Kyiv-Mohyla Seminar on the History of Philosophy was established by the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy’s Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies in 2003. In this yearly seminar, the Department’s members as well as the historians of philosophy from other academic institutions regularly take part. Since 2003, 16 meetings of the seminar took place. They were focused on such topics as “Historiography of Philosophy in Ukraine: Current State and Perspectives”, “Actual Problems of the Source Studies in the Historiography of Philosophy”, “The Problem of (...) Text Interpretation in the Historiography of Philosophy”, “Dmytro Chyzhevskyi as a Historian of Philosophy”, “Historiography of Philosophy in Ukraine: Current State and Perspectives”, “The Problem of Method in the Historiography of Philosophy”, “Oleksii Losiev: Personality and Heritage ”, “Methodology of the Historiography of Philosophy: Actual Strategies”, “Wilhelm Windelband as a Philosopher and Historian of Philosophy ”, “Hegel’s Heritage in the Mirror of Interpretations”, “The Studies on the History of Philosophy: New Generation”, “Kant’s Criticism from the perspective of Wolf’s dogmatism”, “The Reception of Indian Philosophy in Ukraine: 1840s–1930s”, “Did Kant Answer the Question on What a Man Is?”. The proceedings of the early three meetings were published in a special volume. The current issue of “NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies” contains the proceedings of the sixteenth meeting of Kyiv-Mohyla Seminar on the History of Philosophy, which took place at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy on February 1, 2017. The main speaker was Dr. Taras Lyuty, while the co-speakers included Dr. Mykhailo Minakov and Dr. Vakhtang Kebuladze. The meeting was conducted by Prof. Vadym Menzhulin. The audio recording of the meeting was deciphered by a PhD-student Taras Fostiak. (shrink)

Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis and Carl Gustav Jung’s analytical psychology are different in many ways and some of their differences are extremely crucial. It is widely believed that one of the most obvious examples of this intellectual confrontation is the difference between Freud’s and Jung’s views on mythology. Proponents of this view believe that Jung was much more interested in mythological issues and his theory of myth became much deeper and more developed than Freud’s one. In particular, it is believed that (...) Freud focused exclusively on the individual’s psyche, while Jung allegedly reached the true origins of mythmaking in the collective unconscious, which is the sediment of the vast historical experience of mankind. The article shows that such statements do not reflect the real situation but just the point of view, which Jung began to spread after his break-up with Freud. In fact, the founder of psychoanalysis had a steady and deep interest in mythology. The manifestation of this interest was the formation of “psycho-analytics” of myth – a specific area of research, which in the early years of the psychoanalytic movement was joined by several first psychoanalysts, including Franz Riklin, Karl Abraham, Otto Rank, Ernest Jones, and Jung himself. It is essential that both Freud and Jung, before and after the break-up in 1913, have been and remain the supporters of the consideration of a man and culture through the prism of certain biological concepts of that time. Those are the principle of inheritance of acquired properties (Lamarckism) and the idea that ontogenesis recapitulates phylogeny (“biogenetic law”). Based on Lamarckian-biogenetic assumptions, both Freud and Jung saw the origins of mythology in the collective historical experience of mankind. The article demonstrates that the image of Oedipus and the associated motives of incest and parricide play almost the same role in Freud’s (and Freudian) model of mythmaking as the archetypes of the collective unconscious in Jung’s (and Jungian) concept of myth. (shrink)

Based on the assumption that “philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process,” Georg Hegel compared it with the ancient symbol of wisdom: the owl of Minerva. This analogy is well known and has not caused many debates. Much less known is the comparison of philosophy with another bird, the rooster, proposed by Henry Thoreau. The main purpose of the article is to show that the latter analogy also has a deep (...) meaning and can serve as a good addition to Hegel’s one. Both comparisons can co-exist as the symbols of two different ways of philosophizing. The comparison of philosophy with the owl is an accurate symbol of Hegel’s type of philosophizing: impersonal, academic, strictly theoretical, and quite conservative. At the same time, the comparison with the rooster is more in line with the type of philosophizing that Thoreau practiced: deeply personalized, extraacademic, practical, and future-oriented. It has been shown that Thoreau’s “morning-rooster” philosophy became the basis for many innovative ideas and practices, the relevance of which only grows over the time: the fight against racism, civil disobedience, wildlife conservation, animal protection, vegetarianism, and even downshifting. To clarify the specifics of this type of philosophizing, the author recontextualizes the famous episode from Plato’s “Phaedo”, in which Socrates not only sacrifices his own life by drinking a poisonous beverage but also asks to sacrifice a rooster. It has been shown that, to a certain level, Thoreau was like Socrates; however, his philosophy does not require such sacrifices. Thoreau’s philosophy is like the crowing of a cheerful rooster, which wakes up and notices the first rays of a new dawn, even in the twilight of the end of history.Manuscript received 10.08.2020. (shrink)

