Philosophical foundations of the study of the problem of involvement in additional education: encouragement and development of subjectivity of adult learners

Bragina Elena Vladimirovna ORCID: 0009-0006-4198-3965 Postgraduate student; Faculty of Psychology; Saint Petersburg State University 199034, Russia, Saint Petersburg, emb. Makarova street, 6 nedoeduru@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

1. Introduction

The world we live in has changed significantly in the last thirty years. An adult is forced to live in this rapidly changing world, adapting to the patterns of its development, flexibly adapting and looking for ways to solve problems of increasing complexity. Hyperdetermination and turbulence, complexity and inconsistency are characteristics of the “new normal”, which directly affects modern man. Due to the increased use of new technologies, qualitative changes are accumulating “[...] not only in the physical and social senses, but also in the multidimensional, dynamic contexts of personality, its states, goals and cultural environment[...]” ^{[1, p. 676]}. Thus, an important dimension of the new reality is the “expansion” of personality, which occurs in various directions, including social, professional and educational identity of the individual. Many researchers have noted an increase in the asymmetry of personal and social beginnings, which is accompanied by the expansion of the social and the loss of personal control over the changing reality. The progressive decrease in the autonomy of being poses a threat to personal existence.

The urgency of the problem of analyzing and taking into account psychological mechanisms that encourage adults to be consciously active, responsible, and self-determined in relation to their own development in modern socio-cultural conditions, and to choose their path in a complex and contradictory world, is becoming more acute. Such "motivating" mechanisms include the subjectivity of personality, which becomes one of the available psychological resources of "self-building" of adults ^[2].

In psychological and pedagogical research, it is rightly noted ^{[2; 3]} that in modern universities, not only the content of additional education programs, the nature and forms of organization of educational activities, but also their subject are changing. A characteristic trend of changes in adult education is the continued strengthening of the substantive and organizational isolation of additional education, taking into account the peculiarities of adult involvement in learning and the characteristics of their educational behavior. Researchers ^{[3; 4; 5; 6]} state the need to develop psychological and pedagogical interventions, the implementation of which, taking into account the peculiarities and limitations of additional education - a variety of forms, “transformational” approaches and teaching methods, the intensity of educational programs and courses - will ensure the development of subjectivity and autonomy of students for meaningful involvement in additional education and successful self-realization in the future.

The relevance of research on the problem of the development of subjectivity of students enrolled in additional education programs is due to the difficulties that are predetermined by the ambiguity of understanding this concept in the psychology of education, its substantive elements, and the uniqueness of the phenomenological manifestation of the subjectivity of each adult ^[7]. Clarification of the concept of subjectivity and the search for technologies for its development in adult additional education in the new ontology of social reality are possible within the framework of interdisciplinary connections from the positions of not only psychological and pedagogical, but also philosophical research paradigms.

2. Theoretical and methodological basis of the research

The topic of subjectivity has permeated the entire history of philosophy since antiquity and remains one of the most discussed scientific issues, maintaining a controversial status and ambiguity of approaches to determining its essence ^[8].

In this study, we do not aim to present all the variety of existing approaches and areas of discussion on the issue of subjectivity in philosophy, but we will focus on three turning points in the evolution of this concept, namely: 1) the concept of subjectivity introduced by Protagoras (the empirical interpretation of Protagoras); 2) Descartes' understanding of subjectivity (the metaphysical shift); 3) the antimetaphysical shift in postmodernism, which meant a return to an empirical understanding of subjectivity, predicting the “death” of the subject along with the concepts of individuality and man in the “posthuman" reality. As part of the analysis of these trends, we will consider two philosophical practices for developing personal autonomy in relation to adult learning, namely “creating peace in dialogue” and “autobiographical experiment through philosophical writing.”

During the theoretical analysis and synthesis of philosophical, psychological, and pedagogical scientific literature on the problem of personality subjectivity, the descriptive method, the categorization method, the comparative historical method, and the hermeneutic method were used.

