Author
Listed:
- Vitalii Mudrakov
- Olena Hapchenko
- Svitlana Kozachenko
Abstract
In the broadest sense, the purpose of the article can be defined as outlining the relationship between common sense and national identity in the context of the russian-Ukrainian war. The subject specificity emphasizes the problem of forming and nurturing the mental field of modern russians as a painful state of their identity: common sense as a marker of identity health. The article structurally reflects and develops the idea of the study of common sense as a phenomenon that affects the formation of identity, which was first presented in the study “Identity Security: from the Problems of Sectoral Definition to the Peculiarities of Didactic Definition” (ISBN: 978-617-7600-61-8). The methodological basis is the phenomenological guideline for direct study of the situation, which in this study is specified as a systematic analysis of experience that conveys value and political priorities. The authors propose three contexts of analysis – semantic, practical philosophy, and philosophy of knowledge – according to which they establish criteria for determining the state of health of identity. Concluding that it is important to constantly analyze the mental field of modern russians, the authors point out that this is a matter for a special research complex of human security. The conclusion is the thesis that the modern russian identity is “sick” with a worldview disease, and that its “treatment” must take place through the shared responsibility of all russians, through their repentance and rethinking. The key provisions of the article were developed in an ongoing discussion and academic dialog between the authors
Suggested Citation
Vitalii Mudrakov & Olena Hapchenko & Svitlana Kozachenko, 2023.
"Common sense as identity health: toward a reflection on the Russian-Ukrainian war,"
Philosophy, Economics and Law Review Articles, Philosophy, Economics and Law Review, vol. 3(2), pages 25-32, December.
Handle:
RePEc:cxt:phelrj:v:3:y:2023:i:2:p:25-32
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31733/2786-491X-2023-2-25-33
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cxt:phelrj:v:3:y:2023:i:2:p:25-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Philosophy, Economics and Law Review (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://phelr.com.ua/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.