Kyiv-Mohyla Seminar on the History of Philosophy was established by the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy’s Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies (in co-operation with Ukrainian Philosophical Foundation) in 2003. In this yearly seminar, the Department’s members as well as the historians of philosophy from other academic institutions regularly take part. Since 2003, 16 meetings of the seminar took place. They were focused on such topics as “Historiography of Philosophy in Ukraine: Current State and Perspectives” (2003), “Actual Problems of the Source Studies in (...) the Historiography of Philosophy” (2004), “The Problem of Text Interpretation in the Historiography of Philosophy” (2005), “Dmytro Chyzhevskyi as a Historian of Philosophy” (2006), “Historiography of Philosophy in Ukraine: Current State and Perspectives” (2007), “The Problem of Method in the Historiography of Philosophy” (2007), “Oleksii Losiev: Personality and Heritage (to the 115 th Anniversary of His Birth)” (2008), “Methodology of the Historiography of Philosophy: Actual Strategies” (2008), “Wilhelm Windelband as a Philosopher and Historian of Philosophy (to the 160 th Anniversary of His Birth)” (2008), “Hegel’s Heritage in the Mirror of Interpretations” (2009), “The Studies on the History of Philosophy: New Generation” (2010, 2011), “Kant’s Criticism from the perspective of Wolf’s dogmatism” (2012), “The Reception of Indian Philosophy in Ukraine: 1840s–1930s” (2013), “Did Kant Answer the Question on What a Man Is?” (2016). The proceedings of the early three meetings were published in a special volume (Tkachuk, 2006). The current issue of “NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies” contains the proceedings of the sixteenth meeting of Kyiv-Mohyla Seminar on the History of Philosophy, which took place at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy on February 1, 2017. The main speaker was Dr. Taras Lyuty, while the co-speakers included Dr. Mykhailo Minakov and Dr. Vakhtang Kebuladze. The meeting was conducted by Prof. Vadym Menzhulin. The audio recording of the meeting was deciphered by a PhD-student Taras Fostiak. (shrink)

At the beginning of the twentieth century, when psychoanalysis was just emerging and the tradition of writing psychoanalytic biographies did not yet exist, the genre of pathography was widespread among psychiatrists, who considered the life of a prominent figure through the prism of his or her disease. One of the heroes of the number of pathological investigations was Friedrich Nietzsche, whose figure and philosophical views instigated wide interest. This tendency was manifested among the psychiatrists working in the Russian Empire, including (...) the territory of contemporary Ukraine. The analysis of Nietzsche’s illness and creativity, proposed by a psychiatrist from Odessa Ivan Khmelevskyi, helps to clarify the historical boundaries between the pathography and psychobiography. The current article for the first time attempts to reproduce the basic data on the life and research activities of this now almost forgotten psychiatrist. The specificity of I. Khmelevskyi’s views on F. Nietzsche becomes more obvious due to the consideration of the position of Vladimir Chyzh, another Russian psychiatrist who was also interested in the figure and ideas of the German philosopher. It is shown that the pathographies of F. Nietzsche, proposed by I. Khmelevskyi and V. Chyzh, reflected both some features of the development of the genre and general trends in understanding of Nietzsche’s figure and teachings within the Russian context. It is shown that V. Chyzh and I. Khmelevskyi, like many scientists of their time, shared some ideas about evolution and degeneration, which are now considered outdated. At the same time, it has been shown that both psychiatrists confronted with the philosophy and figure of F. Nietzsche were forced to limit the explanatory ambitions of psychiatry and avoid the usual for pathographers of that time tendency to consider genius as a pathology. It is also noted that the fact of Nietzsche’s illness, if not overemphasized, can be accepted to the philosophical discourse of the present time. (shrink)