3. Theoretical literature review

Subjectivity as an original philosophical project

The long history of both Eastern and Western philosophy includes a significant variety of worldviews and perspectives, which are based on a fundamental search related to human free will.: How should people perceive the world and their place in it in order to lead a more responsible life? This question, asked 2,500 years ago and today, explains the relevance of the works of such thinkers as Protagoras, Socrates, Plato and many others to modern researchers. It is noteworthy that this question was asked by the ancients in general. The fact that the problematization of human life and Outer Space suddenly arose 25 centuries ago is probably due to the fact that people began to view their stay in the world as problematic and in need of a new rethink ^[9]. The pre-axial man did not seek the meaning of life ^[10]. The discord came only in the era of the final crisis of the mythological system between the sixth and fourth centuries BC. A heteronomous way of being in which the world and human life were a given, established and for the most part controlled by forces outside humanity, and the most that people could do was obediently follow the Will of Heaven., ceased to satisfy the “new man", who perceives himself as the owner of individual free will to act in accordance with his personal goals and interpretations of the world.

This is the “beginning” of humanity's desire for autonomy: the realization that “a person must think about his life for himself, and how and how he lives is crucial” ^[11]. The observed changes looked as if humanity's childhood had come to an end, and homo sapiens had a sense of responsibility for their own lives and the possibility of self-improvement. In the “axial age” the gods were not banished: the world that people imagined was still theistic or animistic. The real changes were based on the conflict between the discourse of faith and the discourse of reason, and were related to the growing autonomy of man: the feeling that, despite the existence of invisible gods, people were called upon to contribute to the search for answers to vital questions about human nature and the purpose of human life.

The thinkers of the “axial age” were wise men, confident in their own intelligence and knowledge, critical of public opinion, and convincing enough for those people who soon followed them as students. Different philosophical schools presented their cosmologies and arguments about human nature and the best ways of human life, and humanity, guided by them, entered adulthood, full of responsibility for itself. This was, apparently, the beginning of philosophy and its quest for “self-responsible” human activity, subjectivity and autonomy.

Thus, subjectivity in a certain sense can be called an original philosophical project. Despite the fact that the empirical and psychological understanding of subjectivity is laid down in ancient philosophy ^[11], the concept of "subjectivity" for philosophy is relatively new and has not yet received a generally recognized categorical status ^[12]. The topic of subjectivity was often considered by philosophy peripherally; it appeared in philosophy not as a specific independent phenomenon, but together with other concepts without clarifying its ontology, such as intersubjectivity, the place of the Other in the emergence of the self, consciousness, etc.

The first philosopher to address the topic of subjectivity was Protagoras with his famous statement formulated by Socrates: “Of all things, Man is the measure, of things that are, what they are, and of things that are not, what they are not" ^[13]. The names of Protagoras and Socrates are identified with the theme of “man”, which marked the beginning of the philosophical question of subjectivity and the “anthropological turn” in philosophy. The appeal of a person “to himself” began with the call to “know yourself,” thereby highlighting epistemological problems. From now on, “Man” takes his place next to the Cosmos and the Logos as a “world-creating” entity. While the pre-Socratics insisted on observing the cosmic law, Protagoras, as well as the sophists and skeptics who followed him, proposed to accept man himself as a normative measure. Plato, in his interpretation of Protagoras in the Theaetetus dialogue, considers this thesis in the context of the problem of knowledge formulated by Socrates (“What is knowledge itself?”) ^[14], which marks an “epistemological turn” in philosophy. First of all, it concerns the difference between knowledge and faith, between truth and plausibility. Thus, it was Protagoras who formulated the main argument in favor of relativism. Protagoras' argumentation is, on the one hand, a development of Heraclitus' teaching about becoming, and on the other hand, the inclusion of man himself and his cognitive activity in this process. In essence, this indicates a connection between the relativism of the object (in Heraclitus) and the relativism of knowledge.

