No abstract

Purpose of the article is to identify the components of creative method and anthropology of Shakespeare’s theater, to compare Shakespeare’s theater to Baroque theater, to analyze various conceptions of Shakespeare. Methods: hermeneutic, cultural anthropology, historical and cultural, analytical, psychoanalysis. From philosophical and anthropological positions, creative method and creative works of W. Shakespeare have been analyzed, a strong connection of theater and philosophy of Shakespeare’s theater with Baroque theater has been revealed (mysticism, fabulousness, hyperrealism, formal features are replaced by effective ones, usage of parable and utopia (image of King Lear in particular), motives of vanitas (vanity), duality of the world, allegory, «figureness»). Shakespeare suggests a new philosophy of theater based on elimination of borders between reality and art, «baroqueivisation», theatricalization of reality, masks are used as symbols of a real person without distorting it but rather revealing his or her deepest essence, sincerity. It is also reflected in understanding of Shakespeare’s authorship problem where mask of a clown and a buffoon are used in order to convey the deepest and most philosophical thoughts to society. Baroque reform of the theater suggested by Shakespeare, reduces theater to universal anthropological model both synchronically and diachronically. Theater runs around the actor, not only art but life of the universe is carried out via actor. This new philosophy of theater cannot be considered only within the «culture of meanings» (G.U. Gumbrecht) but on principle is within the limits of «culture of presence», which helps to understand the ideological idea of Shakespeare’s theater, to view biography and personality of Shakespeare in a new way because Shakespearean Studies was within the culture of meanings and tried to consider only the hidden codes and symbols of Shakespeare’s theater. Beyond these philosophical hermeneutics remained the transforming, effective power of Shakespeare’s theater. Humanization of theater also takes place: based on the old Antique form a new humanistic content is built, where much attention is paid to «life of soul», love, kindness, wits, passion, vengeance, etc., sinfulness of a soul and its ability to clear of evil. Theatre is considered to be not an external spectacle but a deep instrument of immersion in life of a soul and its gradual growth. Since theater is the whole world (in philosophy of culture it can also be identified with the formation of «Faustian soul» (O. Spengler), «Faustian spirit» focused on the infinite formation, the infinity of space), it requires the creation of a corresponding dictionary because the word itself becomes a word-action. A special role of allegory genre for philosophy of Shakespeare’s theater is considered, his philosophy is compared to philosophy of F. Bacon.

The formation of personality attracted the attention of both classics of philosophical thought, in particular the works of C. Pierce, Z. Freud, and representatives of modern philosophical discourse (Z. Bauman, P. Ricceur, J. Hararri, K. Wilber). Recent research states that the main obstacle to formation of the individual and society is cultural trauma that arises as a result of the development of totalitarian colonial societies in the twentieth century. The concept of cultural trauma is analyzed in the studies of J. Alexander, С. Сaruth , A. Neаl. The aim is to explore the individual in modern and postmodern paradigm, the application of concepts of development, education, self-development and self-education of the individual in postmodern discourse, to consider education and self-development as key strategies of postmodern philosophy in overcoming totalitarian cultural trauma. Scientific novelty. It is stated that education, development and self-development of the individual become main strategies of information age and postmodern culture, which contributes to overcoming the totalitarian colonial traumatic experience. The personality in modern and postmodern paradigm (concepts, attitude to the personality, processes of education, social institutions, self-education) is investigated. It should be noted that self-development of the individual will acquire a global scale: whether it is measured by the coefficient of happiness or economic efficiency of a society, there are scientific debates, one thing is certain - at the same time education, self-education and upbringing become the deal of not individual countries, but humanity on the whole. Conclusions. 1. In the modern paradigm, the individual implicitly contains the antithesis of mental and physical origin, immutability, and hence eternity, and development as a certain adaptation of man to external circumstances of socio-cultural life. 2. Postmodernism replaces this contradiction with the controversy or dialectic of personality as unchanging, perfect and at the same time constantly growing under the influence of both external and internal factors, the application of the concepts of self-development and self-education philosophical paradigm, as modern and colonial discourse seeks to do. 3. Based on the presented argumentation, the conclusion is made about education and self-development as key strategies of postmodern philosophy in overcoming totalitarian cultural trauma of imprisonment.

The modern philosophy of literature in terms of reading practices, changing the modern way of reading to new types of reading is analyzed, as well as the interpenetration in the present of different types of reading. It has been found that various researchers have been engaged in reading practices and, accordingly, philosophy of reading. A separate direction in the study of reading as a certain way of open dialogue was created by M. Rubakin. This area was called «bibliopsychology», thus reading is considered as a way of anthropological interaction of man and text. The most diverse ideas common to the subject of our research are contained in the writings of Umberto Eco. Four models of modern reading have been identified and characterized. Reading in the first model becomes the best means of selecting and processing information, and the ultimate goal and motive of such reading is the awareness, literacy and ability of the social lift through reading. The second model involves following certain ready-made patterns, it generates and retransmits social myths. This model involves merging text with the reader through myth. In contrast to reading as an exchange of information in reading as a kind of fairy tale there are two components – trust in information and its recipe-effect character. Trust in this model produces a reflection effect. In such a model, the reader wants to find himself, and not others, his way when the essence of a living person is hidden behind the cover of any real book. In the third reading model, the reader joins another’s story or constructs the story independently. The Middle Ages were built on a model of reading aloud, making a dramatic effect on reading. Modern times, through print, novel, newspaper, general employment and time-saving, lose this dramatic element and gradually lose their narrative. Literature and texts become a means of thinking, not an experience. The type of aesthetic reading highlighted by Umberto Eco is analyzed separately. The third type of reading is designed for reading as a means of self-improvement. The fourth type of modern reading involves dialogue with many interlocutors. Reading this type preserves a component of pleasure and empathy, through these two factors, and is actually read as a meeting with a text-friend. It proves that this type of reading involves the basic mechanisms of imagination, fantasy and memory. The fourth type of reading involves the development of both logical and emotional intelligence, the ability to engage the imagination in a constructive activity. Reading is an example of successful communication that touches the deepest levels of the human being.