Filosofska Dumka

VIRTUE ETHICS – ITS PLACE IN MODERN PHILOSOPHY AND IN UKRAINIAN REALITIES

Xenija ZBOROVSKA — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

Contemporary academic discourse in moral philosophy is structured almost exclusively around the triad of "deontology – consequentialism – virtue ethics." However, this "standard narrative" is often perceived as a constant, lacking proper reflection regarding the historical and conceptual reasons for its emergence. This article is dedicated to a critical analysis of the epistemological premises that led to the dominance of these three models, and to explaining the phenomenon of the "renaissance" of virtue ethics in the second half of the 20th century.

The author proposes a reconstruction of the historical-philosophical process of the fragmentation of ethical knowledge that determined the current configuration of normative theories, drawing upon the seminal texts of E. Anscombe, A. MacIntyre, and other leading theorists of contemporary virtue ethics.

The article analyzes the historical prerequisites for the formation of the contemporary ethical landscape. It demonstrates that the dominance of deontology and consequentialism resulted from the Enlightenment's attempt to preserve the normativity of morality following the abandonment of Aristotelian teleology and the theological concept of "Divine Law." The premise that deontology in a secular context has transformed into a "law without a legislator" (E. Anscombe) explains the crisis of international legal mechanisms, which have proven incapable of stopping the aggression against Ukraine due to the lack of real enforcement power. Simultaneously, consequentialism (utilitarianism), which is oriented towards the calculation of consequences, demonstrates its ethical inadequacy in the context of war, as it legitimizes the logic of realpolitik and compromises with evil for the sake of avoiding escalation, thereby contradicting the existential choice of Ukrainian society. It is argued that virtue ethics was "added" to the ethical discourse not merely as an alternative, but as a necessary reconstruction of the lost teleological perspective within philosophical anthropology. Using the example of the Ukrainian resistance, it is demonstrated that in conditions of "catastrophe" (A. MacIntyre's term), when external institutional frameworks collapse, the character of the moral agent becomes the sole source of normativity. The phenomena of volunteerism, civic resilience, and military valor are interpreted as manifestations of phronesis (practical wisdom) and the restoration of the narrative unity of the community's life.

The author concludes that the contemporary ethical triad reflects the stages of the disintegration of the classical tradition. The Ukrainian war experience serves as a verifier of these theories, attesting that in limit situations, the aretaic paradigm proves to be the most viable; it restores agency to the individual and the community, replacing abstract rules with a living ethos of dignity and struggle.

How to study Nietzsche’s influence in Ukraine? Periodization as a structural framework for the study of reception

Vitalii MUDRAKOV — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

This article is carried out within the framework of the project “Nietzsche and Ukrainian Identity” at the Friedrich Nietzsche College (Klassik Stiftung Weimar) and represents the first part of its methodological grounding.

This article offers a methodological reflection on how to study the influence of Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy within the Ukrainian intellectual space. It proceeds from the observation that existing research on Nietzsche’s reception in Ukraine remains fragmentary and lacks a coherent analytical framework capable of accounting for its historical variability and cultural specificity. Against this background, the article advances a structured methodological proposal aimed at reconfiguring the study of philosophical influence beyond descriptive or purely interpretative approaches.

The central hypothesis of the article is that Nietzsche’s influence in Ukraine can be treated as an axiomatic assumption in a heuristic sense. This shift allows the analysis to move away from attempts to prove the existence of influence toward examining the forms, conditions, and modes of its manifestation. On this basis, the article develops a threefold methodological framework.

First, it introduces the notion of the axiomatic character of influence as a productive research premise. Second, it conceptualizes the possibility of reception as a functional category dependent on specific historical and political configurations. Within this framework, periodization – divided into imperial, Soviet, and independent periods – is proposed as a structural analytical tool that enables the differentiation of conditions under which Nietzsche’s philosophy could be accessed, interpreted, or instrumentalized. Third, the article reconceptualizes reception as a process of orientation and transformation, drawing on contemporary Nietzsche scholarship to argue that Nietzsche’s philosophy operates not merely as a body of ideas but as a factor that reshapes cultural horizons and frameworks of self-understanding.

