Koinon: Being-in-common, Heterology, Post-fundamentalism

The problem of being-in-common remains a fundamental problem of philosophy, social sciences and humanities. The purpose of this article is to analyze the changes in the nature of this problem, the incentives and prospects for its formulation and solution in the late XX — early XXI centuries. Being-incommon is increasingly shifting to the focus of human existence, acquires a decisive existential significance, acts as public opinion, and as a political motivation, and as a paradigm for the social sciences and humanities. The article argues that full awareness of the role of philosophy in describing and explaining the forms of being-in-common presupposes the need for a radical reorientation of both traditional philosophical constructions and the methodology of social and humanitarian cognition. Three dimensions of this reorientation are highlighted. Firstly, this is the “new sociality”, the undecidability between “globalization” and “mondialization”, as well as the need to deconstruct the very possibility of accepting a global or phenomenal world. Secondly, it is ontoheterology, which outlines the ways of overcoming ontological fundamentalism, building an “ontology after ontotheology”. It exposes the understanding of being-in-common, the original sociality as groundless, anarchic, which arises as a direct correlate of the experience of groundlessness of existence, unrooted in any substance or common essence. Thirdly, this is postfundamentalism as a particular paradigm, style of thinking, postulating the transformation of the practices and techniques of thinking in response to the need to reposition the multiple real as immanent in thought itself. The article concludes that the three-dimensional “space” of comprehending being-in-common sets a certain direction of philosophical and socio-humanitarian research, hidden behind them general methodological tendencies, and the relationship of these tendencies with the nature of social practice.