Promising approaches to the study of values in the interdisciplinary paradigm

Burukina Ol'ga Alekseyevna ORCID: 0000-0003-0496-3325 PhD in Philology Professor, International Business Department, University of Business Innovation and Sustainability (UBIS Global) 20005, USA, Washington DC, 1401 H Street Nv obur@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

In the 21st century, under the influence of significant geopolitical, technological, economic and social changes that have a cardinal impact on the development of all mankind at the present stage, the phenomenon of values, both collective and individual, arouses increased interest among researchers in a variety of scientific paradigms: philosophy, sociology, psychology, cultural studies, pedagogy, etc.

The concept of "value" is fundamental to the coexistence of people in civilized societies. The modern world requires mutual respect and understanding of whether value-semantic orientations are accepted in specific thoughts and actions and whether the basic values are shared by all interested parties, since the divergence of universal and national values, their substitution sooner or later directly or latently become the cause of local conflicts and global cataclysms.

Today, the term "value"/ "values" is used in a variety of contexts and has many meanings. "Value" can mean beliefs, principles, moral obligations and social norms, standards that motivate people to act in one way or another, as well as desires, aspirations, interests and needs.

Values serve as a guideline for human behavior. As a rule, people are predisposed to accept the values that have been presented to them since childhood. People tend to consider these values to be "right" because they are the values of their particular culture.

In addition, the term "value" still means the importance or significance of an object or phenomenon. Such an abundance of different meanings is found not only in everyday speech, but also in the discourse of sociology, cultural studies and other humanities. Modern researchers (V. Shokhin, A.M. Zhernyakov, N.S. Sharapova) emphasize that the definition of the concept of "value" in itself becomes a serious problem ^[1-3]. Therefore, in our opinion, it is necessary to make a clear distinction between at least two generalized meanings in which the term "value" is used:

a) an object or phenomenon of special significance based on the results of a hypothetical or practical assessment, as well as

b) the standards or criteria by which such an assessment is made.

It is easy to see that the understanding of value as an object or phenomenon that has significance according to the evaluation results can be applied to any cultural artifact, however, without explaining the essence of cultural values, therefore it is not philosophical in the strict sense of the word.

A logical consequence of such conceptual eclecticism is the situation in which the concept of value in modern philosophical and cultural literature is used in a whole range of meanings, which gives rise to contradictory grounds not only for the further development of philosophy, in particular axiology, but also for the modern development of Russian culture and Russian society.

Approaches to the study of values in Russian philosophy

Let's consider the study of values by Russian philosophers of the XIX–XX centuries. The ideas of prominent Russian philosophers, primarily V.S. Solovyov, N.F. Fedorov, N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov and I.A. Ilyin, had a significant influence on the philosophy of values and axiology. Systematic research and analysis of the philosophical views of Russian philosophers make it possible to identify their contribution to the axiology and philosophy of values.

Although the work of these Russian philosophers was divided by significant time intervals, V.S. Solovyov, N.F. Fedorov, S.N. Bulgakov and I.A. Ilyin share attention to spiritual values. However, Russian philosophers paid attention to various aspects of spiritual values. Thus, N.F. Fedorov called for the development of universal ethics based on love for all people and concern for the well-being of each member of society. He believed that this ethics should cover all areas of life, including relationships, work, education and politics ^[4].

V.S. Solovyov argued that spiritual values, including spiritual morality and ethics, should be based on universal spiritual unity, and called for striving for spiritual and moral values based on the ideals of truth, virtue and goodness ^{[5, p. 6]}. The philosophy of the unity of V.S. Solovyov became the source of the development of the philosophical concepts of N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, I.A. Ilyin, etc.

S.N. Bulgakov attached special importance to spiritual values and their connection with the development of the soul and its transformation through faith, as well as ethical principles and the transformation of personality through interaction with God. The philosopher explored religious and metaphysical aspects of values, especially from the point of view of Christianity. S.N. Bulgakov emphasized the importance of religious values in the formation of the moral basis and ethical principles of the individual and society, while he paid special attention to such religious values as brotherhood, selflessness, mercy and love for one's neighbor as the basis for the moral development of man and society ^[6].