The novelty of the proposed approach is twofold. First, it consists in combining periodization with a functional understanding of reception and an orientation-based model of cultural transformation. Second, and more fundamentally, it lies in a reinterpretation of periodization itself. Periodization is understood not only as a historical horizontal that orders material chronologically, but as a structural vertical that organizes the conditions of possibility of reception.

Accordingly, the article develops a methodological framework for analysing Nietzsche’s reception in Ukraine as a dynamic process of interaction between philosophical content and historically situated conditions of its actualization. This approach opens new possibilities for both a systematic analysis of Ukrainian intellectual history and for its integration into broader international studies of Nietzsche’s reception.

What components does a specific scientific theory consist of? (part 2)

Oleksandr GABOVICH, Volodymyr KUZNETSOV — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

By specific theories, we mean scientific theories that focus on particular types of material reality or phenomena, such as elementary particles, plasma, superconducting materials, quantum tunnelling, chemical reactions, gene regulation, tectonic plate movement, and the Universe. After examining various visions of the theory division into components proposed by some of the prominent scientists (Isaak Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Heinrich Rudolf Hertz, Pierre Maurice Marie Duhem, Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, Albert Einstein, Norman Robert Campbel, Percy Williams Bridgman, and Gerardus (Gerard) ’t Hooft) and philosophers of science (Carl/Karl Raimund Popper, Thomas Samuel Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Karl Feyerabend, Mario Augusto Bunge, Ronald Nelson Giere, Joseph Donald Sneed, Wolfgang Balzer, and Carlos Ulises Moulines), one finds that these visions fail to consider all essential components and omit many important details, even of the chosen components. Incomplete and undifferentiated visions, on the one hand, overlook many critical features of a theory, including its development and connections with other theories. On the other hand, such visions often generate pseudo-problems, such as the incomparability of classical and quantum theories. As theories underpin the modern sciences, such perspectives lead to oversimplified and overly general understandings of science and its progress. The article briefly emphasizes the significance and utility of the polysystemic vision of specific theories and their development within history, philosophy, sociology, and pedagogy of science. The first part of the article presents the types of components and physicists’ views of theories. The second part addresses the views of philosophers and our conclusions. We emphasize that in the first part, we described a bridge between Newton’s unfading template of scientific theory and the newest trends in the interpretation of modern physical theories. It is a clear example of the Western scientific tradition of both continuity and change, so that the final product looks different, but its structure remains stable, familiar, and convenient for professionals. That is why it is quite possible for a modern-day scientist to read Newton and find statements useful for his practical activity, not to talk about specific pearls created by the genius.

Multi-vector study of fairy tales in the universal cultural paradigm (review of fairy tale studies by Professor O. Kyryliuk)

Yuriy ISHCHENKO — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

Professor Oleksandr Kyryliuk's monograph "Universals of Culture and Semiotics of Discourse. Fairy Tale and Ritual", the idea of which is based on the basic formula "life-death-immortality" proposed and substantiated by him, certainly became a "new word" in the structural study of the fairy tale.This idea was picked up and adopted by other well-known specialists, as evidenced by the fact that despite its rather "respectable" age, the monograph continues to be among the most cited works of the scientist. The main significance of this fundamental work lies in the substantiation Prof. O. Kyryliuk's position that the identical structuring of fairy tales and rituals is due not to direct borrowing, but to common cultural universals. In general, the fairy tale research of this author can be classified as a consideration of the transformation of later versions of fairy tales compared to their early versions, which allows restoring the already lost meaning of the latter. In other cases, O. Kyryliuk, through a return to the archaic prototype of a modern fairy tale, in which its folklore and ritual basis still remains transparent, reconstructs the already lost meaning of a later fairy tale. The third direction of this author's fairy tale research is a review of the usual interpretation of the fairy tale and its reinterpretation, which, in his opinion, does not distort, but rather reproduces its authentic content. The fourth vector of the professor's fairy tale studies is an appeal to the problem of creating literary fairy tales or other literary works based on folklore. The fifth direction of the fairy tale researcher's study is the consideration of analytical and descriptive languages of describing fairy tale narratives. That is, along with the substantive analysis of folklore and fairy tale material, O. Kyryliuk resorted to a certain "methodological reflection", when his attention was attracted not by the material itself, but by the scientific languages of its description. At the same time, a number of such languages of description, in particular V. Propp, he subjected to constructive criticism on the basis of the ideas of K. Popper. No less important for him was the desire to offer his own versions of solving the problem of classifying fairy tale material, in particular, the creation of an index of fairy tale motifs on universal-cultural principles. This is the sixth vector of the scientist's fairy tale research. An important feature of all these studies is the conceptual integrity of the applied methods of analysis, which is based on the author's idea of categories of boundary grounds and worldview codes as universals of culture, which has acquired and continues to have wide implementation in various fields of scientific knowledge and is developing in the works of famous scientists. This article is devoted to a general overview of the many years of work of Prof. O. Kyryliuk in fairy tale studies, which has been reflected in authoritative publications.

