Authors
- Bugaev Maksim K.
Annotation
In the modern world, the question of personality and its values is becoming more and more topical. Calls for gaining self-understanding, spirituality, and for the preservation of traditional values, coming from official sources, are becoming heard with higher frequency. In this respect, the problem of clarifying the semantics of value acquires the highest degree of relevance, one to fully express its socio-ontological nature. The research presents value as a phenomenon with a threefold basis to it, pointing out its inner — transcendental-phenomenological side and its outer — objective-ideal side. Both sides of value are conceptually connected through the area of practical human activity, which serves as a link between subjective and objective axiology. Thus, value appears in three forms. On the one hand, it is a noematic meaning of ‘lifeworld’, as claim E. Husserl and N. M. Smirnova. In this form, value manifests itself in the self-conscious axiological I, which includes a hierarchically structured active area
of subjective life meanings (Mine), as well as the Other as a special kind of inner value. On the other hand, value takes the ideal form of a model, or an ideal capable of alienation into the objective social space. In this case, it acquires autonomy and independently attaches itself to the subject, as evidenced by the theories of P. Bourdieu and A. A. Ivin.
Finally, from a praxeological point of view, can be described as a social interest of personality determined by the motive, the purpose and the means of social action as a rational and value-oriented human behavior. This understanding of value is highlighted in the works of M. Weber, A. Schutz and T. Parsons.
How to link insert
Bugaev, M. K. (2025). ON VALUE IN ITS THREE ONTOLOGICAL ASPECTS: METHODOLOGY OF PHILOSOPHICALANTHROPOLOCICAL STUDIES Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 1 (53), 63. https://doi.org/10.24412/2078-9238-2025-153-63-78
References
1.
1. Platonov, R. S. (2024). Collective moral responsibility: The problem of conceptualization. Ethical Thought, 24 (2), 76–90. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2024-24-2-76-90
2.
2. Koval, E. A., & Martynova, M. D. (2024). Transformation of moral norms and values in the Big Data Era. Ethical Thought, 24 (2), 105–119. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2024-24-2-105-119
3.
3. Rickert, H. (1998). Kulturwissenschaften und Naturwissenschaften. Respublika. (In Russian).
4.
4. Husserl, E. (2009). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Das erste Buch. Akademicheskij Proekt. (In Russian).
5.
5. Smirnova, N. M. (2009). Social phenomenology in modern sociological studies. Kanon+; Reabilitation. (In Russian).
6.
6. Husserl, E. (2010). Cartesianische meditationen. Akademicheskij Proekt. (In Russian).
7.
7. Peterson, J. B. (2022). Maps of meaning: The architecture of belief. Piter. (In Russian).
8.
8. Sartre, J.-P. (2024). Être et rien. AST. (In Russian).
9.
9. Stirner, M. (2024). Der Einzige und sein Eigentum. AST. (In Russian).
10.
10. Hegel, G. W. F. (1974). Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften im Grundrisse. T. 1: Die Wissenschaft der Logik. Mysl. (In Russian).
11.
11. Bazhanov, V. A., & Konopkin, A. M. (2024). The human as an open manifold (reflection on the book Man as an Open Integrity). Problems of Philosophy, 1, 58–66. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2024-1-58-66
12.
12. Zubets, O. P. (2024). Ralf W. Emerson and Aristotle: Self-sufficiency versus selfreliance]. Ethical Thought, 24 (1), 48 – 69. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2024-24-1-48-69
13.
13. Andrianova, E. V., Davydenko, V. A., & Khudyakova, Y. (2024). “Lifeworld” concept in smbolic interactionism, phenomenology and communicative action pragmatics. Part I. Social Area, 10 (1), 1–29. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15838/sa.2024.1.41.2
14.
14. Maslova, A. V. (2024). The dialogue of non-intersecting semiospheres in a single cultural space. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Humanities, 4 (872), 163–169. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.52070/2542-2197_2023_4_872_163
15.
15. Buber, M. (2024). Ich und Du. AST. (In Russian).
16.
16. Heidegger, M. (2011). Sein und Zeit. Akademicheskij Proekt. (In Russian).
17.
17. Porcheddu, R. (2023). Taking ‘end’ seriously. Some remarks on the relation between Kant’s concept of an end and the end in itself. The Philosophy Journal, 16 (2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-2-176-190
18.
18. Weber, M. (2021). Verständnisvolle Soziologie. AST. (In Russian).
19.
19. Schutz, A., & Parsons, T. (2021). Theory of social action: correspondence. E’lementarnye formy. (In Russian).
20.
20. Ivin, A. A. (2022). Social epistemology: Human cognition in social dimension. Prospekt. (In Russian).
21.
21. Pareto, V. (1935). The mind and society. Harcourt, Brace & Co.
22.
22. Bourdieu, P. (2017). Sociologie de l’espace social. Aletheia. (In Russian).
23.
23. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Structure, habitus, pratique. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 1 (2), 44–59. (In Russian). https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/strukturagabitus-praktika?ysclid=m5b36nlskx606802955
24.
24. Shulga, E. N. (2004). The problems of pre-understanding in hermeneutics, phenomenology and sociology. Institut filosofii RAN. (In Russian)
25.
25. Momdzhyan, K. Kh. (2024). Orientation and motivational determinants of social consciousness. The Philosophy Journal, 17 (4), 5–22. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2024-17-4-5-22
26.
26. Nikiforov, A. L. (2021). What kind of future is humanity facing? The Philosophy Journal, 14 (3), 82–95. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2021-14-3-82-95