Andrey Pavlov

The authors designated speech culture as the object of this article. The subject of the study is the creative potential of the Honored Artist of the RSFSR Maria Vinogradova in the context of voicing Soviet cartoons. The authors set a goal to identify the range of the potential of speech capabilities in voicing cartoon characters. The methodological basis of the article is content analysis, comparative, statistical, historical and cultural analysis of Soviet animated works, as well as their characters voiced by Maria Vinogradova. The authors, when considering the problem, achieve the following results: from 1954 to 1995, Maria Sergeevna took part in the dubbing of 213 Soviet cartoons. The most fruitful years for the actress in terms of voice acting were 1976 – 15 works; 1975, 1984 - 12 works; 1973 – 11 works; 1974 – 10 works. For 40 years, the actress has voiced 109 animals, 87 boys, 22 girls, 14 indeterminate characters and 9 inanimate objects. In the process of developing the problem, the authors identify categories of voiced characters (boy characters, girl characters, animal characters, object characters, indeterminate characters) and analyze the actress' creativity for the characters she voices belonging to these categorical elements. The novelty of the research lies in the unconventionality of the indicated approach, as well as in the complex analysis of the palette of Maria Vinogradova's speech capabilities. As a result of the study, the authors come to the following conclusions: 1) The high creative rise of the actress was formed in the 1970s - 91 Soviet cartoons were voiced in this decade, which is 42% of the total number of voiced cartoons. 2) The acting role of Maria Sergeevna's travesty confirms the first place in the number of voiced male characters - children and animals. 3) In 15 cartoons, Maria voiced several characters, and in 2 – all the characters, which indicates a wide speech range of the actress.

The article discusses an actual problem of the contemporary social theory – a problem of post-postmodernism that is the answer to the question: what comes to replace the supposedly outdated postmodernism. Post-postmodernism in an umbrella term that brings together various concepts like digimodernism, automodernism, metamodernism, hypermodernism, supermodernism, etc. One of the replacing postmodernism theories is the French curator and art theorist Nicolas Bourriaud’s concept that was called “altermodern” or “other modernism.” In his previous books Bourriaud proposed to rewrite modernism and, as the result, developed a new theory. The concept appeared in 2009 when Bourriaud presented the exhibition in London, timed to the publication of his manifesto Altermodern, and edited and published the book of collected papers of the same title. Globalization, which opened borders for art, is a central concept of the altermodernism theory. The main terms of altermodern are heterochrony (time diversity) and viatorisation (nomadism). The main social subject of the alternodern era is a free travelling artist, who interprets the meanings of “rewritten” art for the public. They are “rewritten” because Bourriaud proposes to use phenomena and products of past ages to make them work in a new way. However Bourriaud’s concept should be considered critically, as it was formerly done by several researchers. The article proposes a critical review that answers to the question: to what extent the idea of altermodern is heuristic and therefore it could compete with other concepts that abolish postmodern. The author gives a negative answer to this question first of all because altermodern just borrows a lot of elements of the language and apparatus of postmodernism and actually does not offer anything new.

In the past twenty years, all the key authors who wrote about the state of postmodernity either began to be engaged in other research areas (Fredric Jameson) or declared that the postmodernism is dead (Linda Hutcheon). Since 2000, when the fatigue from the postmodernism became evident to everyone, various researchers, critics and theorists began to offer their concepts of our era. However, all these theories, emphasizing the change of cultural paradigms, interpret culture traditionally not paying attention to total digitalization and the introduction of new technologies into our lives. However, in two concepts of our time these processes become central. These are the concepts of the digimodern and automodern. The focus of this article is the idea of automodernism, proposed by the American social theorist Robert Samuels in 2007/2009. He believes that our world is characterized by two contradictory tendencies – automation and the desire for autonomy (personal freedom). From his point of view, the former often does not allow to reach the latter due to certain circumstances. Samuels, using the example of a car, a personal computer, the Internet, etc., shows what exactly our culture is in the broadest sense. Analyzing the concept of “digital youth,” he also pays attention to the formation of a new subjectivity of the era of automodernity. Finally, the most interesting part of the concept of automodernism, which is most relevant today, is the criticism of leftwing social and philosophical concepts (Slavoj Žižek, Jameson) and cultural theories (Henry Jenkins). At the end of the article, the author mentions Adam Greenfield’s latest book Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life. Thanks to this book, Samuels’ theory can be verified.

The present article does not claim to illuminate the substantive aspect of the philosophical ideas that were the subject of scholarly research and teaching at Moscow University. This question has been examined many times in the literature on the history of philosophy. However, when one acquaints oneself with the history of philosophy education at the university, one is struck by the fact that the literature lacks a systematic description of the forms in which the teaching of philosophy was implemented and a characterization of the staff of the philosophical disciplines. This article is an attempt at least partly to fill this gap in historical research.

In the immediate aftermath of the Revolution of 1917, Moscow University continued to consist of four faculties: history and philology, physics and mathematics, law, and medicine. Nor was there any change in the number of departments, although many professors left Moscow during the civil war; in particular, P.I. Novgorodtsev, S.N. Bulgakov, and E.N. Trubetskoi left the university in 1918. But on the other hand, N.A. Berdiaev, P.B. Struve, and S.N. Prokopovich began to lecture at the university. True, Struve worked at the university for a very brief period in 1918, while Prokopovich taught courses in economics, not philosophy. As for Berdiaev, alongside his lectures at the Free Academy of Spiritual Culture, which he had set up in 1918, he began to give lectures at Moscow University—single lectures at first and then in 1920, after being elected professor1 by the council of the faculty of history and philology, series of lectures on Dostoevsky's worldview and on the philosophy of history, which subsequently served as the basis for his fundamental works Dostoevsky's Worldview [Mirosozertsanie Dostoevskogo] and The Meaning of History [Smysl istorii]. Berdiaev's professorship at the university did not last long: in the fall of 1922 he was expelled from the country.

The question of the uniqueness [svoeobrazie] of Russian philosophy and its distinctive features has been around for more than a century. Since the 1840s, when Russian philosophers set about studying the history of philosophical thought in Russia, the question immediately arose as to whether one could speak of Russian philosophy as a distinctive [samobytnoe] and original phenomenon, or whether it would be more correct to speak of philosophy in Russia, i.e., the existence in Russia of philosophical ideas whose roots lay not in Russia but beyond its borders, while in Russia they are merely disseminated, but not born

University philosophy 1 consists of the philosophical doctrines that were developed and taught at universities and some other secular institutions of higher education. The term "university philosophy" is conventional to some extent: it does not denote a type of philosophical theory but all the philosophical doctrines that were officially recognized or "sanctioned" by the relevant authorities . Academy philosophy, that is, the philosophy taught at theological academies, had a more determinate character because without exception it had to agree with Christian doctrine and could not contradict it under any circumstances. University philosophy could have the most diverse foundations, but this did not exempt its programs and courses from government control. What is characteristic of university philosophy is the fact that it is professional philosophy; that is, a philosophy developed and taught by specialists in philosophy or professional philosophers. There were always university professors or lecturers in other disciplines who in their lectures and scholarly works touched on philosophical problems. But because these faculty members did not belong to the "corporation" of university philosophers, their philosophical ideas can hardly count as university philosophy, although these ideas sometimes had an important influence on the philosophical views of students and colleagues