The article distinguishes between sacred and rational interpretations of culture, highlighting modernism's crisis and its implications.
The article separates two interpretations of culture: as a cult and as a rational construction; in the latter, the author, in turn, distinguishes between semiotic, psychological and social narratives. The characteristic of culture proposed by Mikhail Gefter is analyzed: culture is “an attitude towards something that is not given to a person directly, but has a saving and transformative meaning for him.” Based on it, the author argues that a person believes in culture, not only by thinking rationally, but also in terms of faith. The dual interpretation of culture — sacred and rational — was already formed in antiquity and is then reproduced in relation to different cultural conditions. Historical examples of such an interpretation are considered. Modernism, according to the author, is the last version of two versions of culture. Since modernism is ending, undergoing a deep crisis, the ideas about nature and personality that underlie the cult of modernism cease to be perceived as a sacred foundation, and rational constructions cease to work effectively. At the end of the article, the ideas of cosmic reality are discussed, as well as the stories put forward for the role of the new cult of the next big culture (futureculture). There are other contenders for the role of the cult for the futureculture, but all of them are not yet accepted by the main participants of the modern discourse of “Salvation”. The author raises the question of whether humanity has time to solve the Mont Blanc of modern problems.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Вадим Маркович Розин (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: