The article explores the conditions enabling the celebration within the context of philosophical, enlightening, and educational activities. The authors contemplate the role of leisure in human life, referencing Plato’s view of leisure as a prerequisite for philosophical discussion, Aristotle’s concept of intellectual leisure for the free citizen, Josef Pieper’s understanding of leisure as a means for personal and spiritual development, and Sebastian de Grazia’s perspective on the interconnection between leisure and creativity, culture, individual freedom, and society. It is argued that (...) leisure as an intellectual activity has not become customary in society since Aristotle’s time and, in the modern world, the definition of this concept is confined merely to the realm of entertainment. This limitation necessitates the search for new forms of intellectual leisure that are relevant in the context of contemporary mass culture. The authors analyze the philosophical ball as a form of intellectual leisure, particularly focusing on the years of experience in organizing annual festive events by the family philosophical club “School of Socrates” at the Central House of Artists in Moscow. The external, attributive form of the philosophical ball is linked with Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of the carnivalization of culture: its spectacles, theatricality, the presence of masks and costumes, and the involvement of all participants in a unified action. The internal content of the philosophical ball is determined by philosophical concepts, historical figures, or artistic images relevant to the specific era and culture, facilitating the perception and discussion of the proposed philosophical ideas. The narrative is further enriched by a case study detailing the methodological orchestration of a philosophical ball themed around Russian Symbolism. The authors conclude that the philosophical ball, as a form of intellectual leisure, addresses epistemological tasks and serves enlightening and educational functions: it engenders an authentic milieu of philosophical festivity, nurturing the creative impetus of its participants and facilitating a profound and universally accessible experiential odyssey into the realms of worldview and cognition. (shrink)

ABSTRACTDrawing upon the theoretical debate on the concept of common good involving, in particular, Sison and Fontrodona, I aim to show how the common good principle can serve as the basis for a new diversity perspective. Each of the three dominant diversity approaches—equality, diversity management, and inclusion—runs the ethical risk of focusing on community or individual levels, or on particular disciplines—economic, social, or moral. This article demonstrates that the common good principle could mitigate the ethical risks inherent to each of (...) these diversity approaches. There are three positive aspects to a comprehensive common good perspective: 1) it includes considering different community levels, which it connects by subsidiarity, 2) it embraces the moral, social, and economic fields, which it connects by teleological hierarchy, and 3) it avoids the risk of exclusion by generating a sense of solidarity. (shrink)