«Axiological objectivity» of culture in the system of value orientations in Russian neo-Kantianism and fenomenology

The definition of "axiological objectivity" derived by E. Huserl as the relation of an object to value is considered. An analysis of such interrelations between "objectivity" and value in the philosophy of Russian neo-Kantianism and phenomenology makes it possible to identify a number of trends. Representatives of the first direction, such as T. Rainov and F. Stepun, managed to rethink German neo-Kantianism in terms of their main axiological features: the opposition of value and being, as well as the gradual dissociation of the object from value. These presented value ratios were typical for the concept of G. Rickert. The philosophers of Russian neo-Kantianism, in turn, substantiated value within the framework of being, and also identified the object with value. Conceptually, thinkers have come to conclusions characteristic of phenomenology. The correlation of value with being becomes similar to the “absolute ontologism” of the phenomenologist M. Scheler. “Ideal superobjects” as values are given to phenomenological consideration according to T. Raynov, which to a certain extent corresponds to the noema of E. Husserl, the awareness of the “objective world in its axiological dimension”. Russian neo-Kantianism identifies the object with value in the realized "unity", which is provided according to T. Raynov - creativity, connecting the thing and the idea, meaning. F. Stepun calls this "unity" the "objective value of accomplishment." A similar formulation is present in the phenomenologist N. Hartmann as “the value of the realization of value”, which a person realizes. In the context presented above, “axiological objectivity” in its “unity”, “accomplishment”, “realization” is culture.