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.