Based on the concept of the third paradigm of the «first philosophy», the article analyzes the theo- retical and practical philosophy of Karl-Otto Apel. The role of discursive practices as a paradig- matic basis of the philosophy of communication and meta-institutions of all the rest institutions of society is revealed. The author considers the achievements of Ukrainian philosophers in the study of Apel’s heritage, as well as the possibilities of applying Apel’s philosophical theorizing in the study of Ukrainian realities, development (...) of the Ukrainian ethos, and possibility of theo- retical substantiation and practical legitimization of institutions and values. In addition to this, it is also about the relationship between universalist morality and the particular ethos of local worlds, as well as the relationship between the concepts of universalist ethics and global ethos. Using Apel’s methodology, the author of the article argues that the revival of the conventional ethos and the institutional stage of development of moral consciousness does not end the problem of moral development of the Ukrainian nation. The next, no less important, task is the transition to a potentially democratic postconventional morality, which is achieved by communicative ratio- nalization of the world, the creation of institutions of deliberative democracy. The great role and influence of Apel’s philosophy in the world, which is manifested in the fact that there is a kind of communicative international, which unites many supporters of the Apel paradigm in such well known organization as the “Karl-Otto Apel Centro Filosofico Internazionale”, and in such journals as “Topologik”, “Ethik+Diskurs”, etc., which conduct researches based on the Apel paradigm. (shrink)

The article deals with the practical philosophy of Hryhorii Savych Skovoroda from the point of view of the leading trends of modern philosophical thought: the «rehabilitation of practical philo- sophy» and the communicative turn in philosophy, the components of which are the neo-Socratic dialogue, the philosophy of communication, and the ethics of discourse. The interpretation of Skovoroda’s philosophy is carried out not only in accordance with the principle «know yourself» as a method of knowledge, but primarily in the dimension of (...) the Socratic dialogue, when the methods of morals and elenctics are used in the joint search for truth, solving moral problems. The dialogic nature of Skovoroda’s method consists in searching for the truth together with other people through argumentation, the truth that also appears as a moral category. The article shows the actualization of Skovoroda’s philosophy in the pre-Soviet, Soviet and modern periods of the study of his work in independent Ukraine. The main thesis of the work consists in the statement that Skovoroda did not reduce philosophy to life, but raised life itself to philosophy. Philosophy was his life — a practical philosophy of life that formed his dialogical habitus. Socratic dialogue appears in philosophy, in everyday practices of communication with people, in particular, in the itinerant habitus of the thinker. Traveling is an important element of his philosophy, his life, and his habitus. The itinerant nature of Skovoroda’s habitus takes his dialogues beyond epistemology, transferring the dialogue to a practical, or rather, moral-practical plane. Skovoroda as an educator, relying on the habitus of Ukrainian culture and dialogic practices, transcends this habitus, elevating it to the habitus of reason. The work asserts the opinion about the need and necessity to develop and practice neo-skovorodinian dialogue as a component of the worldwide trend of development of dialogic practical philosophy and dialogic civilization. The article shows not only the significance of Skovoroda’s philosophy as a historical-philosophical phenomenon, but also its role in modern philosophical research in Ukraine, as well as the national liberation struggles of the Ukrainian people in the fight against Russia’s aggressive policy. (shrink)

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-subjectivity. 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 “posttruth” 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-creator 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 Ukrainka's approach to translation of poetic texts produced by cultures from distant places and epochs. (shrink)

