NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies

Journal Information
ISSN / EISSN : 2617-1678 / 2617-5703
Total articles ≅ 70
Filter:

Latest articles in this journal

NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies, Volume 8, pp 18-24; https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.18-24

Abstract:
Modern philosophy tends to consider human reality in more and more interdisciplinary contexts. Thanks to that, at first traditional, and now new media as well as IT, attract philosophers’ attention and provide material for thinking over a lot of so-called “eternal philosophical questions”. Among them, there are some of the broadest questions: a) catching the margins of the real; b) understanding, which phenomena and objects to constitute human might be called real. The key goal of this article is to research one of the crucial concepts, which brings us to understanding reality, – the notion of virtuality. The author of this paper outlines background of this notion, describes its characteristics and usage in modern philosophical discourse. First of all, virtual is described in its connotations to all three dimensions of time being: past, present, and future. It is argued that the notion of virtuality at first used to be “rediscovered” by Gilles Deleuze, but then it has experienced crucial changes in philosophy of the XXth and XXIst centuries. By means of that, virtual is discussed as a counterpart of the concept of reality. In particular, this article touches upon a variety of connotations between the notions of virtuality, reality and actuality. It also shows the context of juxtaposition of the aforementioned notions. What is more, this paper reveals moral aspects of virtuality both in transcendental and as immanent senses. This article shows the background of indistinguishability for “real” and “virtual”. Finally, it is stated that in the situation of so-called “substituted reality” the multiplicity of connotations of the notion of virtuality ought to be used to rediscover the notion of reality itself.
NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies, Volume 8, pp 48-59; https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.48-59

Abstract:
The article continues the series of investigations that demonstrate the experience of religious reading of the significant works of prominent Kyiv professors-academics of the last third of the 19th – early 20th century. These works have accumulated a powerful array of empirical material relevant to the history and theory of religious studies. Accordingly, the reconstruction of the field of theoretical positions important for the formation of the “science of religion” in the domestic intellectual tradition is currently being updated.The work of the Hebrew scholar and biblical scholar Yakym Olesnytsky is represented. This researcher was one of the first in the domestic humanities to analyze the “aggadic” layer of Talmudic writing through the prism of comparative-religious and religious-historical approaches. Metamorphoses of biblical images and plots, events of the ancient history of the Hebrew people, which arose under the influence of various mythological, philosophical, and folk traditions, were revealed. There was a real demythologization of “aggadah” from the standpoint of historical and literary criticism.On the basis of a religious reading of J. Olesnytsky’s text, this article traces some metamorphoses of theistic ideas in the process of the rise of Talmudic Judaism. They are analyzed from the point of view of the categories relevant to the philosophy and phenomenology of religion: Religious Experience, the Supernatural, the Another Reality as Sacred, the Absolute. A number of cognitive situations initiated by Olesnytsky, valuable from the point of view of a wider range of disciplines: philosophy and phenomenology of religion, history of religion, sociology and psychology of religion, religious comparative studies have been identified. This experience will be used in further research on the materials of the work of a well-known Kyiv academician.
NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies, Volume 8, pp 25-37; https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.25-37

Abstract:
Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis and Carl Gustav Jung’s analytical psychology are different in many ways and some of their differences are extremely crucial. It is widely believed that one of the most obvious examples of this intellectual confrontation is the difference between Freud’s and Jung’s views on mythology. Proponents of this view believe that Jung was much more interested in mythological issues and his theory of myth became much deeper and more developed than Freud’s one. In particular, it is believed that Freud focused exclusively on the individual’s psyche, while Jung allegedly reached the true origins of mythmaking in the collective unconscious, which is the sediment of the vast historical experience of mankind. The article shows that such statements do not reflect the real situation but just the point of view, which Jung began to spread after his break-up with Freud. In fact, the founder of psychoanalysis had a steady and deep interest in mythology. The manifestation of this interest was the formation of “psycho-analytics” of myth – a specific area of research, which in the early years of the psychoanalytic movement was joined by several first psychoanalysts, including Franz Riklin, Karl Abraham, Otto Rank, Ernest Jones, and Jung himself. It is essential that both Freud and Jung, before and after the break-up in 1913, have been and remain the supporters of the consideration of a man and culture through the prism of certain biological concepts of that time. Those are the principle of inheritance of acquired properties (Lamarckism) and the idea that ontogenesis recapitulates phylogeny (“biogenetic law”). Based on Lamarckian-biogenetic assumptions, both Freud and Jung saw the origins of mythology in the collective historical experience of mankind. The article demonstrates that the image of Oedipus and the associated motives of incest and parricide play almost the same role in Freud’s (and Freudian) model of mythmaking as the archetypes of the collective unconscious in Jung’s (and Jungian) concept of myth.
NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies, Volume 8, pp 3-9; https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.3-9