“Beilis affair” is one of the most resonate events in Kyiv of the early 20 th century. It was a subject of a huge number of investigations. However, a special analysis of the role that the members of Kyiv Theological Academy community played in this affair has not been made yet. Facts and data available require further reflections and deeper interpretations. For this, both a time span and a thematic content should be expanded. Thus, the author tries to reveal the (...) specifics of the discourse wherein the members of the community were predisposed to interpret both “Beilis affair” and “Jewish question” as a whole. The materials published in “Kyiv Theological Academy Studies” journal throughout all years of its existence in pre-revolutionary Russia constitute the main source of information. In the study, the author tries to widen another researcher’s idea that “Beilis affair” became a unique case of the dialogue between Christians and Jews. The article shows that the foundations for this dialogue had been created in the previous years by many Kyiv Theological Academy community members, such as Andrii Khoinatskyi, Fedir Ornatskyi, Vasyl Pevnytskyi, Afanasii Bulhakov, Dmytro Bohdashevskyi, Olexandr Voronov, Mykola Stelletskyi, Viktor Ivanytskyi, Hryhorii Malevanskyi, Akym Olesnytskyi, and others. This experience as well as perfect knowledge of the European and world context, which the members of Kyiv Theological Academy intellectual community such as Olexandr Hlaholiev and Pavlo Tykhomyrov had, enabled them to make a real impact on the establishment of the dialogue between Christians and Jews in particular in the “Beilis affair”. (shrink)

It is generally known that the influential Kyiv researcher, professor of the St. Volodymyr University and honorary member of the Kyiv Theological Academy Ivan Sikorsky made a significant contribution to the development of the psychological science of his times and gained great authority among his colleagues in the West. In recent years, many studies have been launched in Ukraine, whose authors are trying to demonstrate the relevance of his work also in terms of contemporary science. It remains unclear as to (...) when and how he was recognized in the West, which of his colleagues he influenced in his own life, how his academic achievements are now appreciated in foreign professional circles. Trying to fill this gap, the author of the paper created Sikorsky’s personal profile on the Internet platform “Google Scholar”. This Internet-based platform is regularly used to calculate citations of the contemporary scholars and publications. However, as it has turned out, Google Scholar may also be a useful tool for the historical research. This search engine collates information on almost all of the Sikorsky’s works, including those written or translated into foreign languages and published abroad. Despite the fact that Google Scholar identified and included in its own list not all of the existing references, it nevertheless helped to reconstruct a rather large and representative bibliography. Combining the quantitative and qualitative analysis of relevant information from Google Scholar as well as such tools as Google Books, Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. helps to clarify and substantially expand the understanding of Sikorsky’s place within the history of science and the treatment of his works in the West. As it is clearly shown in the article, he became one of the brightest domestic representatives of the leading trends in the world psychology. A significant number of Western experimental psychologists of the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century were actively referring to his pioneering researches on the phenomenon of mental fatigue in children. It is also shown that the contribution made by Sikorsky to the development of psychology and pedagogy has not been forgotten by the contemporary researchers. (shrink)

Напередодні появи психоаналізу в західній науці та культурі відбувалися різноманітні процеси, що їх можна розглядати як «протопсихоаналітичні». Автор намагається показати, що деякі з цих процесів дістали відображення у працях випускників та викладачів Київської духовної академії. Приклади осмислення поняття несвідомого можна зустріти у таких випускників і викладачів КДА, як Орест Новицький, Петро Ліницький, Григорій Малеванський, Маркеллін Олесницький, Федір Орнатський, Олексій Кирилович. Показано, що до подібних міркувань їх підштовхували ідеї західноєвропейських філософів, зокрема Фрідріха Шеллінґа, Артура Шопенгауера, Едуарда фон Гартмана, Іммануїла Фіхте, Поля (...) Жане та ін. Зазначено, що випускник і викладач КДА Матвій Троїцький максимально наблизився до визначення такого важливого для психоаналізу феномену, як перенос. Найбільшу увагу присвячено працям випускника КДА Михайла Вержболовича. Вони містять розгляд низки концептів, уявлень, міркувань, настанов, практик, що відіграли важливу роль у формуванні різних версій психоаналізу. Михайло Вержболович виходить на відповідну проблематику, аналізуючи погляди не лише згаданих вище філософів, а й провідних європейських психологів ХІХ – початку ХХ ст. – Йогана Гербарта, Германа Ульріци, Вільгельма Вундта, Теодора Флурнуа та ін. У серії праць Вержболовича, присвячених вивченню різноманітних окультних феноменів, відображено чимало ідей та процесів, що відіграли велику роль у формуванні аналітичної психології Карла Юнґа. Зазначене дає змогу уникнути звуженого уявлення щодо розвитку науки у КДА. Хоч вона й була передусім релігійним закладом, у її стінах навчалися та працювали фахівці з широким кругозором. Вони здійснювали актуальні розвідки, добре знаючись на філософських засадах та новітніх тенденціях у різних наукових дисциплінах, зокрема у психології. (shrink)