History of Indian Philosophy by Egon Bondy

Yurii Zavhorodnii — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

Here is a review of the book “Indian Philosophy: Notes on the History of Philosophy. I (Prague, 2026)” by the renowned Czech writer, poet, philosopher and historian of philosophy Egon Bondy (born Zbyněk Fišer, 1930–2007). Particular attention is paid to the foreword and afterword, prepared by contemporary Czech historians of philosophy and the editors of the volume, Jiří Holba and Petr Kužel. The review also includes translations of two short excerpts from the book. One concerns the Buddhist thinker Āryadeva, the other Chaitanya, the founder of the Acintya-bhedābheda, a Vaiṣṇava school of Vedānta.

On denoting (translated by B. Shumskyi, A. Vasylchenko)

Bohdan SHUMSKYI — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

On denoting (translated by B. Shumskyi, A. Vasylchenko)

DENOTING "ON DENOTING": PHILOSOPHICAL REMARKS BY A TRANSLATOR

Bohdan SHUMSKYI — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

The article presents the translator’s commentary of the first Ukrainian translation of Bertrand Russell’s “On Denoting” (1905).

The first part of the article examines the conceptual and philosophical significance of the translated text. Particular attention is devoted to Russell’s theory of denoting (the theory of descriptions), developed to clarify the logical structure of descriptive sentences in natural language. The study analyzes the notion of the denoting phrase and its role in the construction of propositional meaning. Denoting phrase considered as a predicative part of a sentence. The study explores the function of determiners and quantifiers in the formation of definite, indefinite, and “empty” descriptions, as well as the distinction between primary and secondary occurrence. The epistemological and ontological dimensions of Russell’s theory are also discussed, especially the distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description, which demonstrates how linguistic description supplements and extends simple apprehensional cognition. The article highlights the fundamental difference between Russell’s approach and logical positivist interpretations, particularly A. J. Ayer’s account. To illustrate the continuing relevance of Russell’s theory within contemporary philosophy of language, the discussion engages with interpretations and developments proposed by David Kaplan, Saul Kripke, Nathan Salmon, Stephen Schiffer, and Stephen Neale.

The second part provides a detailed justification of the translation choices adopted for the article’s key philosophical terms. It outlines a methodological preference for the transliteration of specialized technical vocabulary lacking precise Ukrainian equivalents. Particular attention is given to the translation of such terms as denoting, denoting phrase, meaning, proposition, acquaintance, and primary/secondary occurrence, as well as to the rendering of the English articles “a” and “the.” The study seeks to establish a terminological foundation for future translations and scholarly engagement with Russell’s philosophical legacy within Ukrainian-language philosophical discourse.

Editorial

Vitaliy NECHIPORENKO — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

Editorial

Foreword

Serhii YOSYPENKO — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

Foreword

ALEXANDRE CHOULGUINE’S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. ARTICLE I: FROM THE FRENCH REVOLUTION TO THE UKRAINIAN REVOLUTION

Serhii YOSYPENKO — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

The article is the first part of a study devoted to the philosophy of history of Alexandre Choulguine (1889–1960), a Ukrainian statesman, diplomat, and scholar. Based on an analysis of the corpus of works and the political and intellectual trajectory of A. Chouguine, the article draws a number of conclusions, including that his corpus of works is divided into two nearly equal parts — Ukrainian-language and French-language – and that his French-language writings remain the least studied. A. Choulguine’s life trajectory may be divided into three periods: his studies at Petrograd University and his professional formation as a historian and researcher (1908–1917); his active political and public activity from the Revolution of 1917 until the WWII; and, finally, his concentration on scholarly research after the WWII. As a publicist and communicator, A. Choulguine worked in two directions: defending his own political position within the Ukrainian movement (primarily in Ukrainian) and advocating for the recognition of Ukraine’s independence in the West, as well as promoting knowledge about Ukraine and Ukrainian history (primarily in French). As a research, he worked in the fields of the national question and the philosophy of history, and it was in these fields that he published his “major works” in French.

