Filosofska Dumka

RECEPTION IN PHILOSOPHY AS A SOCIAL PHENOMENON: AN ATTEMPT AT THEORISATION

2024-09-18T10:22:27+03:00

The article conceptualizes the phenomenon of reception of foreign philosophical trends and authors as a social phenomenon that demands a socio-historical approach. The author attempts to demonstrate the advantages of such a genre of the history of philosophy as the history of reception. The merit of the socio-historical approach to reception, according to the author, lies in its ability to elucidate factors hidden from a purely exegetical approach. It allows for the explanation of phenomena that are unexplained from an exegetical perspective, such as the effects of misreading and misunderstanding during the borrowing of foreign philosophical production. These effects are not random but systematic. The author also seeks to clarify Hans Joas's formulated paradox: during reception, misunderstandings arise not only between irreconcilable positions but also between similar ones.

The author focuses on the “agents” of reception, which include not only professional philosophers but also translators, publishers, commentators, whose perspectives are always shaped by their position in the social and professional space. This space has its disciplinary, ideological, and national limitations. Based on the analysis of texts from representatives of reception histories, the article formulates key elements of reception theory. Reception is viewed as a social, structured, and transformative phenomenon measured by its impacts. The article also establishes connections between types and periods of reception, each having its own purpose and logic.

The article analyzes the conditions for the international circulation of ideas and demonstrates how factors of intellectual, ideological, political, and national character determine both appropriation (successful reception) and rejection of foreign trends or authors.

MOBILIZATION AND VOCATION OF A PERSON IN A WAR TIME (essay)

2024-09-18T10:47:52+03:00

The essay is about ethical aspects of mobilization and possibilities of its acceptance by people as their own calling. Motivation is important for the success in war. Calling is mainly permanent part of motivation for the things that correspond to individual dispositions. Mobilization, however, reflects the dynamics of social challenges, and its motives are temporary. Contrary to the internal freedom in personal choice and realization of calling, the motive of mobilization reflects external necessity of person to respond to the challenges from society and state. Irresponsibility and escape from mobilization undermine the possibilities of society to survive as well as civil maturity and ethical dignity of a person. Social irresponsibility of a person questions her or his idea of calling. However not always necessary, but positive reception of mobilization can coincide with understanding of calling by person. In the end, the author remarks that ethical motivation is present at the both sides of military confrontation. Therefore, acceptance of the challenges of mobilization by people, as well as the attempts to discredit it, are the elements and the play of war itself which the nation must pay regard to.

Eighth Nelly Ivanova-Georgievska Prize Competition

2024-09-18T10:51:21+03:00

Competition for receiving the Nellie Ivanova-Georgievska Award for young researchers for the best scientific research in the following areas: Phenomenology, Hermeneutics, Philosophy of Laughter, Philosophy of Dance.

LAUGHTER AS A SYMPTOM OF MODERNITY: ANALYSIS OF DEMARCATIONALITY AND INTERPASSIVITY OF LAUGHTER

2024-09-18T10:53:41+03:00

The author of the article aims to explore the functions and tasks of laughter in the context of modern life, as well as the difficulties that people face today, including stress and the search for identity. She proves this by refuting two common positions that exist in the academic space: 1) the understanding of laughter as a means of destroying hierarchy or as a transgressive force with the destructive potential to expose social ills; 2) the contagious nature of laughter. In the author's opinion, these positions are not able to describe and explain the phenomena taking place in the modern world.

Instead of interpreting laughter as a transgression of social roles, the author proposes to understand it as a means of demarcation, that is, as an act that affirms social roles rather than destroys them. According to the author, through the act of laughter, a person demonstrates not only an understanding of the essence of a joke, but also support for the values embedded in it. Using the Lacanian notion of paroisse and the analysis of designated places for laughter, the author argues that agreement with implicit values in a joke makes it possible to identify with a certain group of people, as common values are one of the factors that unite individuals. The joke and the reaction to it with laughter become a way of communication, where the subject identifies himself in the act of laughter. The author concludes that modern people assert their identity through laughter.

