The article presents a comparison of the interpretations of Edmund Husserl’s early philosophy, created in different local contexts: ones by Polish researchers (Kazimir Tvardovsky, Jan Luka sevich, Vladyslav Tatarkevych, Roman Ingarden, Aleksander Rozenblum-Augustowski) in the period 1895-1945, and Ukrainian philosopher Volodymyr Yurynets. This comparison takes place against the background of considering the differences in the conditions of the development of philosophy in pre-war and interwar Poland and the USSR. The author demonstrates the similarity of the readings of Husserl’s phenomenology by (...) Polish researchers and Yurynets and proves that the similarity between them is not only in the thematic focus of criticism of phenomenological philosophy, but also in its validity and level. In addition, the author offers an approach to the study of Yurynets’ figure and work, based on considering him primarily as a representative of Western intellectual culture. In particular, the possibility of considering Yurynets ‘ objections to Husserl’s project of phenomenological philosophy not as determined by ideological dictates, but as symptomatic of the European intellectual culture of the beginning of the 20th century is substantiated. Both Yurynets and the Polish phenomenological movement criticize phenomenology for its lack of coherence, and it is about both the internal coherence of phenomenological philosophy and its coherence with contemporary sciences. Particular attention is paid to the role of Yurynets in the history of Ukrainian studies of phenomenological philosophy in the context of the discussion about the origins of phenomenological studies in Ukraine.The author considers the investigations of the phenomenological movement in Poland to be fruitful for modern studies of phenomenological philosophy in Ukraine - a phenomenon that had a significant impact on the development of a wide range of humanitarian disciplines in Europe in the 20th-21st centuries and which has direct intersections and common personalities with Ukrainian philosophy. The same seems promising for other European local traditions. (shrink)

The article analyzes the translations and interpretations of the philosophical course Stephan Kalynovskyi taught at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in 1729–1731. Drawing on unpublished translations, editorial corrections, letters, etc., the author reconstructs the history of this course’s translation for the first time, which began in the late 1960s. The author analyzes whether the researchers transcribed and translated the handwritten Latin text correctly and to what extent their interpretations of the course’s philosophical ideas are valid. The article demonstrates that researchers neither had (...) the proper knowledge of the scholastic philosophical tradition and, in some cases, its specific type of Latin nor created the necessary critical apparatus. It resulted in many flaws in their works. Ukrainian philosophers grossly misinterpreted Kalynovskyi’s course because they found the Enlightenment, Cartesian, and local Ukrainian ideas in the text, written in Paris in the 1630s. The author also demonstrates that contemporary studies of Kalynovskyi’s course mostly repeat dubious Soviet ideas, while several dishonest scholars even practice plagiarism. (shrink)

Interview of Illia Davidenko, Vlada Anuchina and Daria Popil with Svitlana Ivashchenko.

Interview of Illia Davidenko, Kateryna Kruhlyk, Daria Popil with Viktor Kozlovskyi.

Interview of Vlada Anuchina, Yana Dziuba and Yana Gorobenko with Yevhen Prychepii.

The interview focuses on the status of historico-philosophical science in the USSR, including comparative analysis of education at Moscow University and in provincial universities. Models of socialization, social elevators, level of professionalism, ideological control, as well as the Soviet heritage in the academic practices of independent Ukraine are discussed.

Interview of Vsevolod Khoma, Illia Davidenko and Kseniia Myroshnyk with Anatoliy Yermolenko.

Interview of Illia Davidenko, Kseniia Myroshnyk, Daria Popil with Anatoly Loy.

Interview of Illia Davidenko, Kateryna Kruhlyk, Daria Popil with Viktor Kozlovskyi.

Interview of Illia Davidenko, Kateryna Kruhlyk, Daria Popil with Viktor Kozlovskyi.

The article explores the phenomenon of symphonism in the written and other intellectual heritage of Hryhorii Skovoroda. The study reveals that the conclusion about systemic symphonismbeing a property of the thinker’s reflections can only be hypothetical at this stage. This is due tothe fact that the source base of the present study includes a significant number of diverse works by the philosopher that have not yet received a proper archaeographic description. The matter of archaeographic description of sources in the history (...) of philosophy research in Ukraine has not yet been positively resolved and is still in its formation. This article briefly presents the problematic range of source studies of Hryhorii Skovoroda’s works. It is, however, not limited to the suggested list and tends to expand. With this circumstance in mind, the boundaries of the research were limited to a selection of Hryhorii Skovoroda’s letters to various persons, which is contained in the most representative academic printed edition of his writings available today. The distinctive features of understanding the source heritage of the philosopher include its genre character and the way it was disseminated. All the major philosopher’s works were personally handwritten or replicated by other copyists in lists. This circumstance causes considerable difficulties in verifying the accuracy of the content of the original manuscript source in print. The presentation of the material is intentionally not systematic, but illustrative. The selection of extractsfrom the philosopher’s works contains the most distinctive examples of symphonicity, which illustrate the panorama of the growth of symphonic complexes from simpler to quantitatively more complex. The inherent polemical core of the study is to establish the correspondence between systemic symphonicity and dialogicity of the philosopher’s style of thinking. The conclusions about this could be drawn on the basis of historical and philosophical explication from certain sources. The author suggests that the development of dialogicity is preceded by a thorough justification of the principle of proper thinking by Hryhorii Skovoroda, which has a complex symphonic structure. From this perspective, dialogism does not contradict the fundamental symphonicity, but is rather one of its manifestations. (shrink)

The subject of this article are Martin Heidegger’s and Eugen Fink’s interpretations of Hegel’s concept of experience of consciousness examined in the light of the history of the development of German Hegelian studies. Article aims at revisiting and comparison of those original interpre- tations formulated by the prominent followers of phenomenological philosophy. Furthermore, in the course of the article those interpretations also get compared to the general approach of con- temporary Hegelian studies to interpreting the concept of experience of consciousness. (...) The experience of consciousness is indeed one of the most problematic concepts of Hegel’s philosophy and the key concept of the “Phenomenology of Spirit”. Therefore, with regard to the role this concept has in the narrative of “Phenomenology...”, the interpretations of this concept, examined in the present article allow us to inspect, in a general outlook, Fink’s and Heidegger’s interpretational approaches towards all the “Phenomenology...”. Having examined each of the interpretations, a comparison of the two is conducted, that results in pointing out the key differences between those, which also relate to the interpretations of all the “Phenomenology...”. The article closes up with a brief inspection of the relation of Heidegger’s and Fink’s interpretational approaches to the contemporary scholar consensus on the experience of consciousness in the “Phenomenology of Spirit”. (shrink)