The article demonstrates that A. Choulguine’s views on the philosophy of history were formed within the context of the historiographical field in which he specialized as a historian — the history of Western Europe, above all the French Revolution. At the same time, his understanding of history, formed within a purely academic context, was tested by the Ukrainian Revolution: it was precisely the experience of this revolution that not only transformed him from an academic historian into a public intellectual and communicator, but also shaped A. Choulguine’s historical consciousness and philosophy of history.

CZECH-UKRAINIAN PHILOSOPHICAL DIALOGUE IN INTERWAR CZECHOSLOVAKIA: PRELIMINARY REFLECTIONS

Volodymyr VOLKOVSKYI — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

This article was supported by the Researchers at Risk Fellowship of the Czech Academy of Sciences.

In this article, the author presents the preliminary results of a study examining the Czech-Ukrainian philosophical dialogue in interwar Czechoslovakia. The research focuses on the texts and speeches of Ukrainian thinkers and public figures whose works can be classified as philosophical, the reception of Czech philosophical ideas and approaches by Ukrainian authors, and the corresponding reception of Ukrainian thinkers and ideas by the Czech academic community and the general public. The author examines this philosophical dialogue within the context of broader cultural and literary relations. Based on an analysis of translations, reviews, commentaries, and selected works, the author concludes that Czech-Ukrainian cultural relations in the interwar period underwent various phases of development and were moderately intense, though relatively asymmetric. The First Czechoslovak Republic became a refuge for many Ukrainian émigrés – a space where, under conditions of relative freedom, Ukrainian culture, particularly political-philosophical thought, and philosophy in general, actively developed. While Ukrainian authors systematically engaged with Czech ideas (the most striking example being the Ukrainian attitude toward T. G. Masaryk, which even included proclaiming a mission to spread "Masaryk’s invisible church" throughout the entire Slavic world), Czech publicists and public figures showed a significantly less intense interest. This is evidenced by a limited number of translations, with their focus shifting toward a more active conceptualization of the role and place of Transcarpathia (Subcarpathian Rus) within the Czech and Slavic cultural space. The figure of Dmytro Chyzhevsky stands apart; he actively collaborated with Czech Bohemists and scholars of the early modern period (such as Antonín Škárka and others). The author highlights the role of prominent individuals such as Ivan Mirchuk, Olgerd-Hyppolit Boczkowski, Fedir Shcherbyna, Stepan Smal-Stotskyi, and Ivan Bryk, and from the Czech side, Ivan Olbracht, Antonín Hartl, Jaroslav Bidlo, Jaromír Nečas, František Tichý, Lubor Niederle, Zdeněk Nejedlý, Jiří Polívka, and Jan Hanuš Máchal. Finally, the author emphasizes the preliminary nature of these findings, outlining the existing gaps that still require distinct, dedicated research.

TWO NARRATIVES ON MYKOLA GOGOL: “Gogol: Artist and Thinker” (1952) by Dmytro Chyzhevskyi and “N. V. Gogol” (1961) by Vasyl Zenkovskyi

