ON THE ONTOLOGICAL ESSENCE OF CULTURE (NEOCLASSICAL DISCOURSE)

Before the emergence of modern neoclassical philosophy, with the change in the main question of philosophy, during the existence of classical and non-classical types of philosophy before it, numerous understandings of the essence of culture, “more than five hundred”, had accumulated. The results of the study revealed a problem consisting, firstly, in the society and in the theory of culture today there is a misunderstanding of the “beginnings” — the ontological reasons for the emergence of such a phenomenon of being as “culture” among our distant ancestors. “Indeed, what made culture appear, for what reason, why and for what reason did it appear; and what is it then, when society has already separated from nature and, although it is primitive, but ensured survival, up to the Anthropocene?” Why did it appear and exist then, what is its meaning and essence? Such a fundamental design question, for such an unusual phenomenon of existence as culture, has not yet been seriously, as it seems, posed or has been latently explained based on the presumption of the Absolute, creationistically, verbalistically, clinging each time to a sign, starting from the signifier, from the word. And without this, the understanding of the main thing in it remains vague and incomprehensible — its deep essence and possible superficial, disrespectful and oxymoronic attitude towards it. Secondly, it turned out that due to the stated circumstance, there are major ideological and methodological errors in understanding the essence of culture. Their origin lies in the unlawful identification of the phenomena and concepts of “culture” and “society” (“culture is a second nature”, that is, everything that society creates besides nature, although it creates everything), and this sets the resulting errors in understanding the real, adequate essence of culture. When culture is identified: a) with any production of society; culture is understood as everything that society produces; b) with any creativity; culture is often considered to be everything related to creativity, especially with artistic creativity, with any creative message in any matter; c) culture is identified with values; with a set of any values; moreover, as if with a warehouse of values, and ready-made values at that (not developed by humanity, but biased, given by the otherworldly Absolute); d) they identify culture with civilization as a stage and level of development of humanity; d) they identify culture with art, opposing culture to science and other elements of the structure of the integral cultural imperative; e) they tear culture away from man, understand culture outside of man and above man, opposing it especially to the working man, as if they do not need him as an obstacle to culture (when the so-called “artist” solipsistically considers himself the criterion of culture — “and this is how I see, think, hear, read; culture — “this is a message to me and through me from above”, etc.). Such errors can lead to a false trail in relation to the real essential culture. To the residual principle, to paradoxical combinations such as “war culture”, “crime culture”, “vice culture”, just think about it, and even “dehumanization culture”; “deviant subcultures”, “corporate culture”. These conclusions were obtained using the methodology of neoclassical philosophy, a realistic system-situational-complexity approach, modern fractal determinism, comparative studies, hermeneutics, logical-semantic analysis, abduc- tion and others. Neoclassical philosophy studies and, if possible-necessary, tries to correct, first of all, the very foundations in understanding the essence of culture as the underlying phenomenon of human and social existence, the very sources of such errors and misunderstandings, which is the purpose of this article.