The article is devoted to the circumstances of Hryhoriy Skovoroda’s use of the pseudonym «Daniil Meingard» and the role played by Mykhailo Kovalynskyi in Skovoroda’s adoption of this pseudonym. The article reconstructs the biography of Pastor Daniel Mingard, whose name was adopted by Skovoroda, including refuted false information about him, widespread in Ukrainian-language literature; a brief description of the intellectual biography of his son, Pastor Gabriel Mingard, who, unlike his father, was a notable figure in the intel- lectual life of (...) the country of Vaud in the second half of the 18th century, in particular, one of the most original authors of the «Encyclopedia of Yverdon» — a liberal Protestant response to the «Encyclopedia» of Diderot and d’Alembert. The article states that the description of Daniel Mingard, which Kovalynskyi gives in «The Life of Grigory Skovoroda» in order to explain the origin of the pseudonym Skovo- roda, corresponds more to Gabriel than to Daniel Mingard. The explanation of this ambiguity is based on the hypothesis that Kovalynskyi, choosing Gabriel Mingard as an example to follow, projects the Mingard son-father relationship onto his relationship with Skovoroda. This hypothesis gives reason to reconsider the role of Kovalynskyi in the life of Skovoroda and in the formation of the image of the philosopher in «The Life of Grigory Skovoroda». The article reconstructs Kovalynskyi’s circle of reading and demonstrates that his literary preferences correspond to the leading trends of reception by Russian Freemasonry in the last third of the 18th century. Western, primarily liberal Protestant literature. This recon- struction gives reason to draw a parallel between Skovoroda’s opinion and Kovalynskyi’s reading circle, in the context of which the latter evaluates Skovoroda’s life and philosophy; they are related by devotion to religious and intellectual freedom, eclecticism, as well as numerous subjects that we consider purely Skovoroda’s subjects: self-knowledge, the inner man, the goodness of God, happiness, friendship, etc. (shrink)

Investigation into the theme of receptions and influences is one of traditional topics in the historiography of national philosophies. This article analyses the models of reception and influence used by Ukrainian historians of philosophy: the model of “influence without reception” (А. Tykholaz), the model of “studying philosophy” (D. Tschižewskij) and the model of “reception without influence” (V. Horskyi). Resting upon works by J.-L. Viellard-Baron and P. Hadot, the author tried to argue that: а) the place that reception studies occupies in (...) historiography as well as understanding of its phenomenon is traditionally dictated by the perception of the historic-philosophical process, the genre of the historiography of philosophy and specific historiographic attitudes; b) reception is a complex phenomenon, which has totally different configurations and meanings in different periods of the history of philosophy and cannot be put into one formula; c) the application of obvious formulas from the contemporary vision of receptions in separate historical contexts can verify or objection of the originality or even the existence of separate philosophical traditions; d) through the reflection on the phenomenon of reception in all of its complexity it possible to reveal some aspects, research into which notably corrects our perception of the history of philosophy; e) the popular over the past decades idea of the history of philosophy as dialogue among philosophers is a challenge for the historiography, though it can have a positive effect on historic-philosophical research as well as on historic-philosophical discourse in general. Particularly, the research into reception and using dialogue as a regulatory idea can influence the international circulation of ideas and contribute to turning it into “rational dialogue”, promoted by P. Bourdieu. (shrink)

The article continues the discussion “Can "national philosophy" be understood as a strictly defined object of research?” initiated in volumeXXX of Sententiae. Analyzing Tomasz Mróz’ book “Selected Issues in the History of Polish Philosophy” (2016), the authors compare the problems of historiography of Polish and Ukrainian philosophy. The authors believe that Mróz’ bookoffers an interesting perspective of comparative study of national philosophical traditions, the idea of which was suggested earlier by Vasyl Lisovy. The authors focus on the heuristic potential of (...) the Mróz’ analysis of discussions concerning possible distinction between the terms “Polish philosophy“ and “philosophy in Poland” and his studies of Plato's reception in Poland. Such analysis allows us to raise several questions: (1) are the studies of “Polish philosophy” and “philosophy in Poland” not mutuallyexclusive, but, on the contrary, complementary genres of historiography of national philosophy? (2) howtodistinguish in the analysisof the reception of a certain philosophical doctrine in national philosophy things pertaining to the history of this philosophy as a whole, from things pertaining to the history of development of the doctrine itself? (shrink)

