XXIII World Congress of Philosophy Athens, Greece Section «Social philosophy» 6 aug. 2013 «SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY AND ONTOLOGY OF PARTICIPATION» Oleg Davydov, Russia, Khabarovsk 328gr@rambler.ru The term “participation” I mean belonging to certain community. I will try to interpret this issue. If we look now on social reality, we find it is in stage of fragmentation and change. Globalization trigger the creation of new social forms, and while it eliminates the differences, and it makes problems of relations between individual and society. The era of instability is characterized by a pluralism, new style of being, which triggers the loss of identity. Loss of linearity and the order leads to a search for ontology basis of sociality. It needs both stability and mobility. Mass society that emerged in the Modern era with its epistemological optimism, progressivism, and increasing pressure on the ecosystem has entered a stage of profound transformation. The main trend of social development is increasing heterogeneity, as well as increasing atomization. Modern society is characterized by rethinking of the fundamental parameters of social being and transformation of traditional social forms of existence or "loss of roots". I believe that this idea is related to issues of identity. The situation is complicated because the global homogenization of economy and the expansion of capital require more homogeneous social conditions. As a result it is reducing the diversity of social life. I think the most important modern question: what is the role of social philosophy now? We haven’t clear answer on this question. I think, at first we need the definition of relations between social theory and theory of being – the ontology. I suppose that the task of thinking nowadays is a new articulation of relations between individual and social being. I wish to emphasize the dialectic contradiction of collective and individual being. The universalization, which is accompanied by the construction of societies, provokes the emergence new «identity movements». Societies in different parts of the world try to keep their identity before the treat of globalization. Process of the aspirations of locals to anti-universality becomes the trend of social development. I claim, ontological view of society interpretation, especially Aristotle's, with concepts of synousia (cohabitation) and synoukia (community), is relevant for a decision on the status of existence of contemporary society. Aristotel’s view is opposed to modern view on society like only as a result of social contract. Ancient thought about the community consist of two elements: both the human order of the polis and the universal order of the cosmos. Aristotel created theory of the symbiotic existence of beings in polis as such inextricably linked to the interpretation of the universe itself. Ancient philosophers had never talked about the universe, not implying that polis and discussed about the polis, not looking at the universe. Man of ancient society was free in his polis which was the part of the universal order. For a man of traditional society the exclusion from the polis it was unthinkable. For example, we can indicate the Socrates' decision don't to leave Athens after the verdict. But, in contrast, it’s impossible for most of modern peoples belonging to community. I claim, one of the main problems of contemporary social philosophy is the definition of community. The nature of being an individual in the community, in principle, is not significantly different in the present and in antiquity. I think that explanation of causes of social forms of life from the point of view of particular interests of its members is not productive. Obviously, such attempts was taken to justify the individualistic interpretation of social being. Those who talk about the society in this sense, mean by it the association of innovators who thinks that the main virtue is oblivion of communitarian sources of the self identity. So, contractual theories of self-assembled variability of peoples existence is the ontological basis of social theory today. This individualistic or nominalistic view on the social being consist in opposition to universal conception, realized as form of the of the spirit in Hegelianism, and in the Marxism as an expression of social relations on the specific historical stage of development of society. The dominant view on community in modern thought shifts the emphasis from universalistic conception of community to particularistic conception of local community. Community is a specific ontological form, which coordinate any singularity and allows make stability order of coexistence. Communitarism is the form of restart of lost integrity in crisis premordial «synoikia» and the rational revision of the relationship between society and individual. I claim that Communities is a basis of social reality. Most important feature of this social form is the ability to create the conditions for the formation of identity in a world, who constantly placing new demands. Liquidity in stability through unity in diversity - this is ontological frame for sociality. Yet, when i say "community", i mean it like it as result of coexistence development. It is not as a primary or primordial unity, because modern sociality destroyed or marginalised it. Thereby we dismiss any a priori conceptions of society, who exist before its local manifestations. This means that social being is not as fantasy of some or one human. Social being contents in multivariant experiences by many situations involved one with each other. Different situations of participation are belongs to ontology, who can connect universality and particularity. I maintain ontological uniqueness of the concept of community, as opposed to the nominalist atomization and universalistic reduction of diversity. In similar sense, Charles Taylor criticizes the abstract concept of an individual. There is a paradox of communal identity. Communities either integrated into the diversity as one among many, or expanding to the limits of the world of its own universality. Order to overcome this dilemma possible by eliminating through the adoption of freedom common to all. This society, created and supported by the consent of its members. We ask: Can social philosophy initiate this? Citizenship of the «cosmopolis» is impossible not to chose, and not lose. So, we have two conflicting universalisms - universalism of totality and universalism of diversity. Ontological dialectic manifested in community, which formed at the intersection of individual and social, personal and social, subjective and objective, transcendent and immanent. Theoretical understanding of its constituted and development, is one of the main direction of social philosophy. In contemporary global situation, we need to integrate the diversity spaces, and find efficiently combining social diversity. I claim - being is not an individual choice, like no universalistic abstraction. When people realize their own involvement, they turned to another, who can contested or denied they identity. Yet, identity comes into being only in negative terms, which gives to individual meaning about the impossibility be himself. That's what they will be, experiencing alienation, feeling that his existence is lost, restoring itself only through incessant dissection. Finally, growing social tension caused by multidirectional ways of development generates internal and external trends that involve the need to find new forms of social being. The openness of the world, the risk society, characterized by the fact that the social and personal interactions is growing to the limit. There are, on the one hand, a major challenge. On the other hand, we have increase of number of communities, that opens way to rethinking social being.