TWO METHODS OF TEACHING THE COURSE “ETHICS AND AESTHETICS”: ARCHETYPAL APPROACH

Abstract

The article is devoted to the analysis of the possibilities of using the principles of the archetypal approach in teaching the materials of the course “Ethics and Aesthetics”, in particular, the problems of the aesthetic dimension of ethics. The idea is that the dialectical approach contains the potential for a deeper disclosure of such a connection, which is actually archetypal in nature, than the traditional metaphysical one. Within the framework of the archetypal analysis of the grounds for applying the dialectical approach, the effectiveness of six conceptual approaches to art for the formation of a stable moral position is substantiated: as a symbol of morality, as a mirror of morality, as a source of morality (vector of integration of meanings, semantic association), as a form of morality, as a tool of morality, as a resource of morality (vector of disintegration of meanings, semantic dissociation). The archetypal mechanisms of forming images of elements of moral culture in the consciousness of an individual in the process of linguistic construction through the method of active discourse of a socio-cultural pattern are illustrated to consolidate a certain image as a universal polysense symbol (the imperative is individual monological moral-aesthetic consciousness, not an abstract nominal symbol “sign = fact”). The argumentative series is presented in the form of comparative tables and schematizations, which contain the author’s formulations as paraphrases and continuations of the logic of the cited authors. The specificity of the “archetype” as an energy force for activity and its ambivalent projection are emphasized, which makes the system of symbolic exchange looped due to the constant updating of communication and circumstances in real time and space. As “archetypal”, the influence on human consciousness of the effects of translation, integration, reconstruction, construction, reconstruction and destruction of archetypal meanings that form human life creativity and cause it to create cultural products in a certain image (“sign = sample”). This influence is correlated with the author’s model of archetypal vectors of activity needs (which correlate with psychological models of leading activity according to traditional psychological stages): at the first stage – orientation and coordination; at the second stage – stereotyping and normatization; at the third stage – integration and systematization – as a result, we can expect the formation of integrative competence in activity. It is concluded that, since teaching humanitarian courses aims to acquire not only informational operational competence (to know), but also motivational readiness for action (to be able), the use of a combination of metaphysical and dialectical approaches, methods and techniques in dialogue will significantly accelerate the process of internalization of the material by consciousness (integration as part of one’s own value-semantic complex with the formation of the image of Morality as reality as an imperative). In conditions of war, the readiness of a citizen not only correctly, but also convincingly to implement a moral choice adequate to the time and space according to the scheme of the dialectical connection of the past (monologue), present (dialogue) and future (polylogue) through answers to the questions “why”, “why”, “with whom”, “for what”, etc. is important.