S.N. Bulgakov's contribution to the philosophy of values lies, in particular, in his analysis of religious and metaphysical aspects of values, consideration of the connection between spiritual values and the moral basis, as well as in his idea of harmony, cosmic order and the meaning of life. The philosopher saw value in the spiritual perfection of human vocation and personal development based on values related to faith, and developed the concept of freedom and values related to spiritual realities and the highest good ^[6].

N.A. Berdyaev also attached special importance to personality, reflecting the individuality and uniqueness of each person. He believed that values are formed through the creative process, and that individuality presupposes the possibility of free moral choice and development. One of the central themes in N.A. Berdyaev's philosophy is human freedom. The philosopher believed that freedom is fundamental to the formation of morality and the value system underlying it. He represented freedom as a unique and independent human being and considered it the basis of moral choice, development and self-realization ^[7].

I.A. Ilyin, who developed the concept of spiritual values, called for spiritual transformation and enlightenment through faith in God and the practice of religious values, calling for the affirmation of these values in the political sphere. The philosopher believed that spiritual values, namely virtue, family, love, justice and spiritual transformation are the source and basis of morality, and analyzed the role of these values in shaping morality both for the life of an individual and for the existence of society ^[8]. Interested in the issues of community and interrelation of values, I.A. Ilyin argued that spiritual values have internal connections and interdependence, forming an integral system. N.A. Berdyaev was also interested in social values and issues of social justice. He called for overcoming collectivism and realizing personal and collective freedom in harmony with the principles of justice and fraternity.  N.A. Berdyaev supported the concept of freedom, which allows people to choose independently and give value to certain ideas and states ^[9].

Unlike most of the Western philosophers of his day, many Russian philosophers have made a significant contribution to the search for true or higher values, that is, in fact, axiomatic values. Thus, N.F. Fedorov proposed non-trivial ideas, including the concept of universal resurrection and social work, which touched on the problems of higher values and the meaning of life ^[10], and V.S. Solovyov explored the role of religion, in particular Christianity, in the formation of true values and morality, calling for deep spiritual consciousness and religious unity ^[5].

V.S. Solovyov argued that the true values and meaning of life come from the unity of various spheres of being. The philosopher attached special importance to love and harmony in the philosophy of values, and also argued that truth and values stem from spiritual unity. V.S. Solovyov's contribution to the philosophy of values lies in his understanding of the spiritual unity of various spheres of life and the call for lofty values associated with harmony, love and truth ^{[11, p. 45]}. V.S. Solovyov believed that all values and virtues are inseparable from love, which is a cosmic principle that promotes unity and rapprochement of all aspects of life ^[3].

N.A. Berdyaev was distinguished by a deep religious understanding of values and their role in human experience. Proclaiming the need for cultural interaction between religion, ethics and axiology to form the moral basis of human society, N.A. Berdyaev sought to return religious values to the center of attention, arguing that they are the basis of true and immortal values. He proposed a rethinking of classical ethical theories and a return of the philosophy of values to its spiritual roots ^[12].

Although it was N.F. Fedorov who authored the foundations of the philosophy of Russian cosmism, S.N. Bulgakov investigated the relationship of values with the cosmic order and harmony of the universe. S.N. Bulgakov called for a harmonious combination of spiritual values on a cosmic scale and argued that this harmony can be achieved through appropriate spiritual development and the presence of God ^[13]. 

V.S. Solovyov's philosophy of unity is also a variant of religious and mystical cosmism, the essence of which consists in the sophistry of the universe, the transformation of the cosmos as a result of the transformation /transformation of humanity into God-manhood ^[14]. N.A. Berdyaev's cosmism is an idealrealistic concept based on human intuition, which can be characterized as a theoanthropocosmism of an existential nature, capable of reflecting the subjective, sensual, spiritual, religious and intellectual experience of the philosopher ^[15].

