Filosofska Dumka

A. Yermolenko (moderator), S. Yosypenko, Ye. Golovakha, O. Bilyi, O. Maiboroda, M. Boychenko, T. Gardashuk, V. Zagorodniuk, Ye. Bystrytskyi, O. Mishalova, V. Kuznetsov, N. Viatkina, V. Nechyporenko)

The article examines the problems of philosophy development in Ukraine during the thirty years of independence; an attempt is made to periodize this development. It is shown that the independence of Ukraine, in addition to the state, political and economic dimensions, also contains a spiritual component associated with religious, cultural, linguistic, and ideological independence. The key here was independence from the Moscow Church and creating an autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Nevertheless, since, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, no ideology can be recognized by the state as mandatory, spiritual independence is also a secular category and presupposes worldview and philosophical independence. The article highlights several stages of the creation of philosophical independence. First, the first stage required overcoming the ideologically biased philosophy of Russian Marxism, that is, Marxism-Leninism. The second stage is the involvement of Ukrainian philosophy in the models of modern world philosophy, the assimilation of its leading trends and paradigmatic complexes. The role of translations of philosophical classics and modern philosophical literature in entering philosophy into world philosophical thought in Ukraine is also shown. Finally, the third stage is related to solving the critical problems of our time, related to globalization, ecological crisis, universalism and particularism in ethics, ethical reclamation of modern society, etc. The article also deals with the role of philosophy and philosophical education in substantiating the value orientations of the development of Ukrainian society, the formation of communicative, moral, professional competencies of citizens as a factor in the civilizational choice of Ukraine.

The article analyzes the problem of Ukraine's development since independence. A comparison of the way of organizing social reality in modern Ukraine and in the Soviet period is carried out. The main regulatory factor in the life of Soviet society was the principle of domination. Ukraine has inherited the principle of domination and retains its leading role in the current social order. Its various manifestations that determine the structure of Ukrainian society, in particular the growth of the bureaucratic class and bureaucratic pressure on all spheres and sections of life, are analyzed. The dominance of bureaucracy contains latent violence, feeds corruption and minimizes social dynamics. It is also a phenomenon of power rent, which finds its expression in a kind of "privatization of the state." Another universal effect of the principle of domination is the doubling of social reality into apparent and hidden. The apparent reality becomes a space for the existence of ordinary citizens and the implementation of legal procedures, while the hidden one contains a system of real circulation of power, which is not regulated by any legal regulations, instead, controls all movements of the social body. The systemic role in the hidden society is played by cliques — informal groups of influential people who really control the course of events. The consequence of the principle of domination is the passivity and marginalization of the Ukrainian citizen, associated with the defect of political participation. Such non-participation in power is embodied in such forms of consciousness as hope, liking, and despair. Today, independence is not a given, but a chance that must be realized. The way to this is through the restoration of the role of the people as a sovereign power and the development of non-dominant regulatory factors of sociality

The problem of the "revival" (renaissance) of the Ukrainian statehood has been the focus of attention for centuries. On the other hand, Ukrainian intellectual discourse has not been able formulate an integral and consolidated image of the past. A significant obstacle on this path was the state policy of memory of an ad hoc nature, which was built through a combination of Soviet and Ukrainian approaches to the interpretation of the past. The lack of a unifying historical narrative, the regionalization of history interpretations of Ukraine have fueled interpersonal and interregional hostility within Ukrainian society for decades. It has become a fertile ground for the humanitarian aggression of neighboring countries, aimed at desubjectivation of Ukraine through destruction of historical foundations of statehood in public consciousness of the Ukrainians themselves. The points of their spokesmen are reinforced by arguments of the conservative pro-Ukrainian historians, who, trying to consider the history of Ukrainian statehood in the context of general civilization development, have developed the thesis of “non-historical” Ukrainian nation due to interruption of national existence in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. This approach, as shown in the article, was important for raising attention of global community to the Ukrainian issue in the second half of the twentieth century, even though it did not reflect the real case. After all, even at the time of strengthening of assimilation policy on the part of neighboring states, Ukrainians did not have the interruption of national existence and continued to cultivate diverse ideas of "revival" and development of their own statehood. Such desire was especially evident in the seventeenth century due to active position of the Cossacks, who managed to wield influence on all segments of Ukrainian population, raising it to an armed struggle for their own freedom and statehood. The inability of the Cossacks to fully implement the tasks gave rise to notes of pessimism in the minds of Ukrainians, whose faith in the revival of their own statehood faded away, but never waned at all. Cherishing the former Cossack greatness, Ukrainians, contrary to the assimilationist policy of the ruling nations or stratums, have always found the strength to speak out reminding themselves and the world that “Ukraine`s glory has not died, nor her freedom”, and therefore they will defend their own statehood.