Using the example of contemporary comedy genres, the author demonstrates the emergence of a new interpassive function of laughter, which is opposed to its contagiousness. The interpassive nature of laughter has emerged due to the need of a modern person to replace their emotions. It can be seen as a symptom of the modern state of the subject, who is under constant stress. Due to the overloaded life, modern subject is forced to push emotions to the background. The culture of consumption and pleasure has become so widespread and accessible that the individual does not refuse certain ways of enjoyment, but transfers this function to other objects. The modern subject no longer has to take on the exhausting role of a laughing person, and thanks to the interpersonal nature of laughter, laughs and enjoys through the Other. The author concludes that such a transfer allows the modern person to feel that the action of laughter has been performed.

RECEPTION OF LIMINAL EXPERIENCE

2024-09-18T10:57:56+03:00

This article explores theoretical aspects of liminality, tracing the evolution of its concept, from its role in ancient ritual structures to its interpretation in conflict theory. In this context, liminality is understood as a transformative experience characterized by high intensity that significantly affects the subject experiencing it. This subject can be both individual and collective, reflecting the wide range of applications of liminality experiences in both personal and public spheres. The phenomenological tradition, especially in its recent developments, has positioned itself as a philosophy of experience, providing a rich and fruitful methodology for studying the conditions that make experience possible. By exploring the basic premises of experience, or more precisely, of intense experience, the discussion inevitably leads to the concept of corporeality. The body, as a site of experience, becomes a key factor in understanding how intense experiences are mediated and processed. In addition, this article explores the relationship between different types of intense experiences and the ways in which individuals or communities support and channel them. These experiences are transformative in nature and can lead to significant changes in individuals or collectives, highlighting the importance of understanding the mechanisms behind this liminality state. The multifaceted nature of liminality, including both individual and social transformations, highlights its relevance not only in philosophical discourse but also in practical fields such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Drawing on this theoretical framework, this article seeks to deepen our understanding of liminality as a powerful force that shapes human experience, gaining insights into its transformative potential and the role of the body in mediating such experiences. This research highlights the importance of liminality as a dynamic process that shifts the boundaries of identity at both the individual and collective levels. By understanding the mechanisms of this transformative state, we can gain a deeper understanding of how people and societies adapt, grow, and reinvent themselves in moments of dramatic change.

THE PHENOMENON OF RESENTMENT IN CULTURE: NIETZSCHE, SCHELER, FUKUYAMA

2024-09-18T11:01:26+03:00

The article delves into the concept of ressentiment within the context of phenomenology and its profound impact on the formation of moral values and socio-cultural dynamics. Drawing on the ideas of Max Scheler, which are partially rooted in Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy and extended through Francis Fukuyama’s works, the paper explores how ressentiment serves as a critical factor in transforming various spheres of human social activity. The article identifies ressentiment as a driving force behind the crisis of humanistic ideals and examineі its pervasive effect on contemporary values. It emphasizes the importance of understanding this phenomenon in shaping socio-cultural dynamics, particularly in relation to moral-legal perceptions and the collective shifts in society’s values. By examining the internal conflict experienced by individuals influenced by ressentiment, the article sheds light on its role in moral conflicts and social tensions. Furthermore, the work underscores the relevance of Scheler’s phenomenology and Fukuyama’s exploration of identity politics in addressing the challenges posed by ressentiment. It highlights the need to grasp ressentiment not merely as a sociological phenomenon but as a complex psychological experience with deep social implications. The study also opens avenues for future research into how ressentiment influences modern political ideologies and cultural narratives, impacting both individual identities and collective consciousness. Additionally, the article discusses the implications of ressentiment in the digital age, where social media amplifies these sentiments, further polarizing societies and intensifying identity-based conflicts. By providing a focused and nuanced analysis of ressentiment, the article emphasizes its significance in the evolution and transformation of cultural and moral values in the modern world, making it a crucial topic for ongoing philosophical inquiry. This exploration is essential for understanding the roots of contemporary societal divisions and offers insights into potential pathways for addressing these deep-seated issues.

