Filosofska Dumka

The article is about the poetic-practical philosophy of dialog of Lesia Ukrainka, which is manifested in the dramatic creativity of the prominent poetess, her translation activity and the concept of “person-nature relations”. In the text it is shown that Lesia Ukrainka created a new genre of contemporary drama on the basis of application of “Socratic dialog”, which started an important direction in contemporary literature and coincides with a leading trend of world philosophy associated with the paradigmatic turning point from the philosophy of subjectivity to the philosophy of inter-subjectivi ty. The kinship of the Socratic philosophy of dialog and “Socratic drama” is also referred to. The author also showed that the meaning of Socratic dialog of Lesia Ukrainka in the resolution of the main problems of world outlook of modernity and the role of argumentation, in particular, the method of elenctics, the realization of such notions as “truth” and “verity”, which is particularly important the modern day situation of “post-truth” and “post-morality”. Against the background of the global environmental crisis, it is important to look at the way how Lesya Ukrainka suggests treating nature as a subject and partner in dialogue. This paradigm continues and deepens the Romantic concept of nature as a partner in a conversation and co- crea tor of the liber mundi ("the book of the world"). It also opens the opportunity to apply hermeneutical methods of understanding nature as a common world (Mitwelt) of communication, love and creativity. The article also analyzes the topic of dialogue between cultures, as well as perception and understanding of another culture as a subject in a dialogue. We can see this focus in Lesya Uk rainka's approach to translation of poetic texts produced by cultures from distant places and epochs.

The article examines the individualistic manifestations of the heroes of Lesia Ukrainka’s poetic dramas. The key point is focused on the confrontation between a free personality and a passive mob. The author draws parallels between Friedrich Nietzsche’s and Lesia Ukrainka’s individualistic manifestations, and describes how the Ukrainian poetess creates her own accounts of individualism, which are close to Nietzscheanism: anti-Christianity, will to power, acceptance of destiny, self-overcoming, etc. The main difference between the two thinkers consists in Lesia Ukrainka’s approach when her ideas are expressed by a strong type of woman.

The article is focused on Lesia Ukrainka’s famous drama The Stone Master (Kaminnyi Hospodar), her remake of the Don Juan legend. The author of the article, Ukrainian philosopher Volodymyr Yermolenko, localizes Lesia’s masterpiece in a broader European tradition of the legend. He compares The Stone Master with the previous version of the Don Juan legend, by Tirso de Molina (The Trickster of Seville), Moli re (Dom Juan), Mozart (Don Giovanni), Hof fmann (Don Juan), Grabbe (Faust and Don Juan) and others. He analyzes Lesia’s originality within this tradition. He also reads The Stone Master in the context of the dialogue between different epochs: the Baroque, Classicism, Rococo / Enlightenment, Romanticism, Post-Ro man ticism. Each of the epochs develops its specific version of Don Juan legend, according to Yermolenko, which reflects a specific concept of human being and human relations developed at each particular period. While the “Baroque” Don Juan of Tirso de Molina marks the crisis of the culture of honor, the “Classicist” Don Juan of Moli re shows the development of a culture of knowledge and general concepts, and the “Romantic” Don Juan of Byron and Hoffmann is a symptorm of a new 19th century culture of will and transformation. In this respect, it is important to look at Lesia Uk rainka’s text as a battleground of “Romantic” will to freedom and “Post-Ro mantic” (or fin de siècle) will to power. In this context, Yermolenko reads The Stone Master (written in 1912) as a criticism of the fashionable topic of “will to power”, and as a political war ning, with Lesia Ukrainka showing the upcoming horrors of the 20th century’s authoritarianism and totalitarianism. With the help of the concept of eropolitics, the author shows how, through the erotic topic, Lesia Ukrainka passed a major political message to her epoch — and ours as well.