This article outlines the leading trends in contemporary English-language historiography of philosophy. It is shown that the anti-historicity, which was characteristic of analytic philosophy in its classical versions was only a moment in its development. A historical turn that began in English-language philosophical world as early as the 1960s, during the first decades of the 21st century has led to a true flourishing of the history of philosophy - both at the conceptual and institutional level. Contemporary English-speaking historians of philosophy (...) pay considerable attention to the methodologically important distinction between real historical process, i.e., facts that took place in the past (history of philosophy), and reflections concerning means, goals, and epistemological foundations for the understanding of these facts (historiography of philosophy). It is also shown that one of the main results of a careful study of history of philosophy is inclusiveness – drawing attention to those pages or aspects of the past that, for some reason, were marginalized or completely forgotten. Factors that were traditionally dismissed as external and unimportant, now acquire the same significance as those that were previously considered as exclusively internal and important. Due to this fact traditional history of philosophy, focused primarily on the study of the most prominent representatives of Western thought, usually men by gender, is replaced by a much broader historically-philosophical canon, which includes a much wider circle of thinkers, representatives of different cultures and types of philosophizing. (shrink)

It is generally known that the influential Kyiv researcher, professor of the St. Volodymyr University and honorary member of the Kyiv Theological Academy Ivan Sikorsky (1842–1919) made a significant contribution to the development of the psychological science of his times and gained great authority among his colleagues in the West. In recent years, many studies have been launched in Ukraine, whose authors are trying to demonstrate the relevance of his work also in terms of contemporary science. It remains unclear as (...) to when and how he was recognized in the West, which of his colleagues he influenced in his own life, how his academic achievements are now appreciated in foreign professional circles. Trying to fill this gap, the author of the paper created Sikorsky’s personal profile on the Internet platform “Google Scholar” (“Google Academy”). This Internet-based platform is regularly used to calculate citations of the contemporary scholars and publications. However, as it has turned out, Google Scholar may also be a useful tool for the historical research. This search engine collates information on almost all of the Sikorsky’s works, including those written or translated into foreign languages and published abroad. Despite the fact that Google Scholar identified and included in its own list not all of the existing references, it nevertheless helped to reconstruct a rather large and representative bibliography. Combining the quantitative and qualitative analysis of relevant information from Google Scholar as well as such tools as Google Books, Internet Archive, JSTOR, etc. helps to clarify and substantially expand the understanding of Sikorsky’s place within the history of science and the treatment of his works in the West. As it is clearly shown in the article, he became one of the brightest domestic representatives of the leading trends in the world psychology. A significant number of Western experimental psychologists of the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century (including such prominent figures as Alfred Binet, Franz Boas, Edouard Claparede, Edward Thorndike, etc.) were actively referring to his pioneering researches on the phenomenon of mental fatigue in children. It is also shown that the contribution made by Sikorsky to the development of psychology and pedagogy has not been forgotten by the contemporary researchers. (shrink)

“Beilis affair” (1911–1913) is one of the most resonate events in Kyiv of the early 20 th century. It was a subject of a huge number of investigations. However, a special analysis of the role that the members of Kyiv Theological Academy community played in this affair has not been made yet. Facts and data available require further reflections and deeper interpretations. For this, both a time span and a thematic content should be expanded. Thus, the author tries to reveal (...) the specifics of the discourse wherein the members of the community were predisposed to interpret both “Beilis affair” and “Jewish question” as a whole. The materials published in “Kyiv Theological Academy Studies” journal throughout all years of its existence in pre-revolutionary Russia (1860–1917) constitute the main source of information. In the study, the author tries to widen another researcher’s idea that “Beilis affair” became a unique case of the dialogue between Christians and Jews. The article shows that the foundations for this dialogue had been created in the previous years by many Kyiv Theological Academy community members, such as Andrii Khoinatskyi, Fedir Ornatskyi, Vasyl Pevnytskyi, Afanasii Bulhakov, Dmytro Bohdashevskyi, Olexandr Voronov, Mykola Stelletskyi, Viktor Ivanytskyi, Hryhorii Malevanskyi, Akym Olesnytskyi, and others. This experience as well as perfect knowledge of the European and world context, which the members of Kyiv Theological Academy intellectual community such as Olexandr Hlaholiev and Pavlo Tykhomyrov had, enabled them to make a real impact on the establishment of the dialogue between Christians and Jews in particular in the “Beilis affair”. (shrink)