In the context of subjectivity, researchers point to another point in Protagoras' statement about man as a measure of essence. As E.L. Chertkova notes, “[... There is still no “subject” in the metaphysical sense: it is an ordinary person with all his characteristics and abilities” [13, pp. 41-42]. For Protagoras and his followers, “subjectivity” refers to the definition of the content of human representations of the world, understood in the sense of their illusory, imaginary and untrue nature. This understanding of “subjectivity" is closely related to human physicality, physiology, and psychology. So far, there is no idea that an existing entity in any sense should be based on its “own self”, which has a reality different from objective reality; that is, there is no subject yet, but there is an “empirical person”. There is subjectivity, but not yet the subject — there is an epistemological problem, but not yet the metaphysics of the subject ^[15].

The value-moral aspect of the phenomenon of subjectivity is also manifested in Plato's idea of educating the human soul ^[8]. Plato was captured by the “idea of ideas”: for him, the real world was the world of ideas, the realm of reason or understanding, and not the physical, phenomenal world of matter and flow. What made Plato consider the world of ideas, the supersensible world, to be more real than the sensory world of physical reality? “Real" is a value term (what is real), it is what really matters and has the ability to affect us most deeply. In this interpretation, Plato was one of the first “discoverers” of the power of the human mind; that is, the ability to conceptualize and interpret reality. Physics may be a given for us, but metaphysics is the way we accept the given and create a new order of meaning and power. We do not perceive reality “directly”: perception is mediated by our “conceptualizing" mind. The conceptualizing mind imposes an order of meanings on the raw materials of sensory perception. So, the person whose conceptualizing mind is functioning normally sees not just a rose, a certain physical entity, but rather sees a rose through the filter of a certain set of meanings, a personal history of experience and knowledge. This feature makes the creation of meaning subjective: no one else will have exactly the same semantic constellation. People can share the same space of activity and see the same things, but inhabit ten separate and subtly or roughly different worlds. Space and time are thus considered not as neutral abstractions, but as different in quality and filled with values, meaning and ideology (the concept of M.M. Bakhtin's chronotope ^[16] - approx. the author).

Despite the fact that physical reality may be the same for everyone, since it physically affects everyone equally, the reality of understanding and experiencing, which we call “the world,” manifests itself as separate particulars in terms of meaning. Here we can talk about the multiplicity of worlds or about traveling around the world, because, as individuals, we do not live in one fixed world that we created ourselves, but we are constantly creating new worlds; in addition, through various ways of communication, our worlds meet.

The intersection of time and space of additional education occurs in the professional and personal position of the student ^{[2; 4]}. In the development of additional education programs, the personality of the student is an integral factor encouraging the acquisition of additional education and meaningful involvement in educational activities. This personality is called upon to create its own learning space, enriching its own “expanding Self” through the formulation and selection of “Possible Selves". In the new hybrid interactive learning spaces made possible by new technologies, discourses and practices of additional learning can productively overlap and merge with the discourses of adults' daily lives, forcing them to “develop a coherent identity in increasingly diverse and fragmented environments" ^{[17; 18]}.

The key to successful “integration of worlds” is the activation of the conceptual mind, which articulates reality through images, symbols, concepts, words, etc. Such articulation of reality is what makes the existence of language possible. Of the various languages (images, symbols), philosophy is especially fluent in concepts. Philosophy is the art of thinking, forming concepts ^[19]. By learning to think, an adult learns the art of rethinking experience, noticing what was previously unprovable or invisible, formulating what he thought and felt only half, reconfiguring the subtle body of reality, overestimating the values assigned to things, and hundreds of other creative actions. A discursive language is an excellent carrier of concepts. As such, in the skillful hands of philosophers, language manipulates concepts, thereby making ontological shifts. Thus, language is an ontological “lever" for shifting worlds. This kind of understanding of the exceptional importance of language for our perception of reality was a distinctive feature of philosophy. Let us recall Wittgenstein's oft-quoted line: “The boundaries of my language mean the boundaries of my world” ^[20]. The inextricable, subtle connection between the word and the world has been the subject of constant thought from Plato to R. Rorty ^[21]. Philosophy does not just use words to denote and describe what a pre-given world is like. Her relationship to language goes beyond representation, hence instrumentality. Rather, philosophy is the human activity of shifting and overturning the very foundations of reality, constantly generating a new world through new awareness provided by language.

