Journal Educational Philosophy and Theory, Volume 50, Issue 14: Special issue: What Comes After Postmodernism? рр. 1390-1391. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2018.1461369>. [21 August 2020].
  10. Linstead, S & Mullarkey, J 2003. ʻTime, Creativity and Culture: Introducing Bergsonʼ, Culture and Organization, Volume 9, Issue 1, рр. 3-13. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/14759550302799>. [21 August 2020].
  11. Lovlie, L 1990. ʻPostmodernism and Subjectivityʼ, The Humanistic Psychologist, Volume 18, Issue 1: Psychology and Postmodernity, рр. 105-119. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/08873267.1990.9976880>. [21 August 2020].
  12. Papastephanou, Marianna 1999. ʻProspects for thinking reconstruction postmetaphysically: Postmodernism minus the quote marksʼ, Cultural Values, Volume 3, Issue 3, рр. 291-303. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/14797589909367168>. [21 August 2020].
  13. Peters, MA, Tesar, M, Jackson, L & Besley, T 2019. ʻPostmodernism in the afterlifeʼ, Journal Educational Philosophy and Theory. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2019.1686947>. [21 August 2020].
  14. Schulenberg, Ulf 2017. ʻResuscitating Georg Lukács: Form, Metaphysics and the Idea of a New Realismʼ, Culture, Theory and Critique, Volume 58, Issue 1, рр. 1-16. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2016.1185955>. [21 August 2020].
  15. Shepperson, Arnold & Tomaselli, Keyan G 2010. ‘Culture’ is not benignʼ, South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research, Volume 36, Issue 1, рр. 58-70. Available from: <https://doi.org/10.1080/02500160903525031>. [21 August 2020].
  16. Bodrijyar, Zh 2000. Simvolicheskij obmen i smert (Symbolic exchange and death), Moskva, 387 s
  17. Delez, Zh 1998. Razlichie i povtorenie (Difference and Repetition), per. s fr. NB Mankovskoj & EP Yurovskoj, SPb.: Petropolis, 384 s..
  18. Derrida, Zh 2007. Disseminaciya (Dissemination), per. s fr. D Kralechkina, Ekaterinburg: U-Faktoriya, 605 s.
  19. Derrida, Zh 2012. Polya filosofii (Fields of Philosophy), Moskva: Akademicheskij proekt, 376 s.
  20. Dzhejmison, F 2019. Postmodernizm, ili Kulturnaya logika pozdnego kapitalizma (Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism), s angl. D Kralechkina, pod red. A Olejnikova, Moskva: Izdatelstvo Instituta Gajdara,  808 s.
  21. Tulchinskij, GL (red) &. Uvarov, MS (red) 2000. Perspektivy metafiziki: Klassicheskaya i neklassicheskaya metafizika na rubezhe vekov (Perspectives of metaphysics: Classical and non-classical metaphysics at the turn of the century), Sankt-Peterburg: Aletejya, 401 s.
  22. Epshtejn, M 2007. ʻSvetloj pamyati postmoderna posvyashaetsya... (It is dedicated to the blessed memory of postmodernism ...)ʼ, Hudozhestvennyj zhurnal, Vypusk 64. Dostupno: <http://moscowartmagazine.com/issue/27/article/472> [19 Avgust 2020].