Sententiae 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Oleg Khoma Open Journal Systems <p>Journal created by Modern philosophy's research group (Pascalian society).<br />Founded in 2000. Published thrice a year, in April, July and November.<br />Journal DOI: <a href=""></a></p> To know and to be. Part II 2021-03-31T18:21:14+03:00 Yevhen Bystrytsky Vsevolod Khoma Kseniia Myroshnyk Olha Simoroz <p>Interview of Vsevolod Khoma, Kseniia Myroshnyk and Olha Simoroz with Yevhen Bystrytsky.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 “The saved and the lost.” Attempt to recall on-line. Part II 2021-03-31T18:45:06+03:00 Natalia Viatkina Amina Kkhelufi Kseniia Myroshnyk Nataliia Reva <p>Interview of Amina Khelufi, Kseniia Myroshnyk and Nataliia Reva with Natalia Viatkina.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Hegel and Ukrainian Philosophy of the 70-80th. Part II 2021-03-31T19:19:58+03:00 Viktor Kozlovskyi Illia Davidenko Kateryna Kruhlyk Daria Popil <p>Interview of Illia Davidenko, Kateryna Kruhlyk, Daria Popil with Viktor Kozlovskyi.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Heidegger and Phenomenology. Westerlund, F. (2020). Heidegger and the Problem of Phenomena. London: Bloomsbury. 2021-03-31T17:55:53+03:00 Andriy Bogachov <p>Review of Westerlund, F. (2020). <em>Heidegger and the Problem of Phenomena</em>. London: Bloomsbury.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Trends in modern Hegelean studies. Bykova, M., Westphal, K., et al. (2020). The Palgrave Hegel handbook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2021-03-31T18:02:47+03:00 Illia Davidenko <p>Review of Bykova, M., Westphal, K., et al. (2020).<em> The Palgrave Hegel handbook. </em>Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Phenomenological Subjects. Apostolescu, I. (Ed.). (2020). The Subject(s) of Phenomenology: Rereading Husserl. Cham: Springer Nature. 2021-03-31T18:07:53+03:00 Vakhtang Kebuladze <p>Review of Apostolescu, I. (Ed.). (2020). The Subject(s) of Phenomenology: Rereading Husserl. Cham: Springer Nature.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 “Left” Islamic Philosophy. Bloch, Ernst. (2019). Avicenna and the Aristotelian Left. Translated by Loren Goldman and Peter Thompson. New York: Columbia University Press. 2021-03-31T18:15:10+03:00 Mykhaylo Yakubovych <p>Review of Bloch, Ernst. (2019). <em>Avicenna and the Aristotelian Lef</em><em>t</em>. Translated by Loren Goldman and Peter Thompson. New York: Columbia University Press.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Nucleus disputationis de plagio literario maxime theoreticus, thesibus paucis & brevibus comprehensus 2021-03-31T17:43:26+03:00 Jacobus Thomasius <p>The first Ukrainian translation of J. Thomasius’ work <strong>“</strong><strong>Nucleus disputationis de plagio literario maxime theoreticus, thesibus paucis &amp; brevibus comprehensus”</strong> (1679)</p> 2021-04-06T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 “Presence” in the Broad Present. Gumbrecht, H. U. (2020). Production of Presence. What Meaning Cannot Convey. Kharkiv: IST Publishing. 2021-03-31T17:25:20+03:00 Victor Chorny <p>This review of the Ukrainian translation of H. U. Gumbrecht’s best-known work brings out the strengths and weaknesses of the translation and the peculiar reception of Gumbrecht’s key ideas (“presence” and “the broad present”) in Ukraine. It also critically assesses Gumbrecht’s own original and often contradictory points. I question the relevance of Gumrecht’s meaning / presence distinction for reconstructing the history of the philosophical tradition, as well as for analysing our complex relation to the world. I also demonstrate the weakness of his biased attempts to paint his opponents as relativists. Besides, I contrast Gumbrecht’s meaning / presence dualism with John Dewey’s theory of experience. The latter conceives experience as a dialectical relation between “doing” and “undergoing”. This juxtaposition shows that Gumbrecht’s theory cannot give a satisfactory account of the mechanisms of everyday or aesthetic experience due to its lack of consistent “everyday” epistemology. Moreover, his vague concept of “presence” and its unequivocal appraisal conflict with his own concept of the chronotope of “broad” or “complex” present, as presented in the selected essays of <em>The Time Is Out of Joint.