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)

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)

Discourse on the Method” and “Metaphysical Meditations” by René Descartes: Seminar.

The author claims that the will to translation from foreign languages is an intrinsic tendency of development of any language. The article deals with the following problems of Ukrainian translation of the work «The Dawn of Day» by Friedrich Nietzsche: (1) Reproduction of the poetic style of Nietzsche’s writing. (2) Translation of Nietzsche’s neologisms that are not adopted in modern German language. (3) Interpretation of the influence of Nietzsche’s life experience on his thinking. -/- The author analyses his own experience (...) of translation of this work. He describes his strategy of translation which is based on the assumption that Nietzsche’s text should be translated not only as philosophical but also as a poetical one. The style of Nietzsche’s writing is deeply rooted in his life experience, and first of all in his illness. His main concepts express the fundamental aspects of existence. That is why Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s thinking can be used as methodological basis for translation of Nietzsche’s works. From this point of view we can understand and translate Nietzsche not only as a philosopher but also as a poet. -/- So the strategy of translation is based on the following principles: (a) The text should be interpreted in the context of Nietzsche’s life experience. (b) The principal words of Nietzsche should be understood not as rigorous notions but as «existentials». (c) The Ukrainian translation should reproduce not only the meaning of the original text but also the poetical style of Nietzsche’s writing. (shrink)

Phenomenological thinking in Ukrainian terms.

The other experience: to comprehend the incomprehensible. The "Philosophical Thought" Round Table.

У статті йдеться про трансцендентальний поворот у розвитку феноменологічної філософії, який засновник феноменології Едмунд Гусерль здійснив у своєму творі «Ідеї чистої феноменології і феноменологічної філософії. Книга перша: вступ до чистої феноменології». Від цього моменту й до самого кінця життя Гусерль визначав власну філософію як трансцендентальну феноменологію. Про це свідчить насамперед назва його останнього незавершеного твору «Криза європейських наук і трансцендентальна феноменологія: вступ до феноменологічної філософії». Автор намагається прояснити історичне і філософське тло цього повороту і його вплив на феноменологію та інші (...) філософські напрями аж дотепер. З одного боку, цей трансцендентальний поворот є дуже важливий для сучасної дискусії про проблему свідомості не лише у феноменологічних дослідженнях, а й у сучасній філософії свідомості та когнітивних науках. Наприклад, проблему «explanatory gap» можна побачити в новому світлі з феноменологічного погляду. Отже, стверджується, що феноменологія – це одна з найрозвинутіших версій трансцендентальної філософії досвіду і що на засадах трансцендентальної феноменології можна створити універсальну методологію гуманітаристики, а також додати дещо нове навіть до формулювання фундаментальних проблем природничих наук. (shrink)

Review of Apostolescu, I... The Subject of Phenomenology: Rereading Husserl. Cham: Springer Nature.