scholarly journals INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL LEGACY OF VOLODYMYR SHYNKARUK IN THE WORKS OF VITALII TABACHKOVSKYI

Skhid ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 52-57
Author(s):  
ANATOLIJ VOVK

The emergence of various interpretations of the legacy of Volodymyr Shynkaruk is caused not only by the texts of the classic of modern Ukrainian philosopher and facts from the histo-ry of philosophical thought development in Ukraine in the second half of the 20th century, but also by the struggle of various narratives that already exist or are offered by philosophers to tell about the fate of philosophy in Kyiv in Soviet and post-Soviet times. The discussion about the identity of Volodymyr Shynkaruk's philosophy arose in the late 1990s and early 2000s in connection with the publication by V.H. Tabachkovskyi of a number of articles and chapters in books devoted to the interpretation of the figure of V. Shynkaruk as the founder of the Kyiv anthropological school. Vitalii Tabachkovskyi tried to substantiate and reveal a cer-tain narrative about the Kyiv Philosophical School as the central mainstream in the philo-sophical sixties, as well as a narrative about the phenomenon of philosophical sixties as a kind of manifestation of liberalism and dissidence regarding the official ideology and philos-ophy. Many distortions of the true meaning of the texts of Kyiv philosophers occurred through reading them not in their own context and meanings, but through guessing what similar philosophical concepts are in world thought. Vitalii Tabachkovskyi's method of anal-ogies and his attempts to look at Volodymyr Shynkaruk's work through the prism of analo-gies with modern trends develop in his book and many articles. Despite the desire to posi-tively accept Vitalii Tabachkovskyi's reasoning about Volodymyr Shynkaruk's philosophical views, we cannot do this, as his reflections at certain points obviously contradict Volodymyr Shynkaruk's texts.

2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-118
Author(s):  
Giannicola Maraglino

The study of 20th-century philosophical thought could prove to be of great interest if read in the light of its ethical-anthropological demands. In this sense, he cannot but turn with great interest to the philosophy of the American Martha Nussbaum. Specifically, the name of this philosopher should recall that cultural context of “analytical” philosophy. The intention of this contribution will be to seek the theoretical nodes of the renewed post-modern philosophical interest in the thought of the ancients and especially towards Aristotle. This is to the extent that such a look is the necessary foundation to support contemporary reflection on moral action.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (18) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jimmy Sudário Cabral

In the history of the Dostoevsky’s and Tolstoy’s reception in modern philosophical thought, a philosophical tradition of German-Jewish origin has a prominent role. Product of a singular “spiritual synthesis”, as observed by Michael Löwy, the thought of Franz Kafka, George Lukács, Ernst Bloch, and Walter Benjamin has appeared in modern times as the sign of messianic claim for a libertarian, radical, and revolutionary socialism. Bearing in common the experience of not being reconciled with the world and history, this generation of intellectuals from Central Europe had “Jewish messianism” and “German romanticism” as privileged sources of their world-view. The religious concept of redemption and the political notion of libertarian utopia were combined in the trajectory of this German-Jewish intelligentsia that promoted an unprecedented reconfiguration of philosophical thought. It is well-known that the works of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy traverse the messianic and utopian imagery of this generation of revolutionary intellectuals and, as professor Michael Löwy assertively stated, “the utopian Bloch finds in Dostoevsky elements that legitimize The Principle of Hope: Aliocha Karamazov would be a precursor to the ‘religious kingdom of justice’…”. Such an observation is at the heart of a critical fortune accumulated in the works of Löwy and opens paths of analysis that have yet to be made in relation to the reception of Russian literature in modern Jewish philosophy. Michael Löwy is director of research at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS-Paris) and is one of the most significant and creative intellectuals of today. The Marxist philosopher’s work offers a rare intertwining of socialism and surrealism, and establishes a meticulous approximation between philosophy and literature. The acuity with which Löwy interprets the German-Jewish messianism and romanticism, the tragic negativity and the ethical and human claims brought to light by such a tradition presents us with a revolutionary and libertarian state of being that only has equivalents in the utopian-messianic glimpses we find in the great Russian novels. The concept of “Romantic anti-capitalism”, which made it possible to read the romantic tradition in a revolutionary way, can be interpreted as the fil rouge that connects the world of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky to the messianic utopianism of modern Judaism. The reception of Russian literature in the philosophical thought of the 20th century was complex and polyphonic, and the example of Dostoevsky, a thinker who, for Löwy, “is clearly situated on the grounds of the romantic world-view”, becomes significantly emblematic. Although a conservative romanticism has found in the author of The Brothers Karamazov elements that could legitimize the nationalist desire for roots arising from a conservative tradition (Moeller van den Bruck, Goebbels, Heidegger), the utopian-revolutionary interpretation of the Russian writer made by “Jews of German culture” is among the most creative pages of modern philosophy. The set of analyses offered by Michael Löwy on the Jewish and neo-romantic tradition represented by authors such as Kafka, Lukács, Bloch, and Benjamin is an essential material for those who seek to better understand the reception and influence of Russian literature, especially Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, in the philosophical constellation of Judaism in the first half of the 20th century. The elective approximation carried out by the Franco-Brazilian philosopher between the “spiritual culture” expressed in the works of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and the historical condition of Jewish intellectuals in Central Europe appears here as an essential element. An anecdote told by Emmanuel Levinas during an interview with François Poirié reveals that, during the visit of an Israeli from Eastern Europe to his home, the visitor noticed the complete works of Pushkin on the bookshelves and stated: “One immediately sees that we are in a Jewish house”. In the interview we present here and, above all, in the greatness of Michael Löwy’s works, we can find fundamental clues to interpret the spiritual proximity between a Central European Jewish tradition and the great Russian literature. This “attractio electiva”, coming from a neo-romantic Jewish intelligentsia in relation to the theological and utopian residues that are embodied in the works of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy (residues that may be essentially Jewish), can be interpreted as the most explosive element of modern philosophical messianism.