How can the understanding of philosophy as a worldview or an ontological “change of form” be introduced into adult additional education? One time-honored philosophical practice stands out: dialogue. “Dialogue“ consists of ”dia" (through) and “logos" (word), and their combination denotes a special human ability to perceive reality through the power of words, as well as the ability to convey this perception to other people. Worlds are created and transmitted to each other through words. But there is another reason why dialogue is so important for creating peace. Through dialogue, information can be transformed into personal knowledge. Only personal knowledge is useful for creating peace: information, no matter how correct and useful it may be, does little to create peace. This is because the creation of the world is a subjective matter that takes place on the metaphysical plane of personal understanding and interpretation. Simple information, that is, acquired knowledge that has not yet been assimilated by the individual's subjective core, does not contribute to the formation of personal knowledge. As A.N. Leontiev rightly points out, “personal meaning cannot be taught, it cannot be transmitted or assimilated, and moreover no subject activity guarantees the formation of the desired meaning for the teacher" ^{[22, p. 102]}. “The very nature of personality limits the possibility of influencing it from the outside,” but the meaning arises as a result of the educational process.

It should be noted that adults as subjects of the educational process differ in the scale and specifics of contradictions, the degree of constructiveness of their resolution, the nature of satisfaction of basic psychological needs and attitudes, as well as recognition of the importance of learning for everyday life, opportunities for building and manifesting the potential of subjectivity and autonomy. In this regard, conflicts between the subjects of the educational process, as well as emerging resistance as a behavior that potentially generates opportunities for students to adopt a more constructive learning position, come to the fore in the research of adult additional education ^{[4; 17; 18]}. As noted by A. Rajala and A. Sannino, learning as a process involves “[...] overcoming the boundaries between communities and social practices of students, and the struggle for what is considered knowledge, and whose knowledge really matters, becomes inevitable" ^{[18, pp. 35-36]}. K. Kasvom calls this struggle “the struggle against personal meaning”, which assumes that adults survive and adapt to their worlds by constructing their own models of understanding education ^[4]. Deviations from the norms, rules and sequences expected by the teacher or the didact are the most important opportunity for the development of personal meanings of educational activities and the formation of personal experience of adult learners ^[23]. Students' resistance to didactically imposed norms can and should be considered as an emerging feature of the dynamics of educational behavior and an emerging form of student autonomy.

The dialogue between the subjects of the educational process is not just an informative exchange of thoughts between the subjects of the educational process. As Pierre Ado notes, the dialogue takes the form of a “battle”, albeit a friendly one, like between friends, during which the interlocutors force each other to critically, with the utmost rigor, examine their thoughts, perceptions and impressions for “self-contradiction” and superficiality, confusion and deception ^[24]. Ado writes: “Dialogue is possible only if the interlocutor has a real desire to conduct a dialogue: that is, if he really wants to reveal the truth, desires Good from the depths of his soul and agrees to obey the rational requirements of the Logos" ^{[24, p. 235]}. We emphasize that the purpose of such a competition is not to see who wins the knowledge match (the purpose of the debate); rather, the goal is personal knowledge and authenticity. Personal knowledge consists of visions and views that are deeply personal to the student and at the same time equally comprehensive and viable because they have been tested in the crucible of interpersonal dialogue in the classroom; authenticity is the state of a person who has withstood these trials, leading to a sense of integrity and conviction. Thus, personal knowledge does not have to be just subjective, that is, idiosyncratic — it arises at the intersection of private and public.