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

The article discusses the concepts of communicative practical philosophy as a component of hermeneutic-linguistic-pragmatic-semiotic turn in philosophy, associated with the transition from the paradigm of subjectivity to the paradigm of intersubjectivity. In particular, the concept of “I” is considered as a factor in the internalization of intersubjectivity, because it is from the very beginning woven into the context of speech practice with the pronoun “I”, which is marked by the reflective “I am I”. The transcendental “I” is the internalization of (...) the transcendental communicative community; the classic concept of “adulthood”, associated with “the courage to be guided by one’s own mind”, is an internal manifestation of communicative competence, which in an internalized form is part of the structure of identity. The mind appears in such definitions as “discourse”, “argumentation”, “consensus”. In turn, discourse differs from other speech practices, such as conversation, talk, debate, dialogue, which also have their own internalizations, forming a complex identity structure. The article deals with the internal “maintenance of discourse” both in the process of substantiation of human knowledge and in the process of justification (legitimation) of the correctness of moral duty. In particular, this is manifested in the formulation of the categorical imperative of moral practice, which is considered in the light of the transition from the monologue dimension to the transcendental-pragmatic one. The article also shows the need to move from a monologue concept of responsibility to a communicative concept of shared responsibility. It is emphasized that such a transition is an urgent need of modern times, a sign of which is the desire to overcome the crisis civilization of “risks and threats” and the formation of a civilization of dialogue based on the argumentative understanding, for which the guiding idea is the “transcendental consensus”. (shrink)

The author of the article assumes that any human activity is normative. In the case of philosophical discourse, the normative ground is its indispensable condition, which makes it possible to compare the foundations of philosophy and other scientific disciplines. The norm (law) has, on the one hand, descriptive content related to the description of the noumenal world, and, on the other, prescriptive content related to the counterfactuality of what ought to be. The author emphasizes that the functional aspect of a (...) norm is that it is a means of socially integrating the behavior of people and social groups into a whole. Due to the requirements and requirements of society, social groups are transformed into standards, models, standards of modal and obligatory behavior of the representatives of these groups, performing the function of motivation, orientation and legitimacy. In the second part of the article, the author focuses on a narrower understanding of discourse as speech, dialogue, discussions, which presuppose argumentation based on certain principles, rules, rules and regulations. This interpretation of discourse is peculiar to representatives of the ethics of discourse (K.-O. Apel, Y. Habermas, D. Böhler, V. Kulman, G. Gronke, etc.). Within ethics, principles, imperatives, rules, norms and guidelines both normalize the discourse and substantiate this discourse. Adherence to these principles, rules, norms, and guidelines ensures the normative coherence of discourse as the instance of consensus building on the basis of revealing the performative contradiction of the statement. The normative coherence of discourse is also the basis for its functioning as a meta-institution of justification of social (moral, legal) norms and legitimation of institutions of deliberative democracy in a society of communication and dialogical civilization. Summarizing, the author formulates generalized requirements-guidelines that make it possible to implement the principles, norms and rules of discourse as a meta-institutional instance of society. (shrink)

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

Monograph by A. Kolodnyi "Religious Life of Ukraine in the Persons of Its Persons and Researchers" - assessments of its reviewers M. Tkachuk, P.Movchan, A.Yermolenko and P.Yarotsky.

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

The article examines the problems of philosophy development in Ukraine during the thirty years of independence; an attempt is made to periodize this development. It is shown that the independence of Ukraine, in addition to the state, political and economic dimensions, also contains a spiritual component associated with religious, cultural, linguistic, and ideological independence. The key here was independence from the Moscow Church and creating an autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Nevertheless, since, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, no ideology (...) can be recognized by the state as mandatory, spiritual independence is also a secular category and presupposes worldview and philosophical independence. The article highlights several stages of the creation of philosophical independence. First, the first stage required overcoming the ideologically biased philosophy of Russian Marxism, that is, Marxism-Leninism. The second stage is the involvement of Ukrainian philosophy in the models of modern world philosophy, the assimilation of its leading trends and paradigmatic complexes. The role of translations of philosophical classics and modern philosophical literature in entering philosophy into world philosophical thought in Ukraine is also shown. Finally, the third stage is related to solving the critical problems of our time, related to globalization, ecological crisis, universalism and particularism in ethics, ethical reclamation of modern society, etc. The article also deals with the role of philosophy and philosophical education in substantiating the value orientations of the development of Ukrainian society, the formation of communicative, moral, professional competencies of citizens as a factor in the civilizational choice of Ukraine. (shrink)