Abstract:
Traditionally, explanation is considered to be the method of natural sciences and understanding to be the method of humanities. However, this paper considers both to be methods of history. Namely, the author focuses on how explanation and understanding function in history in general and in biography in particular. Referring to biographical realm helps explicate the specifics of explanation and understanding as well as broaden the view about their uses in humanities. In the first part, the author refers to explanation and understanding in history as such. In particular, causal explanation (explanatory sketch by Karl Hempel) and rational explanation (history of ideas by Mark Bevir) are considered in the paper along with the relationship of hermeneutic notion of understanding with the two. The second part of the paper deals with the functioning of explanation and understanding in biographical research. Namely, it considers biographical understanding by Tilmann Habermas and Neşe Hatiboğlu as well as cases of causal and rational explanations in biographical research. In particular, it is shown that while causal explanation occurs in biography as explanatory sketch, it is not a separate distinct notion. It is also shown that rational explanation is used in biographical reconstructions in order to clarify the influence of particular events on beliefs of people. Based on the materials involved, the author demonstrates the specifics of explanation and understanding in biography compared to their usage in historical cognition in general.
NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies, Volume 8, pp 38-47; https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.38-47

Abstract:
The article identifies two approaches to determining the linguistic conditions of the emergence and functioning of the myth. The first approach assumes that the myth is a manifestation of unconscious (M. Müller) or conscious (E. Cassirer, R. Barthes) distortion of language. Within this approach it is impossible to escape from myth because the presentation of the facts of the world in language is inescapable, which is always imperfect. These distortions are meant for political influence, as according to the proponents of the conscious mythologizing of language. Philosophy is tasked with resisting such distortions and, consequently, myth creation in general. This approach seems simplified, because the myth is identified here with the linguistic form of its distribution, reduced to the analysis of distortions of language presentation. At the same time, the psychological and epistemological preconditions of the myth, its unique status in the life of communities are lost. Conditions for the development of the second approach arise through the critique of classical rationality by several influential thinkers who undermined the belief in the exclusive ability of discursive language to present the truth (F. Nietzsche, L. Wittgenstein, M. Heidegger). The second approach assumes that the myth emerges and continues to exist due to the inability of the logos to present some important aspects of reality, especially its existential dimension (P. Tillich, H. Blumenberg, L. Hatab, K. Morgan). In this case, myth and logos become alternative and at the same time closely connected linguistic ways of presenting the truth. Logos (the language of science) presents primarily abstract causal connections of essences. At the same time, mythical narratives are better than science at presenting the mysteries of origin and existence, creating a hierarchy of values for communities.
NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies, Volume 8, pp 60-79; https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.60-79

Abstract:
The article presents the first attempt of a complete and systematic analysis of historic and theological publications of teachers and pupils of the Kyiv Theological Academy in the second half of the 19th – beginning of 20th century in the field of studying the history of relations of Catholicism and Protestantism with Orthodox on the Ukrainian lands. The specifics of Kyiv academic historians studies was determined by the social and-political circumstances in the middle of the 19th century and denoted by an attempt to comprehend this issue in the perspective of the history of interconfessional relations of two Western Christian traditions with the eastern tradition of Orthodoxy in the historical gap of the 16th – 17th centuries – the period of the largest confrontation in confessional relations in Ukraine. The author clarifies the characteristic features of researching the question of inter-confessional interaction in the 15th – 17th centuries, which are expressed in attempts to describe the coexistence of three denominations as multidimensional and provoking а variety of different interpretations. Historical studies present the attempt to show confessional interaction in the political and legal aspects and to provide historical interpretations to the ground of philosophy of history. The article proves the tendency of Kyiv academic researchers to move away from the established Russian historiography of the 19th century view at confessional relations in Ukraine through the prism of hard confrontation and outline in religious life Ukraine conditions and circumstances of inter-confessional dialogue. Also, historians in their studies repeatedly note the significant educational and outlook influence of Western Christian denominations on the formation of educational, cultural, theological, literary traditions in Ukraine.
Viacheslav Lymar
NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies, Volume 8, pp 10-17; https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.10-17

