Sententiae

In this article the Thomasius’s logic is estimated not from the point of view of formation of modern formal logic, but as one of the first attempts to create a non formal logic or a theory of the argument. His reform of logic was a part of his reform of the philosophy directed to release of the person from prejudices and to emergence of a new creative person. The author considers that Christian Thomasius’s logic cannot be regarded as a psychological or a juridical logic. It is rather an epistemological one that is focused mainly on a philosophical discourse. The purpose of such logic consists in delimiting true from false, probable from improbable. It is based on the anthropological bases. His anthropology is constructed on the epistemological principles of empiricism and performs critical functions: it is directed against a formalism and methodism of traditional logic. Understood as the doctrine about human reason, Thomasius’s logic is called to serve as a tool of the criticism in a substantive rational discourse, including philosophical, and it, as such, becomes basis of all his philosophy.

The author argues that according to Sextus Empiricus, (a) the "sensual" nature of the phenomenon is a metaphorical notion, since it is indistinguishably extended both to sensuality and thinking; (b) the phenomenon manifest itself with irresistible force of impact, through a wide range of passive states of mind; (c) the impact of phenomena is always mediated by our ego, because all skeptic expressions are strongly correlated with the first person singular. The article proves that Descartes could not refute the “excess” of skeptical doubt and make an immanent critique of skepticism without borrowing the aforementioned statements of Sextus. Such borrowing (1) has created a common ground for discussion between Descartes and skeptics; (2) made it possible for the meditator to give persuasiveness to careful observation of his own internal experience. Descartes' search for certainty in "Meditations" is entirely based on [а] evidence of "phenomena", "states of mind", "passions"; [b] refusal to agree with the "non-evident" proclaimed by Sextus Empiricus.

On the dialectical justification of ontology The paper considers principles and preconceptions of some dialectical theories of ancient and modern philosophy which are used for justification of ontology. The author pays most attention to proving his thesis that in the history of justification of ontology classical modern dialectics prevented the reduction of being to entity. Hence, he seeks to determine historical paradigms and types of dialectical theories of ontological knowledge depending on how the principles of these theories correspond with the understanding of the ontological difference, i.e. the difference between being and entity. In particular, the author argues that Hegel’s classical dialectics partly corresponds with the understanding of the ontological difference, and Marx’s postclassical dialectics do not. The paper contains the criticism of the metaphysical prejudices of Hegel and Marx which is particularly based on the principle of the phenomenological understanding of being, as well as on the author’s principle of the dialectical resolution of the well-known paradox of subjectivity.

This paper demonstrates that the widespread interpretation of the term metaphysics as a mere accidental or predetermined by editorial activity of Andronicus of Rhodes has been questioned more than half a century ago by Hans Reiner. A detailed reconstruction of the researcher’s hypothesis shows how today one can pursue an innovative investigation in the field of ancient philosophy, where everything seems to be researched. In the review of various judgments by German, English and French scholars of Reiner’s hypothesis is shown to what extent and in what precisely the points of his research results are perceived or rejected by modern scientific community. In the contemporary Aristotle-studies come to light the tendency, even without mention Reiner’s name, (1) to consider the title of «metaphysics» as thematic sustained by works of Aristotle himself, (2) to earlier date the composition of a work with the name than is more commonly attributed to Andronicus (first century BC). However, the most controversial question remains whether the author of the term metaphysics can be considered to be Eudemus of Rhodes, and whether he was somehow participated on the publication of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.

By the example of modern translations of the Biblical book of the Preacher, the author defines the conditions of the appropriateness of rational reconstruction as a method of studying the philosophical concepts of the past. In particular, the author detects the incorrect identification of the concepts of "meaning of life" and «hă-ḇêl».

The paper is a commentary on the first Ukrainian translation of the “Liber de causis”. The main topics under consideration are (1) the context of the appareance of the “Liber de causis”; (2) the story of writing this work, (3) his influence on Muslim and Western medieval philosophy and on modern philosophy; (4) its main features. The author for the first time makes a detailed analysis of the interpretations of “Liber de causis” by Thomas Aquinas in different periods of his work.