Editorial

2024-09-18T09:49:54+03:00

Editorial

Foreword

2024-09-18T09:54:55+03:00

HISTORIOGRAPHY OF UKRAINIAN PHILOSOPHY: Tradition and Perspectives

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF UKRAINIAN PHILOSOPHY AND THE STUDIES IN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF PHILOSOPHY IN UKRAINE

2024-09-18T09:56:59+03:00

Drawing on recent publications on studies in historiography of philosophy in French-, English-, and German-speaking philosophy, the author clarifies the subject matter and tasks of studies in historiography of philosophy as a historico-philosophical approach, in particular, counting among such subjects the images of philosophy's past constructed by histories of philosophy, as well as the historiographical attitudes of historians of philosophy and the contexts and factors that determine these historiographical attitudes.

The article analyses the conceptions and implementations of three projects of studies in historiography of philosophy that have taken place in Ukraine in recent decades: the project of “History of Historico-philosophical Science”, led by Yu. Kushakov in the 1980s and 2000s and dedicated to the study of historico-philosophical conceptions of German and Russian philosophers of the 19th and early 20th; S. Rudenko's study of post-Soviet methodological approaches to the history of Ukrainian philosophy (2012); and the Ukrainian part of the bilateral project “Philosophy in the system of national culture: comparative analysis of historico-philosophical studies in Belarus and Ukraine” (2011-2012), led by V. Yevarousky and S. Yosypenko.

Based on the results of the latter project and on his more recent research, the author outlines the socio-political, general philosophical and institutional context in which the historiography of Ukrainian philosophy was formed and functioned during the 20th century; analyses the images of the history of Ukrainian philosophy created by D. Tschižewskij and V. Horskyi, which embody two extreme points in the development of the historiography of Ukrainian philosophy in the 20th century; and points out the changes in the general philosophical and institutional context of historico-philosophical research in independent Ukraine and the consequences of these changes for the further development of the historiography of Ukrainian philosophy.

FROM PEOPLE TO NATION: THE PRAGUE PERIOD OF THE HISTORY OF UKRAINIAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

2024-09-18T10:01:25+03:00

The author of the article, based on a study of the writings of intellectuals from the Ukrainian diaspora in interwar Czechoslovakia, primarily professors at the Ukrainian Free University in Prague (1921-1945), formulates some ideas and trends and defines the Prague period of Ukrainian political philosophy. This period is determined by the formation of a powerful centre of Ukrainian intellectual life in Prague, a kind of "Noah's Ark" of Ukrainian emigration. The Prague period of the history of Ukrainian thought in exile is characterised by intellectual freedom of ideas and discussions, which is different from the situation in the postwar period. Among the main topics of discussion are the problems of philosophy of history and nation-building (national mentality, consciousness, national philosophy), problems of philosophy and theory of law, and discussions between modern ideologies. From the perspective of the history of ideas, the Prague period was a continuation of the history of Ukrainian centrism, the 19th-century Ukrainophile discourse that largely continued Drahomanov's ideas of "Hromadivstvo", combining classical liberal notions with an awareness of the importance of both Ukrainian national struggle and social emancipation. This calls into question the linear progressivist scheme of Ukrainian intellectual history, in which the period of "narodnytstvo/populism" is "dialectically sublated" by the modernist period, and "federalism" cedes ground to "independence" (according to I. Lysiak-Rudnytskyi), thus, the "Ukrainophile" stage of the development of the philosophy of the Ukrainian national idea has been fulfilled (in the terms of V. Horsky), and the Drahomanov's worldview had to logically surrender to the ideas of integral nationalism. The article challenges these evolutionist schemes and emphasises that the Prague period of Ukrainian intellectual history contains many useful ideas for the history of Ukrainian liberalism and centrism in general.

