Interview with Yaroslava Stratii, dedicated to the history of studies of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy’s manuscript inheritance in Kiyv and Lviv from 1968. The interview was prepared by the activists of the Student Society of Oral History of Philosophy, organized at the Department of the History of Philosophy.

The article compares selected chapters devoted the problems of mind from two phil-osophical courses by Georgii Konyskyi, taught at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in 1747-1749 and 1749-1751 academic years. As Konyskyi taught his first course using verbatim Teofan Prokop-ovych’s philosophical course of 1706-08 academic years, the article compares the doctrines on mind by these two Mohylian authors. It also shows the evolution of Konyskyi’s views. There are common elements between the philosophy of mind of Prokopovych and Konyskyi: their interpretations of Aristotle’s definition (...) of the soul; the scholastic concept of the man as an integral mind-body entity; the problem of the unity and multiplicity of forms. It is shown that Prokopovych and Konsyskyi understood the three-level structure of a human soul in the same way as Francisco Suarez and Rodrigo de Arriaga. However, there are some differences between these two Mohylian professors. They inter-preted differently sensitive and intellectual cognition. Prokopovych upholds the scholastic doc-trine of species. Konyskyi, in his second course, abandons this doctrine and defends the doctrine of impressiones. They are developed by the phantasmata – not received from objects. The im-pressions are modifications of animal spirits by direct or indirect impact of objects on senses of a human being or any other animated being. In the doctrine on intellectual powers, Prokopovych upholds the scholastic distinction between active and passive intellect. Konyskyirejects this common for scholastic tradition distinction and considers that passive intellect can do full-scale intellectual activity. The influence of Early Modern philosophy, especially Cartesianism, was the reason why Konyskyi changed his position. (shrink)

The article proves crucial significance of Larysa Dovga’s monograph to the new understand-ing the heritage of Kiev-Mohyla Academy and Ukrainian spiritual culture of the 17th century. This is because Dovga’s monograph is the first to use Hildebrand’s and Scheler’s personal ethics and Buber’s dialog concept for analyzing early modern Ukrainian axiology; reconstruct Ukrainian baroque culture value system by analyzing the treatises of Innokentiy Gizel and theo-logical texts of Petro Mohyla, Lazar Baranovych, Yoanykiy Galyatovskyi and Antoniy Radyvi-lovskyi. Also the monograph clarifies (...) how this value system helped the intellectuals of that epoch to develop a new, understanding of human being as a living, acting world player, social and natural being at the same time, responsible for its actions before God and society. In addi-tion, the monograph uses the methodology that rigorously analyses the processes of birth, existence and modification of semantic content of different value categories, such as honor, con-science, free will, virtue, knowledge, homeland, etc.The article states that L. Dovga was the first to make structural and comparative analysis of such moral and theological works as “Peace with God to a Man” and “The Science of the mystery of holy confession”, specifying their social, intellectual and ecclesiastical contexts and substantially specify Innokentiy Gizel’s biography. In conclusion the author draws attention to considerable potential of further analysis of such baroque manuscript heritage with up-to-date methodology that will bring up Ukrainian humanities to the global level and deepen the understanding of our identity roots. (shrink)