Russian philosophers attached special importance to morality and justice as a social and individual value. Thus, N.F. Fedorov attached great importance to social justice and mutual assistance as the basis of higher values. The philosopher believed that comprehensive love and care for others should be the basis of interpersonal relations and orient society towards achieving the highest good. N.F. Fedorov also developed the ideas of social work and brotherhood to achieve harmony and justice in society. He believed that every member of society should contribute to the common cause and take care of the welfare of all people, creating conditions for equality, solidarity and cooperation ^[16].

V.S. Solovyov emphasized the importance of ethics and morality for society, rightly believing that true values are based on love, kindness and justice, and advocated the development of ethical thought and moral principles in human society ^[5]. In turn, N.A. Berdyaev argued that true values should come from deep spiritual freedom, which is an integral part of the personality, and a person's moral choice, and not be imposed by society or external value systems ^[17]. At the same time, I.A. Ilyin emphasized the importance of morality, justice, creative love and spiritual virtue in the formation of the value basis of society ^[17].

The contribution of Russian philosophers to the philosophy of values is of lasting importance. With his concept of unity, uniting various spheres of human experience, including religion, morality, aesthetics and politics, V.S. Solovyov had a significant impact on the development of the philosophy of values. With original ideas about universal resurrection, social justice, social work and love for all people, N.F. Fedorov raised the philosophy of values to a new height.

N.S. Berdyaev's contribution lies in his understanding of the role of freedom, personality, religious aspects and social justice in the formation and development of values in the consciousness of the individual and in society ^[18], and the concept of spiritual values developed by I.A. Ilyin (and their role in the formation of morality and public order) and the concept of spiritual restoration of Russia on the basis of based on the renewal of social values and moral reconstruction, they had an unprecedented impact on the development of socio-political axiology ^[18].

The concepts of V.S. Solovyov, N.F. Fedorov, S.N. Bulgakov, N.S. Berdyaev and I.A. Ilyin have inspired many domestic and foreign philosophers and researchers and continue to influence the development of axiology and philosophy of values. They explored the nature of human values, their place within an ethical framework, and the interaction between individual freedom and public interests. The original approaches of Russian philosophers have enriched the philosophy of values and axiology, challenging traditional views and providing a clear understanding of the complexity of human values and ethics. Their work and ideas continue to influence the development of axiology and the general philosophy of values.

Approaches to the study of values in foreign philosophy

Under the influence of scientific and technological progress and socio-economic factors, the problem of understanding the concept of value has become increasingly relevant for European thinkers. In the 19th and 20th centuries, almost every philosopher addressed the problem of values in one way or another.

The theory of value received significant development in the Western philosophy of the XIX century. The initiator of a new stage in the development of the theory of value is rightfully considered R.G. Lotze, who, being a specialist in both the natural sciences and the humanities, made a clear distinction between fact and value: fact, according to R.G. Lotze, is the subject of the study of natural sciences, whereas the study of value is the prerogative of the humanities ^[19]. R.G. Lotze also has the merit of separating the existence of a thing and its significance (Gelten). Thus, based on a systematic approach, R.G. Lotze's philosophy of value and, in particular, the concept of value as the significance of a thing dominated German philosophical thought until the end of the 19th century.

The philosophers who studied values after R.G. Lotze can be divided into two groups: those who believed that values are comprehended or created solely by reason, and those who argued that values are empirical characteristics of things or actions. Let's focus on the most significant concepts of value in foreign philosophy.

At the same time as the Russian philosophers, Western philosophers also dealt with the issues of enduring higher values. Thus, according to M. Scheler, the value existence of an object does not depend on the subject of perception – on the contrary, it precedes perception, since the axiological reality of values exists before cognition. According to the founder of phenomenological ethics, the mind cannot invent values, but only organize values into a hierarchy after cognition (testing) them empirically. At the same time, according to the philosopher, values do not depend on things, because the same value can be experienced with the help of many objects, and countless varieties of value experience have their own hidden order – an order based on love (“ordo amoris”), radically different from the order created by reasoning ^[20]. That is, in fact, just like the Russian philosophers (N.F. Fedorov, V.S. Solovyov, S.N. Bulgakov, N.A. Berdyaev), M. Scheler developed issues of axiomatic values. 