CONTEXTUALIZATION OF D. CHYZHEVSKY’S HISTORICAL-PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPT: FROM PHILOSOPHY IN UKRAINE (1926) TO ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY IN UKRAINE (1931)

2024-09-18T10:05:32+03:00

Chyzhevsky’s work Essays on the History of Philosophy in Ukraine has become a fundamental study of the history of Ukrainian philosophy since its publication in 1931. But even earlier, Chyzhevsky wrote the work Philosophy in Ukraine. An Attempt at Historiography (1926), its first part had a second edition (1929) and contained some additions and clarifications. Chyzhevsky’s reaction to the reviews of the first edition of his Philosophy in Ukraine included in the second edition of this work is interesting and worthy of attention. In it, he responds to the comments and objections made by the reviewers of the first edition of the work (by Y. Kolubovsky, V. Zaikyn, I. Mirchuk, S. Hessen). This reaction has a twofold nature. On the one hand, Chyzhevsky admits that some points in his work require correction, in particular, the assessment of the role of Protestantism in the development of Ukrainian philosophical thought, the need for a more detailed consideration of the worldview of such thinkers as Gogol, Kostomarov, Shevchenko. On the other hand, Chyzhevsky, clarifying his position, continues to defend his principles, according to which he includes certain authors in the “canon” of Ukrainian philosophy. At the same time, he still admits that some authors should be included in this “canon” (... Spir). Chyzhevsky also responds to the Marxist review of P. Hanin (P. Demchuk), but does not stop at her meaningful remarks. However, some of these remarks are not unfounded, as they relate to Chyzhevsky’s evaluative judgments expressed about Skovoroda and philosophy in Kharkiv after Schad. A more careful analysis and comparison of the two editions of Philosophy in Ukraine (1926, 1929) and Essays on the History of Philosophy in Ukraine in the cases of Skovoroda, Schad, and Jakob proves that Chyzhevsky changed his initial, sometimes harsh, evaluative judgments to neutral ones. There is no reason to definitely assert that such changes occurred under the direct influence of reviews. However, there are reasons to affirm that many innovations and reassessments in Essays correlate with the remarks formulated in the reviews. In contrast to Western European favorable reviews of Essays (S. Hessen, G. Frolovsky, V. Zaikyn, D. Doroshenko, N. Lossky), the reaction of Soviet philosophy turned out to be unscientific and ideologically engaged (Y. Bilyk, V. Yurynets).

THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF EARLY NEO-THOMISM AND THE STUDY OF THE VIEWS OF UKRAINIAN NEOTOMISTS OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE XX CENTURY

2024-09-18T10:10:50+03:00

In the article, the author substantiates the thesis that the study of the historiography of early Neo-Thomism is extremely important for research on the history of its Ukrainian branch and, accordingly, the creation of its Ukrainian historiography. Early Neotomism is a significant stage in the development of Neotomism. Under its influence, Ukrainian neo-Thomists Andrei Sheptytsky, J. Slipyj, and M. Konrad formed their views. Its study is an important part of the historiography of Ukrainian Neo-Thomism. The study of early Neo-Thomism helps not only to objectively assess the views of Ukrainian Neo-Thomists, but also to distinguish the views of thinkers who do not belong to it, as in the case of H. Kostelnyk.

The historiography of the issue includes not only the works of Ukrainian thinkers and studies devoted to their views, but also the sources of Neotomism, the works of foreign Neotomists, and studies that help to reconstruct the inherent context of the ideas of the representatives of the movement in Ukraine. The most important of these types of works are the encyclicals of the Popes and documents of the Church, the works of Neo-Thomist philosophers, and the achievements of researchers of this period. They help to recreate the context and clarify the features of early Neo-Thomism. The main one is objective idealism, which is used to criticise subjectivism in philosophy. The next feature is the reference not directly to the works of Thomas Aquinas, but to the encyclicals of the Popes, Church documents, and the works of famous Neo-Thomists. Thus, the absence of direct references to St Thomas is not a reason to think that a thinker cannot be a Neotomist.

