The author justifies the need to return to an analysis of the meaning of such words as “philosophy” and “philosopher” in the Kyivan Rus’ written sources of the 11th–14th centuries. In the author’s view, this is explained not only by the inaccuracies the earlier research committed but also by the necessity to take contemporary achievements of Byzantine philosophical historiography into account. The author concludes that the preserved Kyivan Rus’ written sources reflect certain Byzantine interpretations of the words “philosopher” and “philosophy” (...) as understood within particular interpretive frameworks: philosophy may refer to a specifically “Christian” or “external” philosophy, presuppose rational or mystical comprehension of divine wisdom, become verbalized or not. Some sources probably espouse an understanding of philosophy as a practice of true life. The word “philosopher” had different connotations, as well. It referred to advisers or officeholders at the court of the Byzantine emperor, wise princes, church intellectuals, connoisseurs of biblical books, etc. The author invalidates the idea that in Kyivan Rus’, there existed a holistic understanding of philosophy and philosophers. Instead, one should interpret these words as having a limited plurality of meanings. (shrink)

Support for agricultural producers in the European Union remained uneven, as preferences were given to the most economically stable regions and businesses. Intensive farming methods continued to be used, with consequences for both the environment and animal health. In addition, the applicant countries that joined the European Union had to adopt legislation, i.e. meet the parameters and criteria that exist in the Single Market for agricultural products, namely: to ensure appropriate product quality, update the technical and technological base of production, (...) introduce innovative technologies for growing grain and fattening animals, etc. (shrink)