Descartes' Philosophy: A Metaphysical Shift in the Understanding of Subjectivity

Unlike Protagoras, Descartes considers man to be the subject of self-awareness, the source and guarantor of confidence. Inspired by the successes of nascent science, Descartes seeks to establish the unconditional foundation of truth ^[25]. He finds the measure of being for all entities in the self-awareness of the subject of his being. The thinking subject becomes the center around which, according to Descartes, we can build a system of certain knowledge. Confidence in one's own existence is the starting point on this path. In Descartes' metaphysics, the subject is not just an empirical personality, as in Protagoras, but a being who justifies himself, who possesses self—awareness. As V. Hesle noted: “Thanks to Descartes, subjectivity managed to absolutize itself to a degree unprecedented in world history" ^[26]. The Cartesian legacy, associated with the dichotomies between nature and mind, consciousness and body, prevailed in the version of rationalism on which modern philosophy was based ^[27]. However, the idea of self-awareness as an Aristotelian “independent-minded thought” reached absolute subjectivity only in Hegel's philosophy ^[28].

A number of attributes of subjectivity in Descartes' philosophy remain relevant today. As an ideal unity of mind, "cogito” Descartes highlights such characteristic attributes of subjectivity as the reality of self-determination and the need for constant reflection to preserve the self ^[29]. This is considered an ontological reality, a kind of being, and not a function of the brain, body, or society. The act of self-awareness serves as the basis for an individual's free and responsible behavior, his ability to “process” information, even if it is (hypothetically) embedded in him, either rejecting it or accepting and bearing responsibility for it. Internal self-determination is an unavoidable obstacle to various manipulations. Here it is worth noting the unity of the cognitive and ethical aspects of cogito: the justification not only of the rationalistic method, but also of a special kind of ontology, the metaphysical justification of individual freedom and morality, the uniqueness of the subject of free will and at the same time the general meaning of his act of self-awareness, that is, the unity of freedom and responsibility. These properties of an object are not a given. They require constant efforts from a person to protect and implement them ^[30], while the world creates problems and produces challenges that threaten to desubjectivize the subject.

Descartes defended intellectual autonomy. We can find many flaws in his worldview and methods of thinking, such as his boundless faith in deductive reasoning, his conception of the human Self as an incorporeal, monological center of consciousness, or the complete devaluation of everything that does not possess intelligence as dead matter. Despite this, Descartes' emphasis on what has since become known as subjectivity was a truly revolutionary step in philosophy. The Cartesian legacy, among other things, was the demonstration of the process of introspection, which is the basis of philosophical thinking. Philosophical thinking is not just about having ideas and manipulating them. The latter is a necessary but not sufficient condition for philosophical thinking. What turns working with ideas into philosophical thinking is the decisive presence and activity of the “I”, which refuses to accept any idea without subjecting it to a “laboratory” test on its own internal experience ^[31].

A person is deprived of the ability to think independently by the persistent imposition of ready-made ideas and the direction of mental activity only in order to rebuild the acquired ideas, regain self-control, authority should begin with a self-critical analysis of the information received.

Descartes begins his series of reflections with a personal confession that he had been waiting for this moment for a long time in order to carry out a radical verification and, if necessary, a complete overthrow of his acquired beliefs and opinions. The meaning of this sentence lies in the implied shift of the position of authority from what is external to the Self to what is internal to the Self. The self is a legitimate source of authority insofar as it is the author of its own experience, assisted by the power of analysis and interpretation. Thus, authority is something that can be both potential and relevant. The method of developing actual authority according to Descartes is writing an essay.

Using the style of the essay, Descartes followed the example of Michel de Montaigne, who, being deeply influenced by the textual practice of stoic self-reflective writing in Hellenistic times, laid the foundation for the modern genre of essay writing. Essays can be attempts at introspection and interpretation of one's perceptions, feelings, thoughts, and actions. The point of such trials is to strengthen and expand, and generally transform your experience. By articulating, rethinking, and re-evaluating one's experience, one recreates the latter. There is a different idea of what a person and the world are like. Thus, philosophical writing has the potential to project the Self.