The proposed article is an exploration of realistic social ontology, devoted to the study of the interaction between national memory, historiography and archives as defining social institutions of the modern era. The study focuses on the problems of formation and transformation of perceptions of the past of the national community — the bearer of sovereignty. During the analysis, the author concludes that national memory, archives and historiography are endowed with their own dynamics, and the relationship between them is a changing constellation of relations, that has undergone a complex evolution over the last two centuries. Beginning in the 19th century, the nature of relations changed in the direction of emancipation of archives from the guidelines of official historiography, distancing historiography from the exercise of state power, and the emergence of a new memorial culture in the late twentieth century. The result of these changes was the emergence of affirmative historiography, which has a significant impact on public life. The author concludes that the urgent problem of today is to create conditions for conflict-free interaction of all participants in the politics of memory in order to avoid politicization caused by inconsistencies in the interpretation of past events.

The main research narratives of the article are: the influence of artistic strategy on the political communication in the condition of post truth; political imagination and regime of post truth; art and regime of truth; rationality of illusions in the political communication; the techniques of artistic suggestion in public dialogue. It deals with the principle of reliability, the legitimacy rituals in the hunting for the voters. It is analyzed the mythological transformation, imitative mythology of the modern medias. It is discerned the technological integration of art in religion and politics, communication actions that make its “generic” feature and the “generic” burden at the same time. Such notions as poetry, art and technology are connected with the unfolding of the technological refinement in all spheres of human activity. The author explains the need of the mythological distortion as the basis for the building of reality. It deals with the PR- technology transformation as the particular case of the cultural-political project into undeniable social value. It is de fined the role of the artistic and political projects as the communicative prosthesis. Simultaneously the author traces the ouster of illusion from the public communication. He analyzes the modalities of the communicative practice and communicative experience reduction in the socialization process as well as the technological perfection in the mythological representation. The special features of the mythological absorption as the negation of law and social subject are determined here. It is also defined the sense of the law rationality regarding the rationality of myth.

The article provides a comparative analysis of the cultural practices of political populism and the popular culture. The leading role of the media in the formation and promotion of popular movements and leaders is emphasized. There is a difference in the understanding of a leader's charisma that brings new values, according to Max Weber, and the pseudo-charisma of modern populist leaders that is created by their regular presence in the media. Populist politician is seen as a sign in cultural communication, where the politician’s personality is put as the signifier, and the ideology that the politician promotes — as the signified. Based on this analysis, three ideal types of populists have been identified: a blank sign that is focused on the present and represents populists without ideology; a sign that is oriented on the past and represents a populist national ideology; the sign that is oriented on the future and represents the reformers, the bearers of new social values. Theoretical approaches to the interpretation of popular culture are analyzed and it is pointed out that a mass society emerging is necessary both for the phenomenon of popular culture and for political populism to perform the quantitative indicator of public preferences. Common characteristics in the functioning of popular culture and populism are revealed — symbolism, emotionality, "origin from people", resistance against the system. The decisive role of the media in cultural communication for both popular culture and political populism is emphasized. However, there are significant differences between popular culture and political populism. Popular culture has its own values, while political populism uses values of others. Comparing popular culture and its impact on culture in general on one hand and political popularization and its impact on the political system on the other, a scrutator could expect for some renewal and diversification of current political institutions that would be a positive factor for the global political system and global society.

