On the problem of generic forces of the individual: Russian humanities as a tool of ideological manipulation Based on the example of a publication

The relevance of the article is due to the need to find out how manipulative ideological theses that legitimize totalitarian practices were integrated into the philosophical and literary disciplines of the neighboring aggressor state. Previously, such masking of questionable theses under global “projects” was carelessly ignored, but now it calls for critical analysis, which should serve not only as a reflection of the past but also as a conscious lesson for the future. The object of analysis is L. Bulavka’s publication, which not only actualizes contemporary problems of social, philosophical, and literary anthropology, but also unfolds a series of comparisons, associations, and conclusions. These vividly and convincingly demonstrate the difference in interpretations of totalitarian / anti-totalitarian aspects in the Russian and Ukrainian paradigms of humanities, based on fundamental ontological concepts. The purpose of the article is to prove that Russian humanities has long been an instrument of ideological manipulation: under the guise of established concepts, numerous crimes of the totalitarian government were rehabilitated. To achieve this goal, general scientific methods were used. The results of the study demonstrate how manipulative practices of consciousness were tested at the intersection of philosophy, anthropology, literature, and cultural studies in the early 2000s: the boundary between the concepts of good / evil was destroyed, and the essence of the concepts of the Renaissance and Soviet culture was speculatively blurred. By equating them, and putting an equal sign between them, Russian researchers justified the terror of the Soviet government, interpreting anthropocentrism in their own way, without taking into account the mass extermination of people. The refutation of the theses and foundations of the analyzed article by L. Bulavka is based on the works of N. Berdyaev, V. Vernadsky, K. Jaspers, Ukrainian scholars — P. Yurkevych, M. Shlemkevych, M. Popovych and other contemporary philosophers and psychologists, as well as D. Zatonsky, N. Torkut, N. Shumylo, and others.