A discussion of philosophical writing as a quest for autopoiesis would be incomplete without mentioning Nietzsche, the “first depth psychologist,” although Descartes' comparison with Nietzsche may seem the most initial. But they are based on one common foundation: the philosophical textual practice of transforming the subject. Nietzsche's writings are autobiographical records of his constant efforts to transform and update his experience and his life in general. According to J.According to Swanson, Nietzsche's writings are not intended as a statement of truth or a description of what the world really is, but rather as an invitation to consider different points of view and what changes this has on someone's experience ^[32]. His psychological insights are presented in the same spirit.: not as absolute truths about the human condition, but as hypotheses that must be tested on their own experience, as experiments that must be conducted in the “laboratory” of the human psyche.

What contribution can the above understanding of philosophical essays make to further adult education? The assessment of the possible contribution of the essay depends on the academic and social context of the additional training. The general context of modern adult education is that teachers often do not sufficiently encourage students to conduct “experiments in the laboratory of their psyche” ^[33]. In research on adult education, traditional pedagogy is criticized for focusing too much on the processes of knowledge transfer based on the external authority of the teacher, and pushing the ideas of students to the periphery of educational activities. This deprives students of motivation and free will, and inefficiently wastes their precious time allocated for completing a program or course. The British mathematician, logician, and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said that using ideas is "... correlation [of an idea] with a stream consisting of sensory perceptions, feelings, hopes, desires, and mental activity that adapts thought to the thought that shapes our lives” ^{[34, p. 261]}.

Encouraging student initiative is primarily related to attempts to involve students in the process of creating knowledge. These attempts include rethinking the object of learning activity from reproducing knowledge and using procedures accurately to understanding domain concepts and principles and developing productive thinking habits that support productive and generative use of concepts and principles. Philosophical thinking is primarily an equivalent process at the mental and conceptual level. Ideas are thought out by a person through a series of questions: What do I think of this idea?how does it relate to certain views that I hold in life and in my work? If I take this idea seriously, will I be able to continue living the way I used to? Ideas that have not been subjected to this interpretation, that is, “ideas that simply enter consciousness without being used, or tested, or thrown into new combinations”, remain “inert" ^[35]. Inert ideas do not contribute to the formation of an adult learner's personality and the development of his autonomy. Writing philosophical essays in the spirit of Montaigne and Descartes can be an effective way to comprehend ideas ^[36].

The Antimetaphysical Shift in Postmodernism: the “death” of the Subject

Having defined the metaphysical specifics of philosophy, we encounter the reverse side of such a vision within the framework of antimetaphysical forms of philosophizing. It was the antimetaphysical shift in postmodernism that marked the return to an empirical understanding of subjectivity and predicted the “death” of the subject.

As we noted earlier, for a long time there was no theory of subjectivity in philosophy, understood as a general quality of human phenomena, whether individual or social, that arises in cultural, social and historically established contexts. Several interrelated facts caused this situation in the 19th century ^[31]: 1) the emphasis on social relations as a productive force; 2) the development of science; 3) the influence of medicine and psychiatry based on objective biological factors; 4) the emergence of positivism as a philosophy of science. F.G.Ray points out that the best proof of the need for theory Subjectivity in philosophy is the fact that philosophers focused on sociality, history, and politics, such as T. Eagleton, G. Marcuse, and T. Adorno, simultaneously turned to Z. Freud in their works when discussing irrational human phenomena ^[31]. This fact leads to two interrelated conclusions.: 1) the specific ontological nature of subjectivity is unknown, and 2) philosophers are still trying to find its expression in the unconscious, the genesis of which is referred to as uncultured and universal bodily drives. The latter is the result of the significant influence of psychoanalysis in the West as a culturally established field.

Linguistic and discursive turns, combined as trends in the same theoretical sequence of works by such authors as L. Wittgenstein, M. Heidegger, M. Foucault, R. Rorty, formed a solid core within which pragmatism, hermeneutics and discourse turned out to be closely interrelated as the basis of post-structuralist thought. This powerful trend of modern philosophy has found in poststructuralism a synthesis of some of its basic principles, becoming dominant from the last quarter of the 20th century to the present day ^[35]. The dominant ideas in the social sciences and in psychology are based on this sequence of philosophical thought in one way or another.