The study of early Neo-Thomism is an important part of the historiography of Ukrainian Neo-Thomism. His research will make it possible not only to objectively assess the views of Ukrainian neo-Thomists, but also to distinguish the views of thinkers who do not belong to it. As a result, it can be argued that the study of the historiography of early neo-Thomism is extremely important for research on the history of its Ukrainian branch and, accordingly, for the creation of the historiography of the issue.

THE MAIN DIRECTIONS OF RESEARCH ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL HERITAGE OF THE EARLY 20th CENTURY KYIV THEOLOGICAL ACADEMY AT THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF “KYIV-MOHYLA ACADEMY”

2024-09-18T10:14:24+03:00

The article is devoted to the analysis of research on the philosophical heritage of the Kyiv Theological Academy of the early twentieth century at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. The experience of this particular institution in studying the philosophical heritage of the Kyiv Theological Academy of the early twentieth century, which began to be comprehended in Ukraine only in the 1990s due to the taboo of this issue in the Soviet period, is interesting both for its systematic nature (it goes back about 30 years) and for the wide range of research, due to the novelty of the subject of historical and philosophical research and the large source base that needed to be processed (books, journal and newspaper publications, archival materials). The article also focuses on the fact that the study of philosophy at the Kyiv Theological Academy of the early twentieth century takes place at the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, which simultaneously studies the theological heritage of the Kyiv Theological Academy of this period and, in particular, the history of ancient and German classical philosophy, which were the focus of the scientific interests of the professors of the Kyiv Theological Academy.

The analysis of the corpus of historical and philosophical publications by the specialists of the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy allows us to represent the main spectrum of directions of their study of the philosophical heritage of the Kyiv Theological Academy of the early twentieth century, namely

comprehension and articulation of the basic methodological principles of research (in particular, cultural, biographical and source studies approaches);
reconstruction of the peculiarities of teaching philosophical disciplines at the Kyiv Theological Academy;
analysis of the topics and specifics of philosophical research at the KTA;
study of the philosophical heritage of individual personalities, taking into account biographical, institutional, cultural and historical contexts.

In addition to a substantive analysis of the scientific achievements of the NaUKMA specialists, highlighting the main directions of their study of the philosophical heritage of the Kyiv Theological Academy of the early twentieth century, the article also examines the fundamental two-volume encyclopedia ‘Kyiv Theological Academy in Names: 1819-1924’.

NORMATIVE REASON VS. ANTHROPOLOGY: SOMETHING ABOUT KANT’S TRANSCENDENTAL SUBJECT

2024-09-18T10:18:27+03:00

The article is devoted to the problem of the relationship between normative reason and anthropology in Kant's critical philosophy. This problem is considered in close connection with the concept of the transcendental subject, the basic concept of Kantian philosophy, as this concept applies to both theoretical and practical philosophy; this subject is also manifested in the aesthetic power of judgements and judgements of expediency. Attention is drawn to several levels of Kant's transcendental subject, where the transcendental unity of apperception, Self, is of primary importance. It is this level that Kant considered as the highest point of synthesis - both inner experience (mental) and outer experience (empirical experience) since the transcendental Self accompanies all acts of consciousness, will and power of judgement, both aesthetic and expediency judgement. In addition, other levels of transcendental subjectivity are considered, which relate to the activity of reason, especially practical reason, which is associated with the normative activity of the subject. In this context, the interaction of Kant's anthropology and its various models, with what the German philosopher defined as anthroponomy is analysed. Various aspects of this concept, its importance for the understanding of Kant's doctrine of the normative activity of reason, its ability to produce normative and legal norms of human common life, and the relationship between transcendental and anthropological aspects in this constitution are considered.

Thus, Kant's discovery of anthroponomy as one of the basic dimensions of the transcendental subject, its intersection with the anthropological characteristics of man, is a significant achievement of critical philosophy. We are only on the verge of clarifying the semantic possibilities of this extremely productive conceptual construction of the eminent German philosopher.