UDC 141
DOI 10.20339/AM.12-25.084
Mzia J. Kuparashvili, Dr. Sc. in Philosophy, Professor, Departments of Theology, Philosophy and World Cultures, Dostoevsky Omsk State University, SPIN-code: 4464-6040, AuthorID: 361219, e-mail: kuparashvili@rambler.ru
Despite the widespread discussion of the topic of postmodernity, the need for its analysis does not disappear. Firstly, because as the distance between modernity and the time of the birth of postmodernity increases, not only interesting facts are revealed, but also circumstances, taking into account which changes a lot in our ideas. In addition, based on an adequate understanding of the essence of the modern transition period, issues related to the future of the trend itself, worldview and philosophy are only now emerging in the space of philosophical reflection, since the ‘classical’ postmodernism in its French version was completely unwilling to discuss them, and this is part of its uniqueness. In addition, special attention is paid in the article to the philosophical identification of postmodernity itself, which, according to the author, is practically absent. In this context, such well-known forms of postmodern analysis and representation as aesthetic and political should be distinguished from philosophical reflection. The analysis is based on two recognized authorities as postmodern theorists, F. Jamison and I. Hassan, in a polemic with whom the author tries to substantiate his own ideas about the philosophical status of postmodernity. Theorists talk about the end of postmodernity, but the logical conclusion can only be the formation of a new ontology and a new epistemology that will outline, i.e. close, the postmodern era. Its true essence can manifest itself, gain a value that can be evaluated in the presence of its final limits. And while there is no philosophical explication of it, it is too early to talk about the end of postmodernity. But the question of whether there is life after postmodernity is very timely.
Keywords: ontology, assessment of the epoch, philosophical identification, American theorists
References
1. Jamison, F. Postmodernism and Consumer Society. Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publishing House, 2010. 808 p. (In Rus.)
2. Hassan, I. Beyond Postmodernism: Towards an Aesthetics of Trust. URL: https://vsealism.ru/ihab-hasan-za-predelami-postmodernizma/ (In Rus.)
3. Lyotard, J.-F. The Postmodern Condition. Moscow: Aleteya, St. Petersburg: Institute of Experimental Sociology, 1998. 160 p. (In Rus.)
4. Marx, K., Engels, F. Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1859. In: Works. Moscow: Political Literature Publishing House, 1968. Vol. 46. Part 1. 317 p. (In Rus.)
5. Huntington, S. Who Are We? The Challenges to American National Identity. Moscow: AST; Transitkniga, 2004. 635 p.
6. Deleuze, G. The Logic of Sense. Moscow: Raritet; Yekaterinburg: Delovaya Kniga, 1998. 480 p. (In Rus.)
7. Hassan, I. On the Concept of Postmodernism. In: The Postmodern Turn / transl. K. Degtyarev, A. Karpov. 1987. URL: https://proza.ru/2024/10/09/1694 (In Rus.)
8. James, W. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking. In: Popular Lectures on Philosophy / transl. P. Yushkevich. St. Petersburg: Shipovnik, 1910. 237 p. (In Rus.)
9. Vermeulen, T., van den Akker, R. (2015). Notes on Metamodernism. Metamodern. URL: http://metamodernizm.ru/notes-on-metamodernism
.png)