One of the flags raised against subjectivity was pragmatism according to the definition. According to Rorty, firstly, the metaphysical tradition of studying traditional philosophical problems was rejected in favor of practical issues. As Rorty writes, “modern philosophers, like engineers and lawyers, need to figure out what their clients need.” Freedom, like truth, is not an absolute value ^[21]. Moreover, such an attribute as responsibility disappears completely from this concept of freedom. Rorty argues that the freedom we value most is the freedom to be honest with each other and not be punished for it [ibid.]. Reason, truth, and morality are all words from the dictionary of Platonic—Kantian philosophy, a dictionary that has no place in the modern world. Rorty himself sets out this vision of the task of philosophy based on pragmatism. Behind this, however, we can see a more ancient prototype: the sophists, with whom we began the discussion of subjectivity in this article.

The paradox of this situation is that the growth of subjectivism, relativism, and even voluntarism in relation to reality is combined with the rejection of the subject as aware of his individual responsibility. This is a claim to subjectivity without a subject, which in modern socio-cultural conditions is dangerous for human existence.

Let's highlight the main themes that existed in the philosophical discourse on subjectivity during the time period under study.

1. The close relationship between emotions and imagination makes fiction and reality, nature and experience, mind, body and the world inseparable (J. Dewey, M. Merleau-Ponty and B. Williams). The fictional and inventive nature of human realities underlies culture.

2. The search for an understanding of how simultaneous social and cultural realities motivate a person to take actions of a multifaceted nature that cannot be comprehended with the help of any “universal causes or principles" (Merleau-Ponty, Foucault and E. Cassirer).

3. The inability to separate subjective reality from human reason and human actions (Cassirer, Dewey, Merleau-Ponty and Marx). The existence of subjective reality requires its definition as a new ontological domain, different from the one called the psyche. Subjectivity is one of the ways to achieve this.

4. The emergence of the concept of the social subject, first outlined by Marx through the concept of the working class, marked the beginning of the idea that human phenomena imply social agents and subjects. This idea remained implicit in Marx, but it was an important factor in promoting the subject and action in both the individual and social arenas.

In our opinion, the above-mentioned interpretations of philosophers open up a space within which the topic of subjectivity can be developed in psychological and pedagogical research on an augmented theoretical basis. The new ontology and epistemology of additional education, logic, ethics, and epistemology are topics that should be integrated into modern psychological and pedagogical discourse on the development of adult learners' subjectivity.

The recognition of subjectivity as such is also the recognition of the quality of human processes, which manifests itself as motivation in people themselves ^[37]. The following quote from L.S. Vygotsky is an expression of the power of subjectivity: “They did not understand [referring to psychologists of that time] that disability is not just an impoverished psychological state, but also a source of wealth, not just weakness, but also strength. They thought that the development of a blind child depended on his blindness. The psychology of blindness is, in fact, the psychology of victory over blindness” ^{[38, pp. 86-100]}. Despite the fact that subjectivity does not appear here, Vygotsky pointed out its main characteristic: subjectivity allows one to overcome objective limitations, it is “a way to surpass what is objectively given to a person" [ibid.].

4. The results of the study

The theoretical and practical significance of the results obtained by the author lies in the possibility of using them to form new philosophical, ideological and methodological approaches to the development of adult personality subjectivity in psychology, pedagogy and didactics of additional education.

The fundamental goal of continuing education is the development of human will in the sense of the ability to realize one's freedom (as opposed to conditioned and habitual patterns of thinking, perception, and action) based on personal knowledge and ethics. This ability is “subjectivity”; it allows us to overcome the objective limitations of the new reality, to surpass what is objectively given to man. A personality forms itself through its active subjectivity, through the "projecting Self" ^[39]. The mechanism of subjectivity realizes the potential of the student to “build himself in the learning process” by selecting and formulating “possible selves” according to his experience, values and ethics. An active subject position allows an adult not only to meet the requirements of a new educational system for him and to be the initiator of his own educational activity, but also to realize his freedom in contrast to conditioned and habitual patterns of perception, thinking and behavior, to independently control it.