Unlike M. Scheler, G. Rickert believed that "one cannot say about values that they exist or do not exist, but only that they mean (gelten) or have no significance" ^[21]. Therefore, according to the founder of the Baden school of neo-Kantianism, values do not include objects and phenomena of reality, values are their significance given to them by subjects and determining the actions of the subject in each specific context. According to G. Rickert's theory of values, "values do not represent reality, neither physical nor mental. Their essence lies in their significance, not in their factuality." According to G. Rickert, values become a criterion for distinguishing cultural processes from natural phenomena in scientific knowledge ^[21]. 

M. Scheler, who argued that values are objective, unchangeable, a priori and informal, placed them, as well as their opposites ("dissensions" / anti-values) in a five-level hierarchy: (1) the values of pleasure vs. the dissensions of displeasure, (2) the values of vitality and nobility vs. the dissensions of the ignoble, (3) the values of reason (truth, beauty, justice) vs. the dissensions of their opposites, (4) the values of the saint vs. the anti-values of the ungodly and (5) the values of utility vs. the dissent of the useless ^[20].

In turn, G. Rickert, relying on an axiological approach, built a hierarchy of values that includes 6 independent and at the same time interrelated areas: (1) logic (scientific knowledge), (2) aesthetics (art), (3) pantheism (mysticism), (4) ethics, (5) eroticism (the benefits of life) and (6) religion (theism), and their corresponding types of values: truth, beauty, superpersonal holiness, morality, happiness and personal holiness). Thus, G. Rickert creates a unity of "reality – values", which, quite logically, generates the ethical antithesis of "what is vs. what is due"; at the same time, according to the scientist, philosophy becomes a science when it explores the world of values ^[21].

In phenomenology, which critically overcame the transcendental philosophy of value of neo-Kantianism, value, according to E. Husserl, acts as an "intentional object", that is, as a "complete intentional correlate of the evaluating act" ^[22].

Based on the ideas of E. Husserl and E. Lask about the existence of an intentional connection between the form of an object and its perception, M. Heidegger interprets value, presenting it as a correlative structure of the pragmatic world and the subject acting in it ^[23]. At the same time, unlike a number of predecessors, M. Heidegger understands value not as the transcendence of the world, but as the meaning of the life world. Following E. Husserl, M. Heidegger criticizes the neo-Kantian concept of value, since he seeks to distance himself from both the objectivist and the subjectivist philosophy of value. However, Heidegger's critique of value does not deny the possibility of developing axiology as part of his philosophy.

Having accepted the concept of the significance of value from his predecessors, M. Heidegger, like R.G. Lotze and G. Rickert, paid special attention to the concept of significance, which was the basis for a number of modern definitions of the concept of value, while M. Heidegger pointed out the complexity and problemativeness of this concept, which, according to the German philosopher, after R.G. Lotze is "easily passed off as a non-reducible "first phenomenon"" ^[24]. M. Heidegger believed that "significance" as an "ideal being" is not "distinguished by ontological clarity." At the same time, the significance, also referred to as "the significance of the value sense of the judgment about the "object" implied by it", converges with the meaning of "objective value".

According to the phenomenological interpretation, values have an objective and spiritual reality that goes beyond subjective preferences or constructs. Continuing to develop the ideas of E. Husserl and M. Heidegger, the phenomenologists M. Scheler, N. Hartman, R. Ingarden investigated the essential nature of values, their hierarchical structure and significance in the ethical, aesthetic and spiritual spheres. Developing a phenomenological approach, M. Scheler, N. Hartman and R. Ingarden contributed to the understanding of values as objective spiritual phenomena, shedding light on the transcendent qualities of values inherent in our experience and perception of the world.

Thus, according to N. Hartmann's concept, value is objectively ideal. Following M. Heidegger, N. Hartmann argued that values objectively exist in the world and are not subjective or mind-dependent constructions, they have an internal value independent of human perception or judgment. Values, according to N. Hartmann, are ontological properties that exist regardless of whether they are recognized or appreciated by people.

