This article is the first to bring into scientific discussion and to provide a historico-philosophical analysis of a manuscript “Neoplatonic Philosophy from the archive of Pamfil Danylovych Yurkevych (1826–1874). The reviewed manuscript belongs to P. D. Yurkevych’s handwritten nachlass stored in the funds of the Institute of Manuscript of V. I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine in the city of Kyiv. Additional archival materials (in particular, programs of P. D. Yurkevych’s lectures that took place in 1850s – beginning of (...) 1860s in Kyiv Theological Academy) are involved to answer several research questions. The author of this article provides arguments in favor of proving that the manuscript is to be attributed to P. D. Yurkevych’s own handwriting, to be dated circa 1856, and that the purposing of its content is to be qualified as didactic. As it is established in the article, textual content of the manuscript in question is an original concise description and analysis of neoplatonic philosophy, which belongs to the set of materials created by P. D. Yurkevych in preparation for teaching the course on Ancient Philosophy in Kyiv Theological Academy during Kyivan period of his work. Turning to the inner critique of the manuscript, author of this article emphasizes an analysis that P. D. Yurkevych conducts concerning Plotinus’s ideas of the process of emanation of the world from the One and the role that philosophy has in true cognition. While comparing the manuscript “Neoplatonic Philosophy” with one of P. D. Yurkevych’s substantial philosophical works “Idea” (1859), additional light is shed upon the prosess of genesis and development of Christian-Platonic worldview of the thinker. Furthermore, it is established that the manuscript in question played a major role in P. D. Yurkevych’s own schooling, particulary concerning his view on the philosophy of Plotinus, and his general reception of the Platonic tradition. (shrink)

This article is the first to bring into scientific discussion and to provide a historico-philosophical analysis of a manuscript “Neoplatonic Philosophy from the archive of Pamfil Danylovych Yurkevych. The reviewed manuscript belongs to P. D. Yurkevych’s handwritten nachlass stored in the funds of the Institute of Manuscript of V. I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine in the city of Kyiv. Additional archival materials are involved to answer several research questions. The author of this article provides arguments in favor of (...) proving that the manuscript is to be attributed to P. D. Yurkevych’s own handwriting, to be dated circa 1856, and that the purposing of its content is to be qualified as didactic. As it is established in the article, textual content of the manuscript in question is an original concise description and analysis of neoplatonic philosophy, which belongs to the set of materials created by P. D. Yurkevych in preparation for teaching the course on Ancient Philosophy in Kyiv Theological Academy during Kyivan period of his work. Turning to the inner critique of the manuscript, author of this article emphasizes an analysis that P. D. Yurkevych conducts concerning Plotinus’s ideas of the process of emanation of the world from the One and the role that philosophy has in true cognition. While comparing the manuscript “Neoplatonic Philosophy” with one of P. D. Yurkevych’s substantial philosophical works “Idea”, additional light is shed upon the prosess of genesis and development of Christian-Platonic worldview of the thinker. Furthermore, it is established that the manuscript in question played a major role in P. D. Yurkevych’s own schooling, particulary concerning his view on the philosophy of Plotinus, and his general reception of the Platonic tradition. (shrink)

The article analyzes the main directions and cases of research and reception of the creative heri- tage of Hrygorii Skovoroda in Germany. Even though Dmytro Chyzhevskyi introduced German scientists to Skovoroda’s work back in the 1930s, its actual reception, according to the author, began only in the 1980s. The article analyzes the research of three authors who carry out such a reception today. First, Elizabeth von Erdmann examines Skovoroda’s work in the context of philosophia perennis. Instead, Roland Pietsch began his (...) study of Skovoroda’s work by translating his works into German and later focused on demonstrating the unity of mysticism and metaphysics in Skovoroda’s phi- losophy, according to how this unity was ensured in his doctrine of self-knowledge. Pietsch demonstrated this unity in his interpretation of the Narcissus dialogue. Another essential aspect of Skovoroda’s work, explored by Pietsch, is the philosopher’s symbolic metaphysics. Pietsch’s latest works are devoted to another important issue — establishing Skovoroda’s place in European intel- lectual history, in particular, based on a comparative analysis of the concepts of Hrygorii Skovo- roda, Johann Georg Hamann, and Franz von Baader. Another German researcher who studies Skovoroda’s work today is Slavologist and theologian Günter Kollert, who has been engaged in the philosophy of Skovoroda and Pamfil Yurkevich for several years and has translated the works of Skovoroda and Mykhailo Kovalynskyi into German. The author of the article concludes that new interesting independent studies of Skovoroda’s work will appear in Germany, which will make it possible to more accurately define Skovoroda’s place in the historical-philosophical process, to think more profoundly and describe this process, as well as to pave the way to possible abandonings and comparisons of Ukrainian works thinker with other famous figures in the history of philosophical thought. (shrink)

This article aims to reveal the semantic dynamics of narratives on Rousseau in Kyiv academic philosophy of the 19th and early 20th centuries. through the separation of the informational layer from the rhetorical one in their content and the identification of hidden (unarticulated) elements that determined both the general nature of the narrative and the evaluative judgments of the narrators. Based on archival primary sources and printed editions (mostly bibliographic rarities), a historical and philosophic study of the narratives on Jean-Jacques (...) Rousseau and his philosophy of education performed, which were created and broadcast by professors of Kyiv Theological Academy and St.Volodymyr University Pamfil Yurkevych, Sylvester Gogotskyi, Markellin Olesnitskyi, Mykola Makkaveiskyi, Oleksandr Selikhanovych, and Vasyl Zenkovskyi. Keeping almost the same informational core, the narratives of Kyiv academicians on Rousseau differ significantly in terms of rhetoric. While the “older generation” goes into philosophical criticism of the pedagogical ideas of the Swiss thinker as the Stranger, the “younger ones”, limiting themselves to remarks about their controversial nature, represent him as the Self. This difference is due to both personal factors and institutional conditions for the development of Kyiv academic philosophy, as well as changes in the general political situation in the period of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (shrink)

Українська академічна спільнота, незважаючи на значний теоретичний масив інформації, й далі перебуває у полоні ілюзій, шаблонів сприйняття та некоректних тлумачень концепта «український кордоцентризм». Філософська дискусія навколо цього концепта є конфліктом міфологій – протистоянням між міфом про унікальний етноментальний феномен та міфом про ілюзію наукової уяви. Водночас вона є конфліктом інтерпретацій – протистоянням між міфічною інтерпретацією класичної доби української філософії та її метафілософською інтерпретацією. Пропонована монографія ознайомлює із філософською позицією автора концепта «український кордоцентризм», його оцінкою цих конфліктів.