The aim of the paper is to justify the view of Martin Heidegger’s concept of Dasein as a reconceptualization and modification of Edmund Husserl’s concept of experience (Erfahrung). The subject of analysis is Heidegger's concept “Dasein”, which is one of the most problematic concepts of the entire Heidegger's legacy due to ambiguity of its meaning and the resulting variability of possible interpretations. Specific attention is paid to examining the ontological reading of Heidegger's philosophy as opposed to both existentialist and anthropological ones; the author also textually argues for its legitimacy. Author textually proves that Dasein indeed is a modification of Husserl`s concept of experience. Moreover, she claims that not only the concept of Dasein but fundamental ontology itself may be seen to some extent as an original modification of Husserl’s phenomenology. For not only one of the key phenomenological concepts gets modified, but also its method of exploration and some crucial topics (e. g. the temporality of consciousness) get modified and incorporated in Heidegger’s fundamental ontology project.

The article is a preliminary sketch of the phenomenological description of the experience of psychoanalysis, in order to phenomenologically justify the fundamental psychoanalytic concepts and phenomena. The phase structure experience of the psychoanalysis is considered, namely: analyst’s anxiety, psychoanalytic reduction, psychoanalytic analysis and interpretation. In addition, the first part of the article is devoted to the main aspects of logical-phenomenological critique of psychoanalysis. First of all, the critique of the associative, mechanistic, speculative theory of psychoanalytic practice that its phenomenological inadequacy leads to a gap between psychoanalytic theory and practice. This fact is especially emphasized in the phenomenological psychology of Arthur Kronfeld and the Daseinanalysis of Ludwig Binswanger and Medard Boss. Hence, the article is an attempt to outline another way to bridge this gap, by phenomenological justification of the experience of psychoanalysis.

The article considers the phenomena of unified and plural rationality, and hence the possibility or its absence to unify experience, culture, politics, economics, etc. To illustrate the problem, it is suggested to consider the differences between the modern and postmodern eras. It is attempted to deduce the ontological basis of cultural differences and the dynamics of knowledge development in general. Author of the article reflects upon contemporary challenges related to the instability of the state of knowledge, and propose possible solutions of modern social and philosophical problems on the basis of phenomenology.

Artificial intelligence is a computer system that thinks or acts like humans. Features of AI systems embody implicit beliefs concerning the human nature that AI developers have. “Strong” AI, which has the general cognitive abilities of an adult, has not yet been created, while “weak” AI is already part of the planetary computation infrastructure. Neural network AI mimics specific types of human behavior, generalizing data about the everyday lives of its users. This AI approach corresponds to the philosophical mainstream of the 20th century, when everyday life was seen as a source of the linguistic and the social pre-given that yields mutual understanding. This approach is also based on the traditional human-machine dichotomy and the corresponding idea that human nature is stable and independent of the technological condition. However, in the post-metaphysical age, when human interaction with technology is communicative rather than instrumental, data on everyday life cannot be an independent paragon of the human nature. AI systems do not only codify the descriptive features of human nature, but also discipline their users, as the digital environment in which everyday data can be collected is already organized by AI. Accordingly, in the digital environment, people are forced to reproduce new norms of behavior, codified by AI, which became one of the forms of human self-mastery, or anthropotechnology. The impact of AI is rarely noted, as the digital environment in which people interact with AI is not organized in a way that is clearly understandable. The anthropotechnological nature of AI is a side effect of the development of platforms, so AI developers rarely take responsibility for the norms embodied in the systems they create.

У цьому числі «Філософської думки» публікуємо матеріали семінару «Лабораторії наукового перекладу», який було присвячено обговоренню українського перекладу твору Джона Еліса МакТаґарта «Природа існування». Семінар відбувся 2 жовтня 2020 року в Інституті філо- софії НАН України імені Г.С. Сковороди за підтримки ГО «Лабораторія законодавчих ініціа- тив» і видавництва «Темпора». Текст українського перекладу представив перекладач твору Юрій Олійник. Експертами були Андрій Бондар і В’ячеслав Циба. Модерував семінар Вахтанґ Кебуладзе.