DIALOGUE AS A METHOD OF MODERN EDUCATION

Рurpose: substantiation of new approaches in the education system at the post-non-classical stage: dialogical, existentialist, hermeneutic, synergetic, which focus not on the object and the search for objective truth, but on the subject with all the wealth of its spiritual world and subject-subject relations both in education and in all other spheres of human activity. Methodology and Approach. The work is based on a systemic approach, taking into account the interdisciplinary significance of the subject. Results. It has been revealed that a dialogic method presupposing a parity dialogue at all levels can be a means of solving both private problems and a global survival issue. Theoretical and / or Practical Implications. The research results can be used to improve the competency-based approach in the education system under modernization.


INTRODUCTION
The formation of the modern model of education is taking place in the context of the global anthropic crisis, the essence of which is the lag in the spiritual and moral development of mankind from scientific and technological progress. Equally, this state is inherent both in Russia and in Serbia. In this situation, building a system of training and education, the state, society and family should fully recognize that education is a multifaceted, complex concept. It denotes the scope of social practice, and the industry system, and a specially organized process, and a certain result of activity. Depending on what meaning is put into this concept, the goals and objectives of education are formulated; methodologies and methods of teaching and educating the younger generation are selected.

MORAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE MODERNIZATION OF EDUCATION IN THE POST-NON-CLASSICAL ERA
Modernization processes in education are taking place against the background of the dominance of the post-non-classical paradigm in science, the most significant features of which are the spread of interdisciplinary and problem-oriented forms of research activity; dissemination of comprehensive research programs; combination of basic and applied research; intensification of the processes of integration and differentiation in the construction of the picture of knowledge; the desire to reflect reality, in the center of which is a person, the problems of values and the meaning of his being; the inclusion of value factors in the explanatory provisions of scientific re-search; approval of the principle of historical reconstruction in studies of various levels and areas; increasing importance for the development of sciences of socio-economic, spiritual, political and other factors and goals; the concept of science as part of society, determined by the general state of culture.
What are the ways of integrating post-nonclassical science with education?
In the history of the development of education, at least two basic philosophical and pedagogical paradigms of understanding its essence have developed. The first considers education as transfer and assimilation of knowledge, comprehension of truth. In its developed form, this educational system is based on the principles of classical rationalism. It is focused on recognition as a model of any knowledge of the natural sciences, in the system of which man was also considered.
Objective truth, the source of which is a textbook or teacher, is the main goal of education and is presented in a monological form.
Here, the teacher, as the holder of the universally recognized scientific truth, carries out the "teaching ... of the unknowing and erring." The student thus appears in the role of the object of teacher's influence. Such an attitude Michael Bakhtin called «pedagogical dialogue» 1 , but it should be considered only as an imitation of dialogue in a philosophical sense.
The orientation to a narrowly disciplinary approach without horizontal interdisciplinary connections, a strict distinction between humanities and sciences, the separation of teach- ing and upbringing brought to life a narrow specialist overloaded with information. Such a specialist lacks a holistic worldview and a harmonious picture of the world, having a fragmented vision of reality instead, which under the conditions of modern technological progress can pose a danger to all mankind. Reliance mainly on scientific truth develops formal intelligence and makes a person «having a ready-made judgment for all occasions" 1 .
In modern conditions, another philosophical and pedagogical paradigm is emerging, since society, having experienced the achievements and tragedies of industrial civilization, has entered the post-industrial, informational stage of its development. It became clear that the more complex and diverse humanity becomes, the further it progresses in creating, on the basis of natural science knowledge, civilizational benefits of a comfortable existence, the more obvious is the dependence of its further progress on the degree of mastery of the social and humanitarian sciences and orientation to the system of moral values. In contrast to the industrial one, the information society, in the opinion of the French sociologist J. Ellul, is «culture-centric» [4]. Here, the intellect and spiritual constant of the individual and the whole society take on a whole new meaning: survival in a global crisis requires a person to gain his wholeness.