Abstract:
The study concerns the consideration of creativity in the light of the main philosophical studies of this concept. The activity of the creative process practically proves the presence of freedom in human existence. Views on creativity reflect the attitude of a particular thinker to the question of the opposition of freedom and predestination in general. The polemical moments concerning creativity are considered and the ways of their decision are offered. In particular, two opposing views on the work of Plato and Aristotle are studied, where human talent presupposes divine inspiration (Plato) or, accordingly, only personal efforts. Nikolai Berdyaev tries to resolve the controversy between Aristotle and Plato by combining their views. He endows man with divine properties and thus indicates the source of creativity in the middle of man himself. Philip Hefner gives the individual the status of “co-creator” and puts forward the theory that man is called to improve and complete God’s creation. The study also focuses on the content and purpose of creativity. Creativity for the sake of creativity itself, which Albert Camus wrote about, was criticized by M. Berdyaev, and he offered his vision of this issue: creativity for the sake of a universal goal. Camus’ views were generally shared by A. Bergson. In connection with this last controversy, the actualization of Hryhoriy Skovoroda’s doctrine of “related work” is proposed and the expediency of this actualization is argued. Our domestic philosopher originally balances the pessimism of Camus’s work and Berdyaev’s enterprising approach. Skovoroda supports his conclusions with accurate practical examples. Reasoned conclusions about the need to update the teachings of G. Skovoroda on creativity and «related work» are given.
Halyna Teslyuk
NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies, Volume 8, pp 80-87; https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.80-87

Abstract:
This article offers an analysis of the biblical stories about two heroines: Jael and Judith who save their people by killing the foreign generals. Both stories narrate critical historical situations, namely Jael’s story in Judges 4–5 dates to the XII–X cc. B.C.E. and reflects the ongoing conflict between the twelve tribes of Israel with their neighbors in the land of Canaan, Judith’s story dates to the II c. B.C.E. and reflects the conflict between the Jews and the Seleucid rulers who oppressed the Jewish populace, forced them to practice Hellenistic rituals and abandon the Jewish law and religious practices. Jael invites Sisera, a commander of the Canaanite army of king Jabin, to her tent, gives him milk to drink, and when the man falls asleep, she kills him with a hammer and а tent peg. Judith, a widow from the town of Bethulia, uses her beauty and charm to kill Holofernes, an Assyrian general. First, she gains his trust. Then, when Holofernes drunken falls asleep, she decapitates him in his tent. These texts explicitly show the collapse of the male power and demonstrate the ability of women to step in to save the people. Both heroines are praised by the narrators for their heroism. It is also demonstrated that Jael’s and Judith’s stories have an aim to teach how one may think out of the box. Due to the lack of male capability to solve the problem or, in other words, to protect the people as it is expected according to the patriarchal norms, social roles are shifted, and perception of masculinity and femininity is reеvaluated. The heroic stories of Jael and Judith represent the idea that women can be subjects of history, violence as а means to protect people is not limited to the male domain, and women can save people in critical situations. The violence performed by the women is perceived as an extraordinary act yet necessary and not deviant in the situation.
NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies, Volume 8, pp 88-93; https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.88-93

Abstract:
The review presents the main translations of the classics of philosophical literature in previous years. The publication was made in cooperation with the Mizhvukhamy Foundation and the Tempora Publishing House. The main stress of the review is made on the works of Emanuele Severino, Ibn Sina, Henry David Thoreau and Edmund Husserl.
Kateryna Rassudina
NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies, Volume 7, pp 71-77; https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.7.71-77

Abstract:
Bioethics is an interdisciplinary science that deals with the moral aspects of medicine, biotechnology and the value of life in general. Quality of life concept is the basis for one of the models of bioethics. Its supporters understand the value of human life by relying on the categories of its qualitative characteristics. They argue that the value of life is relative and depends on certain criteria, and prove the permissibility to terminate it in some cases. Quality of life conception is criticized, above all, by those scholars who rely on religious ideas of the equal value and inviolability of all people’s lives. This article reveals several examples of such criticism in the works of Polish and American authors: T. Biesaga, H. Ciach, G. Hołub, P. Kieniewicz, R. P. George and P. Lee. Citing the arguments of that Christian thinkers, the author forms her own attitude to the problem. The ethical and ontological sources of quality of life concept, namely utilitarianism and naturalism, become the main object of criticism. It is significant that in the utilitarian appeal to maximize happiness as pleasure and calculate the gain or loss they see an attempt to establish the primacy of the overall well-being over an individual’s life as well as a reason for killing those individuals whose lives do not meet quality criteria and impair overall well-being. They also criticize such a consequence of the naturalistic view as reduction of the personality to its manifestations. The absence of such manifestations becomes for the supporters of the quality of life concept the basis for conclusion about a low quality of life of some individuals. One more critical remark towards the quality of life concept concern erasing of differences between humans and animals and their interests. The technocratic attitude that permits any manipulations of a human life if only they can be performed is criticized too. The author demonstrates that the fundamental fault of the quality of life concept which is criticized by all its opponents is a limited understanding of human nature and human life.
Back to Top Top