Interpreting G. Rickert's ideas about the hierarchy of values in his own way, N. Hartman introduces the concept of gradation of values, assuming that different values have different degrees of ontological significance. He argues that values can be hierarchically organized depending on the level of their objective importance or value ^[25].

Being, according to N. Hartmann, has four levels: organic, inorganic, spiritual and spiritual. The philosopher identified six fundamental sets of values ^{[26, p. 477]}:

• the values of the good that make up the category of what is useful for a person;
• the values of pleasure related to the category of "pleasant",
• life values based on organic life processes and the pursuit of biological prosperity;
• aesthetic values reflecting an understanding of beauty and artistic expression;
• moral values based on social and cultural aspects, including ethical norms and moral principles;
• cognitive values related to intellectual pursuits, knowledge, and the rational search for truth and understanding.

Thus, the totality of N. Hartmann's values largely intersect with the hierarchy of values of G. Rickert, which also included scientific knowledge, aesthetics, ethics and the benefits of life. At the same time, N. Hartman argued that values play a crucial role in ethics, criticizing utilitarian approaches to ethics that rely solely on maximizing subjective preferences or usefulness ^[26]. Ethical judgments are based not only on subjective preferences or arbitrary decisions, but are also based on the objective existence of values. The philosopher emphasized the importance of recognizing and using objective values in making moral decisions.

N. Hartmann's concept of value represents an important contribution to philosophical discourse, asserting the objective ontological nature of values and their importance in ethical considerations ^[27]. His point of view challenges a purely subjective or relativistic understanding of values, emphasizing the existence of an objective value independent of individual points of view.

According to the phenomenological interpretation, values have an objective and spiritual reality that goes beyond subjective preferences or constructs. Modern foreign analytical philosophers belong to both directions – supporters of the rational comprehension of values and apologists of the empirical direction. Their main difference from their predecessors is that they limit their research to the language used to assert or recommend value. Some metaphysicians reject this limitation and offer grounds for considering values as ontologically fundamental phenomena.

The concepts of the classics of Western philosophical thought R.G. Lotze, G. Rickert, E. Husserl, M. Heidegger, N. Hartmann became fundamental for the development of modern philosophical thought primarily in Western Europe and North America. Their contribution to the development of the philosophy of values and axiology cannot be overestimated, primarily due to their broader understanding of values, which goes beyond simple pleasure or usefulness, and attempts to explain the existence of an objective value inherent in the values themselves.

Approaches to the study of values in the paradigm of the humanities

In the twentieth century, value attitudes became the subject of research within the framework of a number of methodological approaches: psychological, sociological, "naturalistic", logical-semantic, theological. But the phenomenological approach proved to be especially fruitful. Philosophy provides a trinity of research paradigms for the study of values – in the aggregate of historical basis, contextual relevance and modern reality.

According to N.M. Suetina, at the present stage of the development of philosophy, three approaches to the study of concepts of value have been formed, namely historical and anthropological, based on the belief that any human culture is based on a system of value orientations; socio-cultural, attributing to each nation a specific set of values underlying a unique picture of the world, and the philosophical and cultural approach ^[28], according to which "values are the core of culture, <...> and culture, taken in the aspect of its core, represents a complex hierarchy of values" ^[29].

The abundance of research paradigms has led to some eclecticism, and sometimes inconsistency of the knowledge gained. Thus, it is difficult to agree with the opinion of V.A. Gnevasheva, who argues that "social (social) values are the sensory perception of phenomena according to the worldview system obtained in the process of socialization in society" ^{[30, pp. 10-11]}, since perception, understood as "sensory cognition of objects and objective situations, subjectively presented as direct", ^[31] is a cognitive process, not a conceptual universal, indicating the personal and/or socio-cultural significance of specific objects or phenomena.