In this situation, education should become assimilation of culture, on the basis of which the image of the future society arises, the «matrix» of its further development is laid, staff is trained to form a new infrastructure for its existence. Such ideas were developed by the representatives of hermeneutics. Thus, G. Gadamer, considers education as a «historical concept», related to the number of «leading humanistic concepts», the content of which varies depending on the stage of development of society as a whole [5].
So, the historical need arose for a new view of man, the conditions of his being, and a different understanding of the nature and goals of education. The European and Russian philosophers of the era of religious and philosophical renaissance, as well as European and Russian representatives of the dialogical direction, hermeneutics, existentialism and synergetics made a great contribution to the outreach on these issues.
So, according to Vladimir Solovyov, the task of education is the formation of a «whole personality», and the means -«whole knowledge». He proceeded from the fact that knowledge cannot be reduced only to a theoretical level, but must correspond to all human needs. He identified three types of needs: 1. Achievement of theoretical knowledge, in other words -the search for truth.
2. Achievement of good (social sphere). This is an area of morality or, in modern language, moral and legal education.
3. Creating beauty through creativity and aesthetic development 2 .
The development of ideas Solovyov about the need to develop a philosophical justification of the education system is associated with the name of the famous scientist-teacher, philosopher and publicist S. I. Hesse (1887-1950), whose main problem was the question of the role of pedagogical science in teaching and upbringing. Considering pedagogy as a science, the subject of which is educational activity, S. I. Hessen divided all sciences into theoretical and practical. «The former investigate being as it exists, regardless of our human goals and desires... They see their goal in establishing the laws of things... Practical sciences that establish the rules or norms of our activity are very different from them. This is a science not about existing, but about what's due, exploring not what is, but how we should act... Obviously, these are the sciences that include pedagogy» 3 . In essence, these ideas can be regarded as the prologue to a new anthropology in which a person, according to the thought of the Russian philosopher Sergei Bulgakov appears as a thinking, social and creative being in the world 1 . The implementation of such anthropological ideas required a new look at the essence of education and its historical nature and social role. Thus, dialogue philosophers (M. Bakhtin, O. Rosenstock-Hussi, M. Buber) consider education not only as a sphere of narrow professional activity of teachers, but as a great «model of any life that takes place in time». According to this model, the cultivation of the human race, its feeding and education takes place. Education fulfills its functions by connecting «people of different times among themselves», connecting generations in a common space (O. Rosenstock-Hüssi). He explores the mechanisms of this process, the ways of interaction of participants in the «educational space» -a concept that is widely used by modern teachers. The meaning of the relationship that the teacher and student enter into is to establish a «learning community». The participants in this process seem superficially only contemporaries, but, in fact, they are «from different times» 2 . At first glance, this statement seems absurd: after all, we all live in the same physical space and time. However, in the process of education it is necessary to create an intellectual and spiritual unity of the representatives of different generations, otherwise the problem of misunderstanding of «fathers and children» will arise again and again.

THE TASKS OF «LEARNING COMMUNITY»
In the «learning community» two tasks are tackled. First: the teacher brings to the student knowledge about life «preceding his birth», seeks to «spiritualize» the student, arouses the desire to comprehend the past and use the knowledge gained to build his future. Every teacher, according to O. Rosenstock-Hüssi, «embodies for the student not his own time, but his whole life from Adam and from time immemorial... On the contrary, the student does not embody for his teacher his own youth, but the whole subsequent world up to the Last Judgment». During the dialogue, the teacher and the student establish a «balance between the past and the future», and become owners of the joint time. the same way, as says O. Rosenstock-Hüssi, «nurturing and learning create the present», and «the right way to nurture this destroys both the old and the young, the abyss that separates not only their times, but all times as a whole». This means, according to the philosopher, «that man was created in order to belong to all times» 3 .
