Традиція і поліглосія

Oleg Khoma

doi:10.31649/sent43.02.087

Authors

Oleg Khoma Vinnytsia National Technical University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8249-8281

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31649/sent43.02.087

Keywords:

Ukrainian philosophizing, national philosophy, language of philosophy, universalism, particularism

Abstract

Oleksiy Panych put forward two theses: (1) irrelevance of the concept of national philosophical tradition in the analysis of modern philosophical processes; (2) impossibility of building such a tradition in contemporary Ukraine, since this tradition is incompatible with the “internal polyglossiaˮ essential for Ukrainian philosophizing. I prove that the essential features of the national philosophical tradition highlighted by O. Panych do not take into account contemporary clarifications of this concept. Developing Serhiy Yosypenkoʼs idea about the institutional level of this tradition, I propose to understand it as a two-level social mechanism of self-reproduction of the national philosophical community within the limits of modern philosophical institutions. At the first level, this tradition appears as a result of the purely civil self-identification of each individual philosopher (it ensures the very existence and stability of the tradition), at the second one, multiple reflections are carried out regarding what this tradition is and where it comes from. The products of these levels do not reduce to each other and perform separate functions. This approach allows solving a number of complex theoretical problems, in particular the problem of the incompleteness of the criteria for defining the national philosophical tradition.

Author Biography

Oleg Khoma, Vinnytsia National Technical University

Doctor of sciences in philosophy, Professor, Head of the Department of Philosophy and Humanities

References

Cassin, B. (2009). Foreword. [In Ukrainian]. In B. Cassin, & K. Sigov (Eds.), European dictionary of philosophies: Lexicon of untranslatables (Vol. 1, pp. 13-16). Kyiv: Duh i Litera.

Cassin, B. (Ed.). (2004). Vocabulaire européen des philosophies: dictionnaire des intraduisibles. Paris: Le Seuil, & Le Robert.

Cassin, B., & Sigov, K. (2024). European dictionary of philosophies: Ukrainian context. Lexicon of untranslatables (Vol. 5). [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Duh i Litera.

Descartes, R. (1996). Œuvres complètes (Vols. I-XI). (Сh. Adam, & P. Tannery, Eds.). Paris: Vrin.

Foisneau, L. (Dir.). (2015). Dictionnaire des philosophes français du XVIIe siècle: acteurs et réseaux du savoir. (Vols. 1-2). Paris: Classiques Garnier.

Foisneau, L., & Guénard, F. (2015, 9 septembre). Qu’est-ce qu’un philosophe français? Entretien avec Luc Foisneau. Vie des Idées. https://laviedesidees.fr/Qu-est-ce-qu-un-philosophe-francais.html

Marques, L. Á. (2024). Perspectives on Brazilian Philosophy in the Last Century. Sententiae, 43(2), 55-71. https://doi.org/10.31649/sent43.02.055

Panych, O. (2024). National philosophy and national philosophizing. [In Ukrainian]. In B. Cassin, & K. Sigov (Eds.), European dictionary of philosophies: Ukrainian context. Lexicon of untranslatables (Vol. 5, pp. 101-103). Kyiv: Duh i Litera.

Yermolenko, A., Khoma, V., Davidenko, I., & Myroshnyk, K. (2022). German philosophy in the Ukrainian context (70-80s of the 20th century). Part IІ. [In Ukrainian]. Sententiae, 41(2), 181-191. https://doi.org/10.31649/sent41.02.181

Yosypenko, S. (2012). Philosophy and national identity. [In Ukrainian]. Humanities studies: collection of scientific works, 12, 61-69.

Yosypenko, S. (2014). National philosophic traditions as an object of reflection in the field of the history of philosophy. [In Ukrainian]. Sententiae, 30(1), 52-61. https://doi.org/10.22240/sent30.01.052

Yosypenko, S. (2024). Ukrainian language. [In Ukrainian]. In B. Cassin, & K. Sigov (Eds.), European dictionary of philosophies: Ukrainian context. Lexicon of untranslatables (Vol. 5, pp. 79-110).. Kyiv: Duh i Litera.