Author(s):  
Thelma Z. Lavine

Habermas' social philosophy can now be perceived in its oppositional structures and their symbolic meaning. His repetition of structural opposition finds its expression in the symbolism which pervades The Philosophic Discourse of Modernity in the opposition between the dreaded myth of the Dialectic of Enlightenment and the redemptive fantasy of the path yet to be taken. More significant for the intellectual culture of modernity is the neglect, by erasure on the part of this esteemed philosopher, of the great drama of philosophy in our time. This is the drama occasioned by the dialectical struggle, rushing to climax in the 20th Century, between Enlightenment reason and its Counterenlightenment opponent. The struggle between these philosophical constellations is refracted in the great wars of this century. Thus the drama of the philosophical thought of the century and its historical development is lost. The philosophic discourse of modernity has yet to be written. Its text, once it has been freed from the tenacity of ideological hostilities and their erasures and concealing circumlocutions, will at the same time provide the sought-for foundation for social philosophy and a just society: it is the philosophic framework of Modernity itself which is the foundation of all modern philosophies, in the dialectic of Enlightenment and its Counterenlightenment other.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 288-309
Author(s):  
Maciej Falski

Croatian ethnologists’ and agriarians’ dream of sourceIn the first half of the 20th century, the connection between ethnology and politics in Croatia was exceptionally strong. Ethnology has become a tool to build national cohesion, and the main discourse is sought in the authentic aspects of Croatian culture, which could distinguish it in particular from Serbian or, in general, from Yugoslav culture. The central category of discourse, both ethnologic as well as the political, is the concept of source. A key theorist and activist who developed the concept of authentic Croatian cultural sources, and entered it in the political agenda, was Antun Radić. Together with his brother Stjepan, he founded the peasant party, which after 1918 became the Croats’ main political force. The Radić brothers pointed out that only folklore preserves cultural purity, and thus peasants should be the source of the resurgence in Croatian identity. During the short lifetime of the Croatian Banovina (1939–1941), this policy and its accompanying ideas became the official ideology, marked by the extraordinary influence of ethnology. This paper points out the dangerous aspects of the idea of source, related to the concept of closed, exclusive culture exposed to arbitrary purification. Chorwackich etnologów i ludowców marzenie o dotarciu do źródłaW pierwszej połowie XX wieku związki etnologii i polityki były w Chorwacji wyjątkowo silne. Etnologia stała się narzędziem budowania spójności narodowej i główną dziedziną wiedzy, w której poszukiwano autentycznych treści kultury chorwackiej, różnicujących ją zwłaszcza od kultury serbskiej czy ogólnie, południowosłowiańskiej. Centralną kategorią dyskursu zarówno etnologicznego, jak i politycznego, staje się pojęcie źródła. Najważniejszym teoretykiem i działaczem, który opracował koncepcję źródeł autentycznej kultury chorwac­kiej i wpisał ją w program polityczny, był Antun Radić. Razem z bratem Stjepanem założył on partię chłopską, która po 1918 r. stała się główną siłą polityczną Chorwatów. Radiciowie podkreślali, że jedynie folklor zachował czystość kulturową i właśnie dlatego wieś powinna być źródłem odrodzenia chorwackiej tożsamości. W krótkim okresie istnienia Banowiny Chorwackiej (1939–1941) program ten i towarzyszące mu wyobrażenia stają się ideologią ofi­cjalną, nacechowaną niezwykłym znaczeniem przydawanym etnologii. W artykule wskazuje się w konkluzji na niebezpieczne aspekty idei źródła, które wiążą się z wyobrażeniem kultury zamkniętej, ekskluzywnej, odrzucającej dialog i arbitralnie poddanej puryfikacji.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-240
Author(s):  
Jennifer Keefe

From the mid-nineteenth century to the early twentieth century British Idealism was a leading school of philosophical thought and the Scottish Idealists made important contributions to this philosophical school. In Scotland, there were two types of post-Hegelian idealism: Absolute Idealism and Personal Idealism. This article will show the ways in which these philosophical systems arose by focusing on their leading representatives: Edward Caird and Andrew Seth Pringle-Pattison.


1970 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 295-297
Author(s):  
Paweł Stanisław Czarnecki

After a brief look at Drafts on Polish philosophy of the twentieth century you could get the impression that this is a work dedicated to the most recent works of Polish philosophy. However after a moment of consideration, it seems hard to believe that a contemporary philosopher would write a history of twentieth century philosophy which could be considered neither as his history nor his philosophy. The distinction between history and philosophy in this case is not accidental since Wojciech Słomski does not try to present a completely closed view of philosophical thought in the last century but aims at expressing that which he himself considers most valuable in contemporary Polish philosophy. It turns out that despite first impressions, we are not dealing with a systematic lecture, maintaining a cold and impartial approach to the subject but with a text written by an independent philosopher who cannot write differently about philosophy than Wojciech Słomski has done. For this reason too, the philosophy in Drafts is a living philosophy, made up of the most current propositions considered by W. Słomski as more important than the task of executing clear distinctions and pigeonholing of presented views into categories created by philosophers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document