</em> Eventually, I conclude that Gumbrecht’s eclectic terminological apparatus, as well as uncritical and biased reconstruction of the tradition preclude any serious philosophical engagement. However, it does not undermine the significance of his particular insights and theoretical instruments (such as “the broad present”) for cultural analysis.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 New attempts to revive Ukrainian neo-Thomism through inspiration-by-translations. Reflections on the book Krąmpiec, M. (2020). Why evil? Kyiv: Kairos. 2021-03-31T17:35:31+03:00 Yuriy Chornomorets <p>One of the unsolved problems for the historical and philosophical thought of Ukraine is the lack of reflection on the phenomenon of Ukrainian neo-Thomism. Today, there has not been reconstructed the history of this trend, which had been actively developing in the interwar Western Ukraine since the time of socio-ethical letters by Andrei Sheptytsky in the early XX century, gained new connotations in the diaspora from 1940s to 1990s and acquired new forms in Roman Catholic thought in Ukraine at the beginning of the XXI century. Moreover, a comprehensive historical and philosophical assessment of the achievements and shortcomings of Ukrainian neo-Thomism at different stages of its development has not been made.</p> <p>Meanwhile, Ukrainian neo-Thomism is experiencing a crisis, which it is trying to overcome by translating controversial works devoted mainly to the history of moral theology. The main feature of the proposed works is the oscillation between the need to recognize the presence of a person’s spiritual-intellectual and moral-volitional intuitions and the reluctance to recognize it openly, because it would be contrary to the very principles of Thomism. Modern Ukrainian neo-Thomism inherits this contradiction, and therefore the choice of classic books for translation reflects the dialectic of the struggle of different tendencies, which objectively cannot contribute to the legitimization of neo-Thomism in the Ukrainian philosophical discourse.</p> <p>Especially significant in this regard was the translation of the book by the classic of Polish neo-Thomism Mieczysław Krąmpiec “Why evil?”, because this monograph shows the contradiction of neo-Thomistic thought in the key issues about the possibility of person’s moral intuition, moral responsibility and dignity. The very refusal of Krąmpiec to recognize the existence of a person’s spiritual-intellectual and moral-volitional intuitions, despite all the prerequisites for such recognition, leads the monograph Why evil? to failure and to inability to answer the question stated in the title of the monograph. All this justifies that in the time of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis moral theology and social doctrine moved to neo-Augustinianism, which unequivocally recognizes that the person has spiritual-intellectual and moral-volitional intuitions.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Commentary on Thomasius's “Philosophical Dissertation on Literary Plagiarism” (1673) 2021-03-31T17:48:10+03:00 Roman Kyselov <p>Commentary on the first Ukrainian translation of Thomasius’ work entitled “Nucleus disputationis de plagio literario maxime theoreticus, thesibus paucis &amp; brevibus comprehensus” (1679), which is one of the Appendices to the famous “Philosophical dissertation on literary plagiarism” (1673).</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 “Philosopher” and “Philosophy” in Kyivan Rus’ Written Sources: of the 11-14th centuries. The Need for a new Asking of the “Old” Question 2021-03-31T14:05:52+03:00 Oleksandr Kyrychok <p>The author justifies the need to return to an analysis of the meaning of such words as “philosophy” and “philosopher” in the Kyivan Rus’ written sources of the 11<sup>th</sup>–14<sup>th</sup> centuries. In the author’s view, this is explained not only by the inaccuracies the earlier research committed but also by the necessity to take contemporary achievements of Byzantine philosophical historiography into account.