The article deals with the concept of liberation (mokṣa) in the “Mānava-Dharmaśāstra” (hereinafter the MDŚ), in particular as this concept features in its sixth section (ślokas 35, 36, 37, 40, 44, 58, 78, 81). Although this text is not philosophical, the author proves its significance for the history of philosophy. Based on the research methodology developed by Vilen Gorsky, the author claims that MDŚ (1) contains a text devoted to the concept of mokṣa, which is the first in the Indian tradition, albeit a brief, but substantially clear, not aphoristic (or metaphorical) one; (2) it actually describes the states of the liberated in life (jīvan-mukti) and after life (videha-mukti), although these terms are not yet used; (3) the characteristic feature of its description of the final release is more likely to testify to the not-two understanding of the transcendental state, since the liberated is in Brahman. Thereupon, the doctrine of mokṣa from the MDŚ, which could have subsequently proved significant to the Indian philosophical tradition, has been compared with the first Indian philosophical texts (“The Brahma Sūtras”, “The Nyāya Sūtras” and “Vaiśeṣika Sūtras”) that also touch upon the topic of liberation. As a result, it has been established that the idea of mokṣa is most fully described not in the sūtras, but in the MDŚ.

The article represents analysis of the development of British Classics during the last two decades based on the compilation Greek and Roman Classics in the British Struggle for Social Reform and the main theoretical texts of reception studies. Reception studies proposed a new methodology, which is able to overcome the limits of isolated disciplines in studies of classics. Today there are three positions on the question of terminological and methodological perspectives in this research direction: a conservative humanism of C. Martindale, a democratic pluralism of L. Hardwick and an open culturocentricism of S. Goldhill. The contradictions of the stated positions provide a wide range of questions. (1) How to make a proper link from theory to practical research? (2) How to keep methodological flexibility without falling into relativism? (3) Which particular discipline has to take the central place in the whole reception studies corpus?

The author describes new interpretations of the problem of theology’s influence on John Locke’ philosophical doctrine. The main subject of the analysis is the latest publications by Victor Nuovo, the most famous contemporary researcher of mentioned problem.

Interview with Doctor of Sciences in Philosophy Mariia Kashuba.

The article examines the metaphysical doctrine of being of the great Iranian philosopher and theologian Sadr ad-Din Shirazi, who fundamentally renewed philosophy in Islamic world. The following aspects of this doctrine are considered: (1) primacy and hierarchy of being; (2) the distinction between the concept of being and the reality of being; (3) the difference between being and entity; (4) the difference between being and quiddity. The article shows the similarity of Sadr ad-Din Shirazi’s doctrine and certain Thomas Aquinas’s conceptions, especially his doctrine of the act of being (actus essendi). Both philosophers elaborated the ontological difference between being and entity (Sein und Seienden). Therefore, they can not be included in the “oblivion of being” tradition (Seinsvergessenheit) which is the main feature of the history of European metaphysics, according to Martin Heidegger.

Since the mid-90’s the figure of Peter Lombard and his Book of Sentences has regained the importance in scholarly world and been studied from both historical-theological and historical-philosophical perspectives. But some aspects of his thinking, encapsulated in the written form, which was to become the material basis for the thirteenth- through the fifteenth-century theological projects, remained somewhat insufficiently researched. Therefore this article analyzes the select parts of the Book of Sentences with the purpose of looking at how Peter Lombard handled the issue of God’s knowledge. The article shows that for Peter Lombard God’s knowledge is God’s awareness of everything knowable. It has no causal power which belongs to the divine will. Nevertheless, this knowledge is able to function in two different modes: it can be either a purely cognitive act as awareness alone, or a double cognitive and voluntary act as awareness and simultaneous volition in the form of approbation. Hence, God’s knowledge in general is not causative, but God’s knowledge of the good must be causative because he simultaneously knows and wills what is good. The article reasonably suggests that Lombard’s logic implies the compatibility of God’s (fore)knowledge and voluntary activity, on the one hand, and the contingency of the created order and the rational creatures’ free will, on the other hand. But the details of this conception remain unrevealed as Lombard’s presentation of the problem is to be declared underdeveloped.

The recent historic-philosophical tradition which has its roots in the Hegelian school usual-ly mixed conciliatorics with eclecticism and considered the last as a main opponent of sys-tematics (Ch. Wolf and his followers). By reduction of eclecticism to syncretism, Hegel and his school gave negative sense to the term "eclecticism", which was fashionable in 17-18th cent., completely denying its progressive role in the history of philosophy. Contrary to this view the author shows the need for distinguishing eclecticism from syncretism and conciliator-ics, and tries to show its crucial role in the formation of a philosophical concept of system. The author argues that syncretism, conciliatorics and eclecticism rejected not the idea of system but only attempts of aprioristic creation of systems (B. Keckerman, C. Timpler, Ch. Wolff). Despite the general starting point of philosophizing (opinion of philosophers) and a common goal (the aspiration to reduce variety of the views to unity), these currents disagree as to the way of the achieving of their goal. The author shows that only syncretism noncritically combines different views. Conciliatorics, on the contrary, tries to estimate and reconcile them, and eclecticism tries to select the best opinions on the basis of experience and reasoning. It is inadmissibly to consider a conciliatorics as a kind of eclecticism. Conciliatorics is focused not on the truth, but on the unity of views. Its epistemological and methodological principles are not firmly defined. Eclecticism, on the contrary, accurately formulated its principles and has its own methodological program which is focused on growth of knowledge. Knowledge considered here as the collective, dialogical and historically developing process of gradual approach to truth.