29 жовтня 2020 року інститут філософії імені г.С. Сковороди нан україни спільно з гро- мадською організацією «in situ» провели online круглий стіл, присвячений 250-річчю з дня на родження ґ.В.Ф. Геґеля (1770–1831). У заході взяли участь не лише наукові працівники ін с ти туту філософії, а й викладачі та дослідники провідних вищих навчальних закладів ук раї- ни – національного університету «києво-могилянська академія», київського національного університету імені тараса шевченка, харківського національного педагогічного університе- ту імені г.С. Сковороди, а також незалежні вітчизняні дослідники філософії геґеля. Із вступ- ним словом до учасників круглого столу звернувся директор інституту філософії, член-ко- рес пондент нан україни, доктор філософських наук, професор анатолій єрмоленко, який наголосив актуальність розмаїтої спадщини німецького філософа для сучасного філософського дискурсу і потребу в поглибленому дослідженні його творчості з огляду на сучасні реалії. Учас- ники круглого столу не лише зробили цікаві доповіді, присвячені різним аспектам філософії ге ґеля, а й активно обговорювали й дискутували складні та неоднозначні питання системи абсолютного ідеалізму. Наводимо доповіді кількох учасників заходу, які дали згоду на опри- люднення своїх матеріалів.

The article represents the explication of some Hegel’s ideas with coherence to Hölderlin’s philo sophical reflections, all of which are dealing with the problem of making more significant the philosophy for the social life especially in the period of the national self-statement and radical cultural transformations on the crossing of the XVIII-th and XIX-th centuries. The communication between Hegel and Hölderlin shows the different ways of making philosophy more available for lower classes of population. Hölderlin’s considering on this problem was to make philosophical thinking more sensuous through its transforming into a new rational religion. Hegel perceived solving of this problem in education and teaching without reducing standards of philosophy as a science. The university philosophy with its abstract concepts and systems was criticized by Hölderlin and accepted by Hegel, because his aim was to activate the social and orientation functions of philosophical ideas. The popular philosophy with its metaphorical language was regarded by him as preparing for fundamental philosophical studies. The role of the philosophical lyric in the evolution of German Idealism is analyzed with its impulses for the renewal of philosophical thinking. Hegel shows some risks of symbiosis of the lyric and philosophy such as losing its freedom and turning into a new mythology with eclipse of reason. Hegel em phasizes the role of the grammar of philosophical thinking: its concepts and categories. The dialectical potential of concepts is illustrated on their cunning possibility what might be regarded as opening of closed systems. The adaptation possibilities of this theoretical and practical expe rien ce to the Ukrainian social and cultural contexts are regarded. Hegel’s interpretation of the dialectical interconnection existing between the philosophical creativity and the philosophical education for the foundation of the philosophical inquiring culture are actual today as well his demand to search for the truth. The causes for explaining Hegel’s intuitions about the concept’s and reason’s cunning are stating in their validity for developing strategies and practices of the spi ritual renewal of the Ukrainian society.

The paper deals with two Ukrainian translations of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (on the example of Introduction): a contrastive critical review is presented (involving a number of translations of the book into other languages), numerous errors were found in both (as well as, although not in such a concentration, in other translations). Given the well-known extreme difficulty of Hegel's Phenomenology, it is quite natural that the first Ukrainian attempts to interpret it, without sufficient preparation, were not successful. An adequate Ukrainian translation of this work is to be performed in the future: further considerations on this issue are transferred to the announced next article regarding other translations of Hegel.

The article contains the critical reconstruction of descriptive and analytical psychology of Wilhelm Dilthey and its influence on the phenomenological psychology of Edmund Husserl. Dilthey describes three fundamental features of intrinsic psychic life, which make it different from external physical world: 1. Immediacy — psychic life is directly perceived as intrinsic process; phy sical world is indirectly perceived as external reality. 2. Connection — psychic life is organic connection of interrelated experiences, physical world is conglomeration of the separate facts. 3. Value — psychic experiences use to have the value to us, physical facts can be irrelevant to us. According to Dilthey descriptive and analytic psychology is possible since the psychic life is directly given as organic connection of experiences, which have a special value. The main method of psychology should be description of the psychic experience. Dilthey sketches out three main direction of this description: 1. Description of the main types of the psychic processes. 2. Description of the main connections of the human experiences. 3. De scrip tion of the special parts of the human experiences. On one hand, the phenomenological psychology of Edmund Husserl is grounded on the descriptive and analytic psychology of Wilhelm Dilthey. On another hand, Husserl criticizes some crucial points of Dilthey’s conception. First of all the founder of phenomenology and phe no menological psychology points out the connection of the notions “understanding” and “induction” in the psychological conception of Wilhelm Dilthey. On the contrary, according to Husserl the method of understanding should be based on the concept of intuition, which plays an important role in his phenomenological project.

