A multipolar world and a dispute about value priorities. Review of the XXI International Likhachev Scientific Readings

Abstract

In this article, readers are presented with an analysis of some of the problems that became the center of discussion at the XXI International Likhachev Scientific Readings held in May 2023 at the St. Petersburg Humanitarian University of Trade Unions. The readings were held under the general title "Dialogues and conflicts of cultures in a changing world", combining the traditional theme of dialogue with the problems of conflict that have arisen in recent years. This review focuses on two significant issues, one of which determined the course of the plenary discussion, and the other became the main one for the breakout session devoted to the values and trends of the modern world. The main issue of the plenary session was the consideration of the conflict between the unipolar and multipolar world. Both domestic and foreign participants actively spoke out on this issue. The speakers who spoke at the Readings adhered to the idea of prioritizing the values of a multipolar world, pointing to the undemocratic nature of unipolarity. Analyzing this aspect of the discussion, the author of the review notes that in modern society the same value attitudes develop to the limits where they lead to opposite conclusions. The idea of unipolarity implies the uniqueness of the democratic model. From the idea of multipolarity, there are many different development scenarios, which looks like a more democratic position. It can be concluded that the value attitude coincides, but the basis of the ideological conflict is a political conflict. Nevertheless, the final value discrepancy is very acute. The philosophical and cultural section of the conference was devoted to this. Noting the sharpness of the criticism expressed by the speakers to the "new ethics" and the "culture of cancellation", the author of the review points out that in this criticism there is a desire to "cancel" the criticized, which again unites both positions, but does not provide grounds for a constructive dialogue. To overcome the contradiction, a rational analysis of the ideological and historical foundations, as well as the dynamics of the development of opposing value positions, is necessary.