Filosofska Dumka

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.

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.