The Universalist Turn of the 21st Century: from the Philosophy of the Other to the Philosophy of the Same

The author of the article, based on the synthesis of two methodological schools -the traditional religious ethics of dialogue as a paradigm of difference and the contemporary secular ethics of Freudomarxism as a paradigm of solidarity, aims to substantiate the univer-salist foundations of the philosophy of dialogue, dialectically moving from the figure of the Other to the figure of the Same. Thus, the philosophy of dialogue returns to its authentic meaning of spiritual understanding. This dialectic is interpreted as an ethical turn from the post-modern to the neo-modern in post-contemporary realities. The basis for the implementation of this aim was the appropriation of the philosophy of dialogue by the neoliberal paradigm of postmodernism, which transformed the dialogical tradition into relativistic multiculturalism as a phenomenon of simulating alienated otherness, removing sacred experience from dialogue and turning the Other into a new form of repressiveness. The hypothesis of the research is that not only does ethical universalism as the basis of the philosophy of dialogue not underestimate the differences, but it also uses them constructively, depriving the difference of the separating power of the service provision for the functioning of the global digital multicultural market as a phenomenon of the time with the help of symbolic identities of atomic individuals as appendages of capital in space. The applied cases of the study are comparisons, based on the application of the method of philosophical comparative studies, of the key concepts of dialogism of the Free Jewish Teaching House of the 20th century and the Lacanian psychoanalysis of the Ljubljana and French schools of the 21st century, in particular: the categories “I and Thou” of Martin Buber and “Love as Comedy” of Alenka Zupancic (at the level of intersubjectivity); the categories of “Face/Mortality” of Emmanuel Levinas and the “Immortal” of Alain Badiou (at the level of the subject); categories “Sphere Between” of Buber, the “Third” of Levinas and “Truth-Event” of Badiou (at the level of the Other). The conclusions of the work relate to the experimental convention of the radical division of philosophical schools into alternative worlds, between which, supposedly, there is no correspondence: neither genetic, nor ideological. The clearest proof of the opposite is the impulse of universal ethics, uniting traditionalists and neo-modernists, theists and atheists, romantics and skeptics, dialogists and psychoanalysts, both at the level of historiographic roots (Frankfurt School) and at the level of ideological priorities (anti-fascism). Excessive fragmentation of philosophical schools repeats the neoliberal gesture of fragmentation of imaginary identities and prevents the restoration of the unity of the world.

Keywords

Authors

References