This work continues a series of articles The Enlightenment and ontology. It investigates the ontological component of the Russian Preclassic Enlightenment. The author claims that the Russian Enlightenment arises in the 30s-40s of XIX century. As the founders of the Russian Preclassic Enlightenment he considers Kireyevsky, Chaadayev and Herzen. This article con-siders the philosophy of Kireyevsky. Based on the concept of the nature and features of the Enlightenment, developed in the pre-ceding articles, the author argues that Kireyevsky is a figure of the Enlightenment. The basic concept in the philosophy of Kireyevsky is the concept of education. It is a process of transfor-mation of reality under the influence of education and the result of this process – a certain state of spirituality. The Russian Orthodox education formed the basis of Russian civilization and the very nature of the Russian people. The influence of Western education damaged the foun-dations of civilization and the nature of the people. To correct damage is possible by means of a new philosophy which should be based on the synthesis of Christian Orthodox and Western education. The aim of this project is to implement the utopia of holistic man. Kireyevsky also emphasizes the inextricable and essential link between the Russian Education and literature. This allows to consider Kireyevsky as the representative of the Enlightenment. The author also shows that Kireyevsky constructs two ontological models. The first model could be called ethnic and civilizational. Civilization is a phenomenon, able to change its own ontological status. The second model can be called prophetic. As a carrier of the sacred word, a writer appears as a prophet and lawgiver. His work provides the highest ontological status for society. The first model is new. The second model descends from the previous stages of development of the Russian Enlightenment. At the same time Kireyevsky tries to overshadow the traditional ontological model where the main role is played by the sacred tsar, even though the traditional model was basic then in Russia.

The paper states that, in Ukrainian reception of his philosophy, Nietzsche appears to be a highly ambivalent thinker. Nietzsche himself often defined his philosophizing as ambiguous, and so in this article I try to explicate the different fluctuations in the reception of his ideas. I follow the transformation and adaptation of some of Nietzsche’s key ideas which, in Ukrainian context, got unexpected formulations and ideological connotations. Drawing on this, I argue that most significant elements in the Ukrainian reception are connected to the literary reading of Nietzscheanism. Finally, the main topics of Ukrainian Nietzscheanism are related to ‘histo-rical nihilism’ as a diagnosis of culture. The article traces how Nietzsche’s ideas became a powerful tool in critical approach to naturalism, emotional writing and provincialism. The important characteristics that developed the ideas of Nietzscheanism in Ukraine include the following points. The desire to find a strong man (Kobylyanska, Vynnychenko, Semenko). The problem of individual freedom and its place in society, as well as the criticism of obscu-rantism (Ukrainska Khata). The understanding of the critical moments in history and actualization of creativity (Khvyliovyj, Rylskyj). The openness to interpretation, discussion, and diagnosis of the cultural conditions (members of the Prague school). The re-evaluation of the role of morality and religion, the awareness of the tragedy of being and finally, the search for the balance between intelligence and voluntarism (Lypynsky, Dontsov).

The author debates with the concept of the Soviet ideological turn (mid-30's) as a simple means of pre-war mobilization (David Brandenberger). The paper argues that in the 1930’s the Bolsheviks refused to «national nihilism» and mouved to the national Great Russian position. First – within the «Soviet patriotism», then – according to the Russian historical grand-narrative. This transition was caused by the need to involve in the process of modernization as wide population as possible, especially those who were not too inspired heroism «new era». The choice of historical figures and events of the past was dictated by the need to strengthen one-man rule of Stalin. Historians and artists, formed in the 1930's, took the leading role in science and in the creative unions in 1960-70's, which allowed the Soviet establishment to prevent the radical rejection of Stalin's legacy, to curtail the timid attempts to rethink the historical grand-narrative and to form among the so-called "Russian party".