The “Code” and “Spirit” of the University in the horizon of contemporary university transformations
G. I. Petrova1, E. A. Biktasheva2
1National Research Tomsk State University, Tomsk, Russia
2Municipal budgetary institution of culture “Inter-settlement library of the Soviet district”, Sovetsky, Russia
Keywords: university education, the ambiguity of the university code, the “universalizing matrix”, the universality of modern education, the form of universalization, the sustainability of the university code, “university 3.0”, “university 4.0”
Abstract
Introduction. The article concretizes the issue of the university code. This question was raised by the authors earlier. The specification concerns the concept of “stability”, which is not identical to concept of “eternity”. Relevance. Modern university is very different from the one that was originated in the Middle Ages and had a long history. Modern university has chаnged the paradigm of its development, purpose, tasks, mission. It is being reformed constantly. It is necessary to think about its new understanding. The problematic questions are the next. What is а “university code” and “university spirit”? What is their significance for the stability of the university? Methodology. It is necessary to show that the university code is identical to its idea. The authors understand the idea of university from the point view of Plato’s methodology, namely from the point of view its teaching on eidos. But they clarify of concept of the code and talk about its two parts: logos (rational cognition the truth) and aesthesis (the spirit of the university, that is, its irrational understanding the code is the trust of the university, because it ensures its historical stability. The idea, or the code, or the eidos of university is its “universalizing matrix”, which find self-justification by changes of the concept of “universalization”. For example, the modern concept of “universalization” is considered by article through practice-oriented education of modern university, which characterizes model of “the university 3.0”. Conclusion. The authors argues that the code and spirit of the university must be preserved.
|
