Suchergebnisse

Purpose. The study aims to understand artificial intelligence as a socio-cultural phenomenon and its impact on education, where the spiritual sphere of humanity, moral norms, values, and human cognitive abilities are preserved, transferred as well as reproduced. A new discourse on the interaction of artificial and authentic human intelligence becomes inevitable, which has led to a situation of uncertainty. Changes in the socio-cultural environment under the influence of artificial intelligence increase potential threats to the educational space, which stimulates to find the ways to eliminate them. Theoretical basis. Various approaches of classical and postmodern philosophical heritage were taken as a theoretical basis for the research. The originality of the study is in the interpretation of artificial intelligence as a modern form of alienation of essential human characteristics in the socio-cultural context of information technology. The expansion of artificial intelligence raises awareness of the existential threat to the basic socio-cultural, moral and ethical principles of humanism. It is proved that various forms of alienation in the current existing socio-cultural space are typical of our reality, which changes the system of values, moral principles, and social organization of the community. Conclusions. In conclusion, it is proved that AI is a natural stage of scientific and technological progress, which reflects its secondary, derivative nature from human (authentic) intelligence. Human intelligence will always have advantages over AI due to its ability to create, communicate socially and culturally, and be emotional. The dilemma of the counterbalance between human and artificial intelligence is perceived mainly at the emotional level of people. The millennial understanding of the primacy of the creator over his creation can traditionally overcome this contradiction. The universality of human thinking is an undeniable advantage of human intelligence and a guarantee of its, i.e. our, priority.

Purpose of the paper is to highlight the methodological role of social philosophy in the processes of optimizing the democratic system, modernizing the content of the category of freedom and responsibility ‑ through the philosophical analysis of definitions by representatives of various political forces and the humanities. The task is to reveal the causes of the ambiguity of the concept of democracy through the analysis of the polysemy of the notions of freedom and responsibility and to prevent the danger of the transformation of democracy into a dictatorship or ochlocracy. Theoretical basis is the fundamental research of prominent philosophers such as B. Spinoza, G. F. F. Hegel, G.-V. Leibniz, F. Nietzsche, J.-J. Russo, J.-P. Sartre, E. Fromm, M. Berdyaev and others; the basic principles of social philosophy ‑ social determinism, the concreteness of truth, rationality, interconnection and development, the requirements of comprehensiveness and criticism. Originality of the research is: in substantiating the significance of contemporary philosophical analysis of the content of key concepts of democracy ‑ «freedom» and «responsibility»; in revealing the mechanism of the functioning of concepts of freedom and responsibility in different ideologies and various spheres of public life; in conducting a philosophical analysis of the notion of responsibility, in revealing the reasons for the paradoxical nature of its manifestations; in outlining the scientific and didactic potential of the philosophical research of categories of freedom and responsibility in the practice of democratic processes; in posing the question of the need to take into account the hierarchy of the content of freedom (delineation of the word, concept, category). Conclusions. As a result of the study, it was found that the philosophical understanding of the basic principles and concepts of democracy, especially freedom and responsibility, must precede the optimization of the democratic system, and the results of philosophical analysis must be taken into account in the practice of everyday life of the state. The model of the constant reproduction of the existing state of spiritual differentiation of a person's worldview should be contrasted with the model of harmonization of the democratic system (which is an ideal), only reducing its internal contradiction to the non-antagonistic and the formation on this basis of self-limitation, self-determination of personalities ‑ as a consequence of understanding the relativity of freedom, full awareness and acceptance responsibility for their intentions and decisions.