It is hardly possible to agree with the statement that "absolute values are intuitively perceived phenomena, identical virtues" ^[30], because, firstly, not all absolute values are "intuitively perceived phenomena". For example, a child born in prison does not "intuitively" perceive freedom as a value, because he does not suspect its existence; the situation is even more complicated with the intuitive perception of truth as a superpersonal value. According to L.I. Vasilenko's definition, absolute values "are not culturally conditioned, but originate from a higher transcendent source" ^[32], but human perception is mostly conditioned by the culture in which a person was brought up. That is why absolute values are not perceived (especially intuitively), but are comprehended. After all, as N.O. Lossky rightly noted, the fullness of being is difficult to perceive, since in the personal perception of each person it will always be limited by something, but it can be comprehended and "experienced" ^[33].

Just as G. Rickert once proposed to explore values on the basis of the ethical antithesis "what is vs. what is due", modern researcher M.B. Holbrook, one of the leaders of interpretativism, speaking in his research against the neo-positivist school, proposed a typology of values based on the phenomenological opposition "I vs. Another", which made it possible to divide values into two groups (1) according to the source of origin: external (functionally serving as a means to achieve any goal) and internal (serving as a self-justified goal in itself) and (2) according to orientation: self-oriented value (impact on the individual / individual consumer) and value other-oriented (influencing other people) ^[34].

Although M.B. Holbrook's research is not focused on the development of the concept of value, but is more devoted to the study of emotionally conditioned consumer behavior, his work includes valuable information about the multifaceted nature of the perception of values and their impact on consumer decision-making.

The philosophy of consumerism and the transformation of national values

Although postmodernism brought with it progressive ideas (J. Baudrillard, J. Deleuze, J. Derrida, E. Levinas, J.-F. Lyotard) and, first of all, faith in progress and the omnipotence of reason, it caused the fracture of the value system of modernity. In addition, the mobility and fragmentation advocated by postmodernism raised questions about the nature of identity, community, and shared values. Overcoming postmodernism involves going beyond its limitations while recognizing its achievements. Critical realism and pragmatism are possible ways to overcome the limitations of postmodernism.

In the last 30-35 years, the system of values traditionally inherent in Russian society has undergone significant transformations for both political and socio-economic reasons. Just as the achievements of the Russian Empire were discredited in 1917-1939, and therefore many of its historical and socio-economic victories, since 1990 and to this day, the main achievements and values of the Soviet Union have been discredited, which seems to decision makers, including representatives of the Russian media, to be the main (if not the only tool for "restructuring" the worldview of the citizens of the Russian Federation and their more "intensive integration" into the new economic conditions – the conditions of the "free market". At the same time, the transformation of the system of traditional values of Russian society was accompanied (and is accompanied – O.B.'s note), as S.G. Dembitsky correctly points out, by "futile searches for a "national idea"" ^[35] capable of becoming the basis of a system of national values in the XXI century.

The reassessment of values and their transformation took place and is taking place before our eyes, including under the influence of the philosophy of consumerism. Of course, consumerism as a socio-economic and philosophical phenomenon (the philosophy of consumerism) cannot be interpreted unambiguously as a detrimental one, since in economic terms consumerism / consumerism, stimulating economic growth, creates a number of positive trends, including increasing production and creating jobs, leads to an increase in the wealth of commercial companies and multinational corporations, contributes to competition between companies increases the variety of goods and services, improves the quality of life of people (at least some part of society). But like any large-scale economic phenomenon (moreover, it is quite contradictory), consumerism "changes the moral fabric of society" and, first of all, the system of individual and then national values (according to the law of the transition of quantitative changes to qualitative ones in the dialectic of G.V.F. Hegel).

In modern society, the degree of freedom of choice of its members has increased significantly, while the social obligations that traditionally bound them to each other have noticeably weakened. As F. Fukuyama correctly noted, "individualism – the fundamental value of modern society – imperceptibly begins to move from the proud independence of free people into a kind of closed egoism, for which the goal is to maximize personal freedom without regard to responsibility to other people" ^[36].