Nataliia FILIPENKO — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

The article examines two interpretations of the work of the outstanding writer of the 19th century Mykola Gogol (1809–1852) offered by the renowned philosophers of Ukrainian origin, Dmytro Chyzhevskyi (1894–1977) and Vasyl Zenkovskyi (1881–1962). Gogol’s literary legacy was the subject of their scholarly research for 50 years. The article devotes considerable attention to the similarities in the authors’ life and academic trajectories, which first intersected in 1915 at St. Vladimir’s University in Kyiv, as well as to their research interests and the history of their intellectual exchange, including discussions related to M. Gogol’s work. The analysis focuses on two publications: D. Chyzhevskyi’s article “Gogol: Artist and Thinker” (1952) and V. Zenkovskyi’s book “N. V. Gogol” (1961), both of which the authors themselves considered landmark works in their research on this topic. The concepts developed by both authors are presented in detail, with the similarities and differences between them highlighted. It is noted that both scholars defended the idea of the unity of the artist and thinker in M. Gogol, rejecting the claim of a fundamental distinction between different stages of the writer’s creative work. At the same time, the article points out certain differences between the researchers, both in terms of their ideas and research strategies. The article presents D. Chyzhevskyi’s interpretation of M. Gogol’s artistic work, based on an analysis of the specific features of the writer’s language and artistic techniques, as well as on the recognition of their aim to desacralize existing reality and demonstrate its distortion and unreality in relation to the world created by God. It is noted that this approach allowed D. Chyzhevskyi to challenge the commonly accepted views both on M. Gogol’s realism and on the semantic gap between Gogol the satirist and Gogol the preacher. Attention is drawn to the researcher’s thesis that Gogol’s satire, by rejecting the normality of sin and evil, paves the way for the assertion of the necessity to transform the existing world. The article examines the peculiarities of V. Zenkovskyi’s reconstruction of M. Gogol’s life and work. It is shown that, unlike D. Chizhevskyi, for whom Gogol appears as an artist and thinker, in Zenkovskyi’s interpretation the writer is presented in three dimensions—as an artist, thinker, and personality. It is demonstrated that, for Zenkovskyif, Gogol as an artist combined the traits of a realist and a romantic; Gogol as a thinker evolved from aesthetic criticism of culture to criticism of its secular nature, from aesthetic romanticism to a Christian worldview, and from non-denominationalism to Orthodoxy. It is noted that a central place in Zenkovskyi’s study is occupied by the exploration of Gogol’s significance as a personality, as someone who not only declared the necessity of transforming the world through the transformation of each individual, but also sought to realize this in his own life.

IVAN MIRCHUK’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE HISTORY OF UKRAINIAN PHILOSOPHY

Vitalii TERLETSKY — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

The figure of Ivan Mirchuk (1891–1961) still remains something phenomenal, but still underestimated in the intellectual life of the Ukrainian diaspora of the 1920s–1960s. A philosopher, cultural theorist, talented organizer of science, and an excellent teacher, he simultaneously left a noticeable mark on the complex processes of forming and constituting the history of Ukrainian philosophy as a distinctive area of Ukrainian culture. His studies on specific issues in the history of national thought significantly enriched our knowledge about the spread of Wolffism in Ukraine, about the reception of German philosophy in Ukrainian intellectual tradition, about the specifics of Slavic philosophy, about the originality of the philosophical thought of H. Skovoroda, and about the worldview of Lesia Ukrainka. But the fact that they were published in foreign (mainly German) languages gives Mirchuk’s works special significance, which made it possible for the Western scientific world to become familiar with the results and conclusions of Ukrainian-speaking researchers. At the same time, Mirchuk’s activities were multifaceted: in the 1920s and 1930s, he published many reviews of the latest works on Ukrainian philosophy and culture, and these reviews appeared in foreign periodicals in foreign languages. In addition, Mirchuk regularly published reports on scientific life in Europe and on the organization of scientific institutions of Ukrainian diaspora, which was also done in foreign languages. Mirchuk’s organizational skills were manifested in the establishment of the Ukrainian Scientific Institute in Berlin and in the restoration of the Ukrainian Free University in Munich. These institutions were to play the role of “mediators” between Ukraine and the West, which again contributed to the recognition of the Ukrainian intellectual tradition in the Western cultural and scientific environment. Such versatile, yet always focused on the importance of Ukrainian, activity, which was quite recognized during the philosopher’s lifetime in both Europe and America, gives grounds to assert that I. Mirchuk played a leading role in affirming and constituting the history of Ukrainian philosophy.

AD MEMORIAM AD MEMORIAM In memory of Jürgen Habermas

Vitaliy NECHIPORENKO — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0300

In memory of Jürgen Habermas (18 June 1929 – 14 March 2026)