In this dialogue, the second task is also fulfilled: the education of a person, the formation of his personality. In this case it is again necessary to recognize and resolve another contradiction. It lies in the fact that educators often offer the student images of a person «in a finished form even before the learning community is established». Then often the student simply rejects such ideals, be it a «comprehensively developed personality», an English gentleman or a « blonde beast». A good upbringing will succeed to the extent that the educator and the educated are able to abandon their own ideals of man and, as a result of joint «endless efforts», come to create a real image of man, to the fact that «an animal named «man» can really become a man» 4 . In this case, the student ceases to be the object of pedagogical influence of an adult and becomes an equal participant in their dialogue. The dialogue in which the «learning community» is born and the tasks are fulfilled, M. Buber calls a «real dialogue». This is a spontaneous dialogue, not predetermined in any of its parts; in it everyone turns directly to his partner and calls for an unpredictable response. According to M. Buber, each «real lesson» should be a «meeting» of the teacher and the student, look like a «real, not a toy 3 Ibid. duel», carried out in live speech 1 . In this case, the authority of the teacher should flow from his personality. The teacher is a concentrated expression of the outside world with its requirements and rights regarding the child. In the eyes of a child, the teacher personifies and embodies all adult reality. He presents the curriculum (knowledge and skills), social behavioral attitudes, moral imperative (values).
These philosophical ideas turn out to be appropriate in the conditions of modern education, although they are still not dominant.
The curriculum of the modern education system includes the materials of three types of culture: natural sciences, socio-philosophical disciplines and subjects of a «spiritual-figurative» culture.
Back in the early twentieth century, the poet, philosopher, and writer Dmitry Merezhkovsky (1865-1941) gave a philosophical substantiation of the essence of these three types of culture. In their unity they represent the ontological, axiological and anthropological aspects of the vision of the world and man. In the first case, culture appears as a process of creating a new being, in the second -as a system of values. In the third -as a problem of a person, carrier and creator of culture.
All of them contain certain ideas, focused on spiritual and material values, expressed in different forms of natural verbal language, the language of sounds, colors and movements, or a special language of scientific symbols. However, the real significance of these elements in different subjects is different, and the hierarchy of accents characterizes the specifics of each type of culture. Within the cycle of natural sciences, the problem of understanding the truth, the laws of the development of the objective world, creating new scientific ideas, theories and hypotheses, mastering the conceptual apparatus of the language of science is being solved. Scientific theories and programs are born as a result of contemplation and observation, experiment and mental operations at various levels. In this cycle, the meanings of all categories and concepts are strictly unambiguous; they can easily be found in the corresponding scientific dictionary. They record the already «become» (past) state of the objects of study. Their purpose is a practical use of knowledge to build a civilization.
The development of man as a social being occurs through the realization of the potential of the socio-philosophical block. Its main content is social and moral values, which cannot be scientifically substantiated and proved, but are accepted by our consciousness simply because we are people, not natural beings. Entering the field of social and humanitarian knowledge, we begin to experience some difficulties in determining the meaning of various social science concepts and terms. The reason for this is that in different systems for describing the social world, meanings can include definitions that are opposite in meaning, although each of the systems fixes them quite clearly. Ideas and values of the subjects of the socio-philosophical cycle are born from the actual needs of society, but they are all facing the future [7].
The third area of human existence is the sphere of creativity, a spiritually-shaped culture. Its main instrument is the national language, the language of various fields of culture, presented in the form of various texts. Each of the types of spiritual-shaped culture is the result of individual creativity with its own unique language, and therefore fundamentally untranslatable into another semantic system. Spiritually shaped culture is a form of memory in which the experiences of people are recorded, events that take place in the past, but, of course, affect the present and future. It is in this sphere that the beauty and perfection of the world and man is comprehended.
