Arina Oriekhova's interview with Professor Serhii Secundant, devoted to Leibniz's concept of time and space, the peculiarities of Michael Fatch's interpretation of this concept, and various historico-philosophical approaches to understanding Leibniz's philosophy as a whole.

This article reveals the critical content of the idea of scientific revolution in Wolff's philosophy and shows Leibniz's contribution to its formation. Although Wolff's goal was to reform the method of philosophizing on the model of Euclid's geometry, which was based on the Cartesian idea of achieving certainty by clarifying concepts, this clarification Wolff in the sense of Leibniz sees in such an analysis of concepts that would accurately establish a connection between them and show the possibility of the object (...) that expresses this concept. Wolff sees the critical meaning of his method in the fact that by analyzing the concepts to link all concepts and statements into a single system, which was based on consistent grounds and would not contain unproven propositions. This would, according to Wolf, remove from philosophy all the concepts, the objects of which were not possible, and statements that could not be proved. Leibniz's idea of concept analysis also formed the basis of his notion of philosophy as the science of the possible. The critical meaning of this concept of philosophy in Wolff, as in Leibniz, was to limit the subject of philosophy only to the realm of the possible. Although the main critical ideas underlying Wolff's philosophical system were formulated by Leibniz, Wolf's system was still the fruit of his genius. Many of his critical ideas were groundbreaking and had a marked influence on the further development of philosophy. These include, first of all, the requirement to preface the construction of a system of philosophy with research the cognitive abilities of the human mind. However, his attempts to build a universal system of knowledge led to the leveling of the critical content of some of Leibniz's demands, which led to the accusation of him and Leibniz of atheism and fatalism. (shrink)

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.

Arina Oriekhova’s interview with Professor Serhii Secundant, devoted to Leibniz’s concept of time and space, the peculiarities of Michael Fatch’s interpretation of this concept, and various historico-philosophical approaches to understanding Leibniz’s philosophy as a whole.

The article analyzes Wilhelm Windelband’s views on the problem of the relation of philosophy to its history. Windelband’s essay “History of philosophy” (1905) is put as a starting point. The main motive for this research is the idea that the history of philosophy is an organon and a component of philosophy. The article critically examines Windelband’s interpretation of (1) Hegel’s conception of the history of philosophy, (2) the question about the grounds of philosophers’ interest in the history of philosophy, (3) (...) the problem of development of the history of philosophy as a science (Wissenschaft). The author assesses Windelband’s role in the development of the history of philosophy as a science is important, despite some accusations of partisanship. The main merit of Windelband, according to the author, is (1) a critique of Psychologism and Historical Relativism and (2) the justification of the history of philosophy’s main role in education as a whole and in the philosophical education in particular. (shrink)

Arina Orekhova’s interview with Professor Serhii Secundant, devoted to Leibniz’s concept of time and space, the peculiarities of Michael Fatch’s interpretation of this concept, and various historico-philosophical approaches to understanding Leibniz’s philosophy as a whole.

The purpose of the article is, firstly, to explicate and give a critical assessment of the methodological, epistemological, and philosophical foundations that led to the “rhetorical turn” in modern philosophy, and, secondly, to answer the question of how justified the grounds for such a “rhetorical turn” are. The answer proposed is based on a reconstruction of Eugene Dupréel’s critical arguments that were directed against the “classical philosophy” and their reception in Chaim Perelman’s works during his “turning point” period (1947 – (...) 1949). The article proves that these two scholars’ critique of classical philosophy proceeds from a realistic position, therefore it does not apply to the epistemological principles of idealistic philosophy. Their criticism of the classical theory of progress and the ideal of universally valid knowledge is “axiological” in nature and boils down to a reassessment of all traditional values. As a result of this reassessment, the methodological principles of sophistry (subjectivism, pragmatism, pluralism, relativism, conventionalism, etc.) are actually rehabilitated. The criticism of philosophy that appeals to spoken language and everyday knowledge, is not justified, since it is based on a misunderstanding of the conceptual and constructive nature of the philosophical language. Although the rhetorical analysis of philosophical texts should be recognized as fruitful and useful, rhetoric cannot be an instrument of philosophizing, since the interpretation of values depends on their understanding, which is given by “classical philosophy”. (shrink)

Arina Orekhova’s interview with Professor Serhii Secundant, devoted to Leibniz’s concept of time and space, the peculiarities of Michael Fatch’s interpretation of this concept, and various historico-philosophical approaches to understanding Leibniz’s philosophy as a whole.

This paper submits the state-of-the-art review of the collection of remote articles of Hans Poser, the largest expert on philosophy Leibniz who has devoted to studying of his philosophy more half a century. Specifics of his position, as interpreter of philosophy of Leibniz, the author of this review sees in Poser’s justification of the fundamental character of Leibniz’s doctrine about modalities, signs and language. Underlining of reflexive and system forming character of modal concepts in the Leibniz’s philosophy and also relevance (...) of his doctrine about modal concepts both for modern modal logic, and for the modern theory of the proof and metamathematics is the central point of interpretation of Leibniz’s philosophy by H. Poser. Concerning a question of the relation of science and metaphysics, H. Poser speaks out in defense of metaphysics, pointing to impossibility of the solution of many problems without the appeal to metaphysics.24 articles presented in this collection give a complete look about all parties of many-sided thinking of Leibniz. The collection presents some kind of encyclopedia of Leibniz’s philosophy in which all last achievements of the modern Leibniz Research are accumulated and are presented in such systematic order that the collection by right can be considered as the monography and to serve as the reference book for everyone who wants to gain a complete and competent view about Leibniz’s philosophy. (shrink)