When we talk about historical revisionism, negative connotations as a rule are prevailing. Prohibition of revision of certain historical interpretation and assessment is one of the tasks of historical policy which is carried out by adopting so-called «memorial laws». Taking care of the formation of the desired representations of the past (narratives) is directly related to the interests of institutionalized power in its own stabilization and strengthening. Power is a function of the community, whose identity is formed historically. Consolidation of collective identity through the support and reproduction of common representations of the past is one of the tools to strengthen power. At the same time, the very nature of human experience acquisition which is permanent me diation of the horizon of the past and the present, presuppose a reinterpretation of this past. Major shifts in the experience of generations, which occur as a result of certain social changes, lead to a new look at the past of the community. In this sense, rethinking and rewriting history becomes necessary to clarify, update, rationalize the collective identity, which is problematized by new experience. Historical policy can both respond to this need for identity transformation through rethinking representations of one’s own past and come into conflict with it. In the latter case, the narratives transferring by institutional power begin to conflict with the communicative memory of the generation experiencing a shift. One of the tools of self-preservation of power in this situation is blocking of living historical experience, which can take various forms. The culmination of such a blockade is «hermetization» of historical time that take place in totalitarian state. The living historicity of experience, which requires a constant rethinking of one’s own historically inherited identity, is replaced by an artificial, time-frozen identity, which, precisely because of this nature, becomes fragile and doomed to destruction. On the other hand, the rewriting of history initiated by the authorities within the framework of historical policy may face resistance to the representations of the past rooted in the communicative and cultural memory. The resistance of historical narratives indicates that the collective memory and the identity founded in it are not only a power construct, but also a spontaneous layering of sediments of historical experience. In today’s world of global communications and unified everyday practices, historical narratives are beginning to play an increasing role, as they remain the only seat of identity. At the same time, this process reinforces the conflict potential of communities, which can be observed in many examples of the revival of historically motivated political ambitions. In this situation, a critical clarification of various interpretations of the past becomes a means of rationalizing the historically inherited identity of communities as a necessary condition for intercultural dialogue.

Modern dialogue between Western science and Buddhism raises an enormous range of cognitive issues that require interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research. The idea of methodological pluralism (MP) arises here as an ef fective solution for such projects. Having immersed itself in the study of the background of its opponent, Western science touched the fairly old and specific way of reality cognition, which in certain aspects actually can be identified as a Tibetan-Buddhist version of the MP. In an interview with the professor from the United States, who for many decades has been engaged in research on the boundaries of various science disciplines, ethics, and religious studies, we tried to clarify the specifics of this so-called version of MP, which is set out in the Buddhist doctrine of time, Kālacakra. Texts of this doctrine are included in the corpus of Buddhist canonical literature and form the basis for two classical Buddhist sciences: the science of stars (which is actually “social astronomy”); and the science of healing (which looks like a certain version of “psycho-medicine”). During the interview, we went directly to the possibility of using the Buddhist version of MP at least within the dialogue “Bud dhism- Science”, to the need to understand the specifics of such an implementation, and to the mandatory combination of MP with an integrated approach. The interview was intended to raise the question that deals with transgressing the abovementioned dialogue from the “consumer” level (when we are looking for something that could be useful to the Western neuro-cognitivist) to the philosophical one, in order to formulate a criterion for recognizing a different way of thinking, and finally, to move on toward the semantic discussion, without which the integration phase of any kind of MP is impossible.

У цьому числі «Філософської думки» публікуються матеріали семінару «Лабораторії науко- вого перекладу», який був присвячений обговоренню українського перекладу твору Арис то теля «Метафізика». Семінар відбувся 22 вересня 2020 року в Інституті філософії імені Г.С. Ско вороди НАН України за підтримки ГО «Лабораторія законодавчих ініціатив» і видавництва «Тем- пора». Текст українського перекладу представив перекладач твору Олексій Панич. Екс пер- тами були Леся Звонська та Віталій Терлецький. Модерував семінар Вахтанґ Ке бу ладзе.