Authors
- Mikhailova Svetlana P.
Annotation
This article, based on a comprehensive study of the problem of the primary choice of profession by unemployed young people, the mechanisms and features fixed in the subculture of representatives of the younger generation, which are not typical for representatives of older age groups, are considered. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of traditional and innovative philosophical antinomies of freedom in classical philosophical literature and new publications, in the applied aspect of overcoming these antinomies in the act of primary professional self-determination of the personality of a young person. Based on the results of the study, a study was conducted of the problems of professional orientation of young people, which have had their own history in our country over the past decades. In conclusion, other significant aspects of the primary choice of a future profession are considered, especially relevant for representatives of the modern digital generation of domestic youth, and destroying traditional stereotypes of general ideas about “generation Z” in their choice of a future profession.
How to link insert
Mikhailova, S. P. (2026). FREEDOM AND DETERMINATION: A PHILOSOPHICAL AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF CONTEMPORARY PRIMARY PROFESSIONAL CHOICE Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series "Pedagogy and Psychology", № 1 (57), 129. https://doi.org/10.24412/2078-9238-2026-157-129-138
References
1.
1. Mikhailova, S. P., & Saenko, N. R. (2024). Atlas of new professions in the context of cultural ecology. In Environmental Safety and Sustainability of Social Development. Proceedings of the International Educational Conference, Moscow, March 22, 2024 (pp. 18–21). Moscow Polytechnic.
2.
2. Kretova, K. (2023) Profi: yes or no? How to choose a profession and not get disappointed? Peter. (In Russian).
3.
3. Parnov, D. A. (2014) Who should I be? Secrets of choosing a profession. Knizhnyy mir. (In Russian).
4.
4. Pure, N. M. (2025). Generation Z in the face of the anthropological crisis. MCU Journal of Philosophical Sciences, (1 (53)), 47–62. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.24412/2078-9238-2025-153-47-62
5.
5. Saenko, N. R., Zhumanova, Z. O., Kokoreva, S. V., & Platonova, Yu. A. (2024). The significance of freedom of choice (based on the example of projects in the gaming computer industry). In Playing with life. Living in a game. Proceedings of the international roundtable, Moscow, May 6, 2024 (рр. 88–96). Moscow Polytechnic University. (In Russian).
6.
6. Epstein, M. N. (2009). From the golden rule to the diamond rule. On the ethics of gift and difference. Man, (1), 49–54. (In Russian).
7.
7. Gaidenko, P. P. (1990). Paradoxes of freedom in the teaching of Fichte. Nauka. (In Russian).
8.
8. Berdyaev, N. A. (1989). The meaning of creativity. Philosophy of freedom. Pravda. (In Russian).
9.
9. Saenko, N. R., & Mikhailova, S. P. (2022). Calling in protestant ethics and Soviet mythology: A comparative analysis. In The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a historical and cultural phenomenon: national and state building. Reports of the 4th International scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the formation of the USSR, Moscow, December 20, 2022 (рр. 270–276). Moscow Polytechnic University. (In Russian).