</p> <p>The author concludes that the preserved Kyivan Rus’ written sources reflect certain Byzantine interpretations of the words “philosopher” and “philosophy” as understood within particular interpretive frameworks: philosophy may refer to a specifically “Christian” or “external” philosophy, presuppose rational or mystical comprehension of divine wisdom, become verbalized or not. Some sources probably espouse an understanding of philosophy as a practice of true life. The word “philosopher” had different connotations, as well. It referred to advisers or officeholders at the court of the Byzantine emperor, wise princes, church intellectuals, connoisseurs of biblical books, etc. The author invalidates the idea that in Kyivan Rus’, there existed a holistic understanding of philosophy and philosophers. Instead, one should interpret these words as having a limited plurality of meanings.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 The problem of mind-body interaction and the causal principle of Descartes’s Third Meditation 2021-03-31T14:32:19+03:00 Dmytro Sepetyi <p>The article analyses recent English publications in Cartesian studies that deal with two problems: (1) the problem of the intrinsic coherence of Descartes’s doctrine of the real distinction and interaction between mind and body and (2) the problem of the consistency of this doctrine with the causal principle formulated in the Third Meditation. The principle at issue is alternatively interpreted by different Cartesian scholars either as the Hierarchy Principle, that the cause should be at least as perfect as its effects, or the Containment Principle, that the cause should contain all there is in its effects. The author argues that Descartes’s claim (in his argument against the scholastic doctrine of substantial forms) that it is inconceivable how things of different natures can interact does not conflict with the acknowledgement of interaction between things of different natures in the case of soul and body. The case is made that Cartesian mind-body interaction can agree with both the Hierarchy Principle and the Containment Principle, because the Principle is about total and efficient cause, whereas in the interaction, mental and brain states are only partial (and plausibly, in the case of brains states, occasional) causes. In particular, in the case of the causality in the brain-to-mind direction, the mind is conditioned by brain states to form the corresponding specific ideas on the basis of its innate general ideas of movements, forms, colours, etc. Eventually, for Descartes, the most natural way to deal with worries about the possibility of mind-brain interaction is to rely on God’s omnipotence, which certainly enables Him to arrange for such interaction.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021 Leibniz and Wolf: critical foundations of the idea of scientific revolution in philosophy 2021-03-31T15:49:15+03:00 Sergii Secundant <p>This article reveals the critical content of the idea of scientific revolution in Wolff's philosophy and shows Leibniz's contribution to its formation. Although Wolff's goal was to reform the method of philosophizing on the model of Euclid's geometry, which was based on the Cartesian idea of achieving certainty by clarifying concepts, this clarification Wolff in the sense of Leibniz sees in such an analysis of concepts that would accurately establish a connection between them and show the possibility of the object expressed by each concept.</p> <p>Wolff sees the critical meaning of his method in the fact that by analyzing the concepts to link all concepts and statements into a single system, which was based on consistent grounds and would not contain unproven propositions. This would, according to Wolf, remove from philosophy all the concepts, the objects of which were not possible, and statements that could not be proved. Leibniz's idea of concept analysis also formed the basis of his notion of philosophy as the science of the possible. The critical meaning of this concept of philosophy in Wolff, as in Leibniz, was to limit the subject of philosophy only to the realm of the possible.</p> <p>Although the main critical ideas underlying Wolff's philosophical system were formulated by Leibniz, Wolf's system was still the fruit of his genius. Many of his critical ideas were groundbreaking and had a marked influence on the further development of philosophy. These include, first of all, the requirement to preface the construction of a system of philosophy with research the cognitive abilities of the human mind. However, his attempts to build a universal system of knowledge led to the leveling of the critical content of some of Leibniz's demands, which led to the accusation of him and Leibniz of atheism and fatalism.</p> 2021-04-01T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) 2021