The leading Muslim philosopher Seyed Hossein Nasr described the current situation of transformation of national and universal values quite sharply, but at the same time very plausibly: "We live among ruins in a world in which, as F. Nietzsche put it, "God died." The ideals of today are comfort and expediency, superficial knowledge and disregard for the heritage and traditions of their ancestors, obsequiousness to the lowest standards of taste and intelligence, the apotheosis of squalor, accumulation of material objects and property, disrespect for everything that is inherently higher and better – in other words, a complete perversion of true values and ideals and uplifting The victorious banner of ignorance, the banner of degeneracy. At such a time, social decline is so widespread that it seems to be a natural component of all political institutions."^[37]

It is obvious that the national value system is directly related to traditional moral values. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall that moral value, as understood by Russian philosophers, as well as M. Scheler and N. Hartmann, belongs exclusively to volitions, or wills, predispositions to will and personalities as beings capable of expressing will. Moreover, in E. Husserl, N. Hartmann and M. Scheler, each will (our italics are O.B.) necessarily includes, if not actual values, then a reference to stored values and potential values, as well as cognitive mental phenomena. A trait of reason can have a moral value – unlike, for example, utility – only to the extent that it is involved or can be or could be involved and, thus, implemented by the person or ego to whose mind this trait belongs ^[38]. That is, according to the founders of European phenomenology, moral values are manifested in the will of individuals, and each expression of will somehow reflects certain values as a system of personal orientations.

However, the system of national values is not a simple set of personal values of the representatives of the nation. The creation of a system of national values is a systematic, multilevel, lengthy and much more laborious process than the process of their destruction, which continues today in the deformed axiosphere of the Russian media. But the system of national values, being a part of national culture, does not remain unchanged, because, as S.S. Tsoroev rightly noted, "the process of cultural development is associated with a reassessment of values" ^{[29, p. 10]}.

Perspectives on the study of values

Thus, over the centuries, values as conceptual concepts, as well as as intangible and material phenomena, have been intensively studied in different scientific paradigms, as a result of which various concepts and interpretations have been developed, resulting in a lack of clarity regarding the fundamental characteristics of value. As D.A. Seni correctly noted, theories of values differ in breadth and level of generality, while philosophical theories are considered more general, and theories developed in the bosom of applied sciences (psychology, sociology, cultural studies, etc.) are considered more specific ^[39].

On the other hand, today the systems of national values in many countries, including the Russian Federation, are undergoing active transformation processes, since it seems more logical and practical for decision makers to transform the national value system (up to the complete rejection of some of them) than to change the objective reality that contradicts them.

We believe that in the paradigm of each of the scientific disciplines, research on values will continue and, taking into account the modern context, intensify, bringing new ideas, contributing to the increment of knowledge and thereby developing these scientific areas, however, it seems obvious to us that the time has come for the "transition of quantity to quality" – that is, for the transition to a new level of research on values An approach is needed that could reconcile apologists of different scientific fields.

The current cultural crisis presents both challenges and opportunities to overcome social problems and explore an alternative future. Due to the growing trends of posthumanism and man-made civilization, several prospects are emerging.

Overcoming the cultural crisis requires careful ethical consideration. As advances in technology continue to redefine our understanding of what it means to be human, it is imperative to address ethical concerns related to privacy, data security, equality, and the possibility of technological surveillance and control. It is necessary to ensure that these new developments are consistent with humanistic values and respect human rights.

The cultural crisis is exacerbated by the gap between individual and collective well-being and market-driven consumer culture. Overcoming this crisis involves rethinking social progress and prioritizing human prosperity over material accumulation.

An axiomatic approach based on axioms as principles adopted on the basis of their intrinsic merits and being a prerequisite and starting point for reasoning seems to us to be a promising basis for consensus. The axiomatic approach offers, on the one hand, a set of axioms as general rules that make it possible to describe value in any context and thereby convey the fundamental characteristics of the described phenomena, and on the other hand, to identify the most significant axiomatic values for a particular society, understood as principles adopted by the governing majority of society members on the basis of their internal merits.

Based on the point of view of critical realism on value as a philosophical category and its interpretation, we, following N. Resher, believe that axiomatic values, understood as rules, objective in their basis and universal in their applicability ^[40], can be used as a basis for the development of a generalized understanding of value, on the one hand, and a specific explanation of the value in the chosen context, on the other hand.