The theoretical analysis allows us to formulate the following generalizing conclusions.

The observed dynamic changes in traditional approaches to adult additional education raise questions of their justification from the standpoint of philosophy. We substantiate the idea of the unity of philosophical, psychological and pedagogical knowledge about an adult and his additional education. The new ontology and epistemology of social reality actualizes the new ontology and epistemology of additional education, which can be found beyond its institutional boundaries. Adult additional education today is not only a social institution, but also a process of defining oneself in being, moving towards acquiring an existential identity of a person.

Subjectivity is a general philosophical category that reflects not only the diversity of adult educational behavior, its functions and roles in the modern world, but also its ability to function autonomously, self—determination and self-regulation. Philosophy can contribute to understanding the role of an adult as an autonomous subject of the educational process and the factors determining his formal, informal and informative educational activity, as well as involvement in education or alienation from it.

An in-depth study of the subjectivity and autonomy of an adult learner's personality is impossible in isolation from the categories of ontology and epistemology, logic, ethics, epistemology, and epistemological autonomy. The self-development of an adult as a subject in additional education is impossible with didactically imposed epistemologies.

It is possible to influence the changing boundaries of the autonomy of the student's personality by means of social, educational, and personal practices. Adjusting the epistemological, social, and technological content of continuing education programs and courses will help individualize the transfer of knowledge, facilitate its transfer between the “worlds” of adults, and reduce student resistance.

The process of personal subjectivity development in additional education requires the expansion of dialogical interactions at the university, which allow students to integrate all their educational activities taking place in different contexts, taking into account spatial and temporal relations and their experience, combining their experiences and “worlds” during collective discussions. Dialogue can become a tool to resist the trend of simply acquiring more high-quality knowledge and skills relevant to modern socio-cultural conditions and ongoing changes. A dialogue about the conflict and its cause between students and a teacher can lead to a productive revision of the personal attitudes and beliefs of both, and change the relationship between the subjects of the educational process. In this way, students' resistance can transform into subjectivity.

Philosophical writing has a great potential for transforming the “I" of students. The assessment of the possible contribution of an essay depends on the learning context. For adult students, whose education was previously based primarily on the generalization and comparison of teachers' opinions and impersonal information under the guise of “research work,“ writing philosophical essays ”in their own voice" can be a paralyzing and discouraging experience. However, it is often only by moving away from scientific objectivity that adults can develop their subjectivity and autonomy in the educational process, become more discerning in their views, and therefore more involved.

5. Conclusion

The conducted theoretical research makes it possible to expand and deepen scientific theoretical ideas about the subjectivity of personality in additional education and its development.

The concept of subjectivity in philosophy lays the foundation for understanding the use of the potential of philosophical knowledge in improving psychological and pedagogical approaches to the development of subjectivity and autonomy of adult learners in the new ontology of the social reality of additional education.

The widespread notion that philosophy is impractical and should not be integrated into modern adult continuing education should be included in the list of outdated myths and popular misconceptions. In the pedagogy and didactics of higher education, the potential of both theoretical and practical philosophy can be used. The article reveals the potential of two philosophical practices for developing personal autonomy in relation to adult learning: “creating peace through dialogue” and “autobiographical experiment through philosophical writing.”

The theoretical provisions and recommendations formulated by the author can be used as the basis for research on autonomous involvement of adult learners. As further research prospects, we consider the creation of a theoretical model of the psychological structure of autonomous adult involvement in additional education, taking into account their personal epistemology, the development of psychological tools for its diagnosis, conducting empirical research, which will result in a set of measures of specialized psychological support for adult learners as autonomous subjects of the educational process and providing them with relevant psychological and pedagogical support at the at this stage of university studies.