The article analyses how the oral history of philosophy can be conceptualized as a genre and a discipline of the history of philosophy. The need for this kind of conceptualization arose due to recent spreading of interviews in the genre of the oral history of philosophy, which in turn became a subject for the special issue The Oral History of Philosophy in Filosofska Dumka. Analysing this issue, the author proves that the “dialoguing” nature of the interview builds inflated expectations about (...) the oral history as well as its boundaries as an approach in a historical-philosophical study. He also suggests distinguishing the interview as a genre of oral philosophy – dialogue, which is a traditional philosophical literary form, from a tool in historical-philosophical study. In the latter case, it is important to determine who will play a role of a historian: an author of historical narration, an interviewee or an interviewer. Depending on the answer to the previous question, the author distinguishes three possible perspectives of the oral history of philosophy development: an interview as a self-sufficient study in the history of philosophy, an interview as a self-sufficient source for historical-philosophical research and an interview as one of sources for historical-philosophical research. Each of them has its opportunities for a historian of philosophy and plays its role in recruiting students and doctoral students (who often are involved as interviewers) to research work. (shrink)

One of the traditional subjects of discussion among historians of philosophy is the question of the status of the history of philosophy as well as a discipline, as well as the tasks, possibilities, and limitations of some approaches and genres of the historiography of philosophy. The article focuses on the analysis of the contribution to these discussions of studies in the historiography of philosophy, which began in Francophone philosophy in the 1970s with the publication of the studies of L. Braun (...) and M. Gueroult, in particular, the answers to the mentioned questions, proposed within the framework of these studies. The starting point of the article is the historical scheme of the attitude of philosophers to the past of philosophy, proposed by Y. Lafrance, which makes it possible to determine the place of the history of philosophy as a discipline in philosophical activity and to study the historiography of philosophy as an element of such activity. In this article, three research projects of the historiography of philosophy were analyzed – the «history of the history of philosophy» by L. Braun, the studies in the doxography by A. Laks and M. Frede, the social history of the historiography of philosophy by C. König-Pralong. Based on the analysis of the mentioned projects, the article support the conclusion that the history of philosophy cannot be considered either only as a historical or only as a philosophical discipline, and also that a historian of philosophy cannot investigate a subject without simultaneously constructing it on the basis of historical data, which always remain outside the historiographic construction. (shrink)

The paper describes the historical and intellectual foundations on which the European political system was built after the Second World War; this system pursued the goal to prevent any war in Europe, but proved unable to prevent the russian-Ukrainian war. The paper shows that this system was built not only because of the trauma of the First and Second World Wars, but also in accord- ance with the liberal attitude to war, which M. Vatter called «war with “war”»; at the (...) same time, such a clear attitude does not refer to real wars, but to an imaginary «war of all against all». Based on the analysis of the principles and results of the research project “War and Society” under the direction of J. Baechler, the author outlines the principles of liberal Realpolitik as the implementation of the mentioned attitude in the realm of wars: it consists in their rationalization both at the level of goals and at the level of means of warfare; such a rationalization finally makes war irrational and unacceptable. From the point of view of such Realpolitik, war is only an extraordinary means of politics, and the russian-Ukrainian war is only an excess of violence, while in the opinion of the author, it is an inevitable consequence of the irrational and violent russian-Ukrainian extrapolitical conflict, whose stakes is the existence self of Ukraine. The author believes that one of the reasons for the inability of the European political system to prevent the russian-Ukrainian war is the belief that with the end of the Cold War, the “century of total war” in Europe also ended, and that the economic and cultural integration of post-communist countries into the European space makes such conflicts impossible. The author refers to the description of the own logic of wars of the 20th century, proposed in R. Aron’s book «The century of total war», and suggests considering the russian-Ukrainian war as a continuation of these wars. In the perspective pro- posed by R. Aron, the mentioned «century of total war» can be considered as a «long 20th century», which continues to this day. (shrink)

The article identifies elements of national experience that became the preconditions for such revival, as well as determined the originality of French political philosophy. Based on the publi- cations of V. Descombes, G. Labelle, D. Tanguay, M. Foessel,. Jourdain, the author distin- guishes between French political philosophy in the narrow sense, which is represented by C. Castoriadis, C. Lefort, P. Rosanvallon, M. Gauchet, P. Manent, Ph. Raynaud (paying special atten- tion to the Ukrainian translations of their works), and the articulation (...) of political questions in terms of philosophical theory by well-known representatives of French theory. The reasons that hindered the development of political philosophy in France were the dominance of the positiv- ist paradigm in the social sciences and Marxism in the French intellectual milieu. The impulsion for the revival of political philosophy in France was the crisis of Marxism and preparations for the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the French Revolution of 1789. The distinguishing features of French political philosophy, according to the author, are the study of political problems in the context of intellectual, social, cultural history and ethnology, as well as through the prism of the works of classical French authors. The author also pays attention to the special role of R. Aron in the revival of French political philosophy. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the problem of the relationship between religion and philosophy in the modern context with its inherent thesis about the incompatibility of faith and reason. The role and subsequent transformation of philosophy is a key factor in the process of secularization. The author examines the change in the social function of religion and its influence on the legitimation of philosophical knowledge in the early modern era, especially in the context of the interaction between the church and (...) the state. The article shows how the change in the social function of religion affects the method of legitimizing knowledge. (shrink)