In this context, we see a very promising set of axiomatic characteristics of value, derived by M. Reber, A. Duffy and L. Hay as a result of inductive research. The axiomatic characteristics of value proposed by British researchers postulate that value, whether socially significant or individual, (1) is related to people, (2) is the result of a cognitive process, (3) requires a definition process; (4) it is specified by the situation; (5) interpreted by the subjects, and related to (6) objects and (7) criteria ^[41].

Thus, the axiomatic approach makes it possible to identify axiomatic characteristics of value, or axioms of value, which are universal in nature and applicable to the study of any phenomena falling under the category of value, and at the same time justifies the need to focus on the values most significant for each particular society (culture or even situation) – that is, on axiomatic values.

Thus, by our definition, the axiomatic value of a particular society is, on the one hand, a set of axioms of value together with key objects and basic relationships between them, and on the other – a set of axiomatic values, by which we understand the fundamental values of a particular human society (community), shared by all its members or at least at least, by its overwhelming majority.

At the same time, since axiomatic values are closely interrelated, the rejection by the majority of members of society (community) of all or some axiomatic values leads to the transformation of the entire system.

In this regard, we believe that, firstly, the axiomatic values in the perception of Russians of different generations exist as an integral system in the structure of their personalities, reflecting their life incentives and determining the formation of life attitudes, relatively resistant to changing living conditions, and secondly, the axiomatic values of Russian society are subject to changes as a result transformation processes taking place, among other things, under the influence of the changing axiosphere of Russian television.

Conclusion

Thus, the contribution of the philosophers discussed in this article to the philosophy of values and axiology is very significant. Their diverse approaches expand our understanding of the ethical foundations, the nature of values, and the role of values in shaping the lives of individuals and the social life of communities. Their research continues to have a significant impact on modern philosophy of values and axiology and to intensify debates on ethics, morality and the pursuit of a meaningful life.

Western philosophers of the XX–XXI centuries made a significant contribution to the development of the philosophy of values and axiology, overcoming the transcendental philosophy of value of neo-Kantianism, exploring the essential nature of values, their hierarchical structure and significance in the ethical, aesthetic and spiritual spheres and developing a phenomenological approach, which allowed them to enrich our understanding of ethics, morality and the nature of values.

The contribution of Russian philosophers to the philosophy of values consists in the study of the role of values in human experience, their connection with morality, religion, freedom and spirituality. They helped to expand the understanding of values and their meaning in society, and also emphasized the importance of one's own choice of values and their foundation in human freedom and individuality. The ideas of Russian philosophers still have an enduring influence on the development of modern axiology and the general philosophy of values. Studying their original works helps to better understand the value systems they have developed.

Each of the philosophers whose research is analyzed in this article expanded their understanding of the philosophy of values and axiology and offered unique ideas and concepts that still influence philosophical research. The study of their ideas and concepts allows for a deeper understanding of the diversity of approaches to the value system and their impact on the understanding of human existence and culture.

As the internationally recognized consultant psychologist and bestselling author Idowu Koenikan rightly argued, "a highly developed value system is like a compass. It serves as a guide, pointing you in the right direction when you get lost."^[42]

Commenting on realism in the art of the twentieth century and the intricate aesthetics of the 21st century, the Belgian innovative artist Eric Pevernagi spoke very accurately about the transformation of values in modern society ^[43]: "When we can no longer share our values, and our nascent intentions become blurred, a common understanding can turn into an irreparable misunderstanding. If the spirit of shared views and commitments is irreversibly broken, we can obviously sink into suspicion, remorse or regret. Thus, joint initiatives should be reasoned and well thought out so that "understanding" does not turn into "misunderstanding" and "hope" does not break up into "broken hearts"."

From a strategic point of view, the transformation of national value systems may ultimately adversely affect national culture and national mentality, without which the existence and progressive development of the nation is not possible. National value systems are fragile structures, they need close attention, alignment and support.