Концептуалізація усної історії філософії: проблема інтерв'ю

Oleg Khoma

doi:10.31649/sent42.01.069

Authors

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

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31649/sent42.01.069

Keywords:

oral history, reflection in the history of philosophy, testimony, methods of the history of philosophy, dialogue

Abstract

The paper determines the status of the “Oral History of Philosophy” within the history of philosophy as a discipline. The author formulates his theses as answers to the fundamental questions Serhii Yosypenko asked in 2019. The latter subjected the first attempts to comprehend the then-new concept of “Oral History of Philosophy” to fruitful criticism. It is in response to his criticisms that the former gives now his answers which can be summarized in six points: (1) Oral History of Philosophy is fundamentally different from Oral History and is not limited to the application of the interview method; (2) it is a set of dialogical methods of producing new information in the field of the history of philosophy, that is, a new methodology that can be used in any historical-philosophical research; (3) the main difference is the orientation of the Oral History of Philosophy not to personal testimony, but to joint reflection; (4) this focus on reflection determines all the methods of Oral History of Philosophy; (5) the name “Oral History of Philosophy” is due to the specifics of the situation that gave rise to this methodology rather than a conscious conceptual reflection; (6) this methodology can be given a more exact name: “Dialogical forms of historical-philosophical reflection”, while the name “Oral history of philosophy” can be used for those dialogical forms that rely on oral speech.

Author Biography

Oleg Khoma, Vinnytsia National Technical University

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

References

Chayka, T. (2009). The touch. Presentation of the project “Oral Stories of Philosophers”. Filosofska Dumka, (3), 140-145. http://journal.philosophy.ua/article/nid7433

Davidenko, I. (2022). Current State of Researh on the Oral History of Philosophy. Sententiae, 41(2), 235-238. https://doi.org/10.31649/sent41.02.235

Golovakha, Y., Zborovska, X., Khelufi, A., & Khoma, V. (2017). Subjective view of Ukrainian philosophy (Conversation with Xenija Zborovska, Amina Khelufi and Vsevolod Khoma). Sententiae, 36(1), 173-214. https://doi.org/10.22240/sent36.01.173

Khelufі, A. N. (2022). Theological foundations of modern novations of John Locke [Diss. ... Doctor of Philosophy; Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev]. M. Maksimovich Scient. Libr. https://ir.library.knu.ua/knurepo/handle/123456789/2264

Khoma, O. (2022). Investigatio. Sententiae, 41(2), 94-97. https://doi.org/10.31649/sent41.02.094

Khoma, V. (2019). The Limits of Credibility in the Oral History of Philosophy: The Problem of Memory. Filosofska Dumka, (4), 67-80. https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2019.04.067

Kozlovskyi, V., Davidenko, I., Kruhlyk, K., & Popil, D. (2020). Hegel and Ukrainian Philosophy of the 70-80th. Sententiae, 39(2), 241–250. https://doi.org/10.31649/sent39.02.241

Krymsky, S. B., & Chaika, T. (2012). Sergey Krymsky: our life-long conversation. (The series of interviews by T. A. Chaika). Kyiv: Dmitry Burago.

Simoroz, O. (2019). The need for reflection in the oral history of philosophy. Filosofska Dumka, (4), 53-66. https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2019.04.053

Yosypenko, S. (2019). “More than the Interview”. Overview of the section “Oral History of Philos-ophy” in the Journal “Filosofska Dumka”. Sententiae, 38(2), 86-97. https://doi.org/10.22240/sent38.02.086

Zborovska, K. et al. (2019). Oral History of Philosophy: Written Format. Filosofska Dumka, (4), 6-52. https://doi.org/10.15407/fd2019.04.006