However, the presence of these three forms of culture in the educational system does not automatically lead to the formation of a «whole person». «Whole person» arises where the educational process allows you to organically combine truth as a result of mastering theoretical knowledge, comprehension of goodness on the basis of moral and legal education and the ability to perceive and create beauty as the quintessence of aesthetic education and upbringing, quite in the spirit of antiquity [1]. The listed characteristics determine the combined cognitive map of the personal-ity and the study group, including the desire and ability for various ways of describing the world, the need to learn diverse value orientations, and the need to understand languages of different types of culture and the specifics of different stages of development of domestic and world culture. The idea of an organic connection of truth, goodness and beauty, which should be realized in the system of education and upbringing, was actively developed by philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The development of different types of culture is carried out on the basis of various texts. The philosophers of the dialogical and hermeneutic direction in the 20th century revealed the dialogical nature of the text, its ontological, epistemological, educational and educational functions. Famous Russian philosopher and philologist M. Bakhtin investigated the principles of understanding any text. He wrote: «The event of the life of the text, that is, the true essence always develops at the boundary of two consciousnesses, two subjects» 1 . One subject is the author of the «text as an object of study and reflection», and the other is the author of the «created framing the context (questioning, understanding, commenting, objecting, etc.)» 2 . The text cannot be treated as a «thing», behind it is the personality, its consciousness, and this «second consciousness, the consciousness of the perceiver, cannot be eliminated or neutralized» 3 . The meeting of subjects «in the frontier spheres» will make it possible to penetrate into the deep meaning of the text, to understand it not as a reality, reflecting only the past state of the object, but as the possibility of the emergence of new meanings that reveal the «incomplete» beingevent. Yuri Lotman in his studies concluded that the text «reveals the properties of an intel- lectual device», which, as a carrier of cultural memory, «transfers information embedded in it from outside», «transforms messages and produces new ones» [3]. Moreover, in the process of interaction with the audience, «the text ceases to be only a mediator in the act of communication. He becomes an equal interlocutor with a high degree of autonomy» [3].
Understanding the text always implies the possibility of different interpretations of its content. Reliance in teaching on the text, reading it on the principles of dialogic and hermeneutic analysis allows us to answer the fundamental philosophical question: how is it possible not only to explain, but also to understand the world around us, how is the truth of being embodied in this understanding? The difference between understanding and explanation is that when explaining, when one consciousness acts, cause-effect relationships are revealed. Understanding, on the contrary, is dialogical; it is achieved with at least two consciousnesses. This is evidence of the communicative nature of knowledge. According to G. Gadamer, genuine understanding is not only reproductive, restoring the original, «dead meaning» in the text, but always also a productive attitude. It requires constant consideration of the historical distance between the interpreter and the text, the interaction of the past and present spiritual atmosphere, which leads to the birth of an infinite number of new meanings. In this context, the idea of Lotman is significant for us on the language of education. He notes that any terms and concepts have «meaning only in relation to the model of the world of which they are a part». And «when we ascribe a word in a historical context to a «simple», «obvious» meaning, then most often the substitution of the meaning from the contemporary model of the world to the researcher occurs [3]. In order to avoid incorrect modernization of the content, the teacher should keep in mind that in teaching both social and humanitarian disciplines and the natural sciences, it is necessary to turn to different ways of understanding the world: the experience of philosophy, art, history itself. They also «declare truth that is not subject to verification by the methodological means of science» (G. Gadamer) [5].
The teacher's understanding of the dialogical nature of the text is a condition for successful interaction with the student. A variety of texts create a space of a dialogue in which there are opportunities to satisfy the spiritual needs of the participants in the «learning community», to form each one's own model of the world on the basis of personal experience and build a strategy for behavior in life. Here, the teacher and the student are equal participants in the meeting, personalities whose values are worthy of respect and can influence the essence of the dialogue. Work with the text, the development of different layers of its content contributes to the development of universal interdisciplinary skills: to defend one's own point of view, respect another, find and formulate problems, outline ways and methods of solving them.

CONCLUSION
Thus, modern education, fulfilling its role as the most important sphere of society, in determining goals and objectives should be based on the integrated use of social, humanitarian and natural sciences, philosophical and artistic-figurative knowledge. Its main goal should be the development of the personality of an «integral person», who knows the world and acts also in the interests of the whole society.
In the information society [2], given the awareness of the multiplicity and continuity of the world, it is impossible to focus on a single methodological approach and a single model of the world. Along with rationalism, other methodological approaches, such as dialogic, existentialist, hermeneutic, synergetic, have gained the right to exist. In them, it is not the object and the search for objective truth that comes to the fore, but the subject with all the richness of his inner spiritual world and subject-subject relations, both in education and in all other spheres of human existence. A parity dialogue at all levels can only provide a solution to particular problems and the survival of all mankind.