Abstract: The subject of this article is the problem of the legitimation of philosophy and the importance of philosophy at a modern university. The aim is to understand the place of philosophy at a University determined in terms of various purposes of this institution – on the one hand, the use, effectiveness and efficiency; on the other hand, the search for truth. The first purpose is associated with private interests and the second one is associated with universal values. The researcher has used the methods of problematization and contextualization. A modern problem of the university is the ambiguity of its target orientation. Looking for a solution to the problem requires an appeal to the origin of the classical university and its philosophical basis: Humboldt’s provisions about the university reform and Kant’s justification of the role of the Faculty of Philosophy. The conclusion is that philosophy, following the interests of truth, is uniquely capable and, in fact, should carry out criticism as the definition of the boundaries and conditions of use for any knowledge any regulations. Such analysis allows to describe interaction of private and public interests as the purposes of a University and legitimizes a specific role of philosophy. This is a relevant issue for modern times. 

Abstract: The subject of this research is the conditions for the practices of the search for public consensus. The practices themselves are defined by the Aristotle’s concept of golden mean, which proposes moving away from extremes. As extreme types of public consensus we introduce terror or totalitarian society (where appearance of a consensus is achieved by elimination of those who disagree) on one hand, and “contention” as the state of socio-political and cultural practices (for which it is characteristic to have heterogeneity of participants) on the other. The conditions defined in the article carry an empirical, transcendental, existential and epistemological character. The methodological course substantiates these clear practices of the search for consensus. This substantiation includes description of the extremes, demonstration of the need to avoid them, as well as definition of the conditions of this avoidance. The author’s idea of defining the practices of search for consensus, not through the positive movement towards some form of a clear consensus, but as a negative movement from extremes, can contribute to avoidance of problems of relativism of the multiculturalism, as well as the dictation of universalism.