The article deals with Max Scheler's philosophical concept of ressentiment. In “Ressentiment in the Structure of Morals”, he uses Friedrich Nietzsche's concept of "ressentiment" to describe an important negative phenomenon in modern moral and culture in general. The article shows that Max Scheler's descriptive method organically grows out of the phenomenological philosophy of Edmund Husserl and at the same time imitates some specific features of Wilhelm Diltai's descriptive and analytical psychology. On the basis of this methodological approach, Max Scheler does (...) not explain ressentiment and does not give a clear definition of this concept, but instead reproduces its formation in the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche and describes the phenomenon of ressentiment. Using the descriptive method, Scheler concludes that ressentiment is related to the desire for revenge and feelings of powerlessness. He also describes the different dimensions of ressentiment, which can be formulated as follows: Kinship and sexual dimension. Age dimension. Professional dimension. Class dimension. There is also noted in the article that Scheler demonstrates national ressentiment rather than critically analyzes it. This circumstance to some extent brings to light the Zeitgeist, i.e. the spirit of time, when authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies and regimes such as Russian Bolshevism and German Nazism were formed, being undoubtedly feed by the destructive energy of resentment. The author of the article also discovers a connection between Scheler's concept of ressentiment and Freud's concept of suppression. The study shows how, on the theoretical basis of Max Scheler's concept of ressentment, it is possible to critically deconstruct not only such historical manifestations of ressentiment as Bolshevism and Nazism, but also some dangerous and destructive trends in the modern world, namely the ideology of the "Russian world" (“Russkii mir”). (shrink)

Discourse on the Method” and “Metaphysical Meditations” by René Descartes: Seminar.

The author claims that the will to translation from foreign languages is an intrinsic tendency of development of any language. The article deals with the following problems of Ukrainian translation of the work «The Dawn of Day» by Friedrich Nietzsche: (1) Reproduction of the poetic style of Nietzsche’s writing. (2) Translation of Nietzsche’s neologisms that are not adopted in modern German language. (3) Interpretation of the influence of Nietzsche’s life experience on his thinking. -/- The author analyses his own experience (...) of translation of this work. He describes his strategy of translation which is based on the assumption that Nietzsche’s text should be translated not only as philosophical but also as a poetical one. The style of Nietzsche’s writing is deeply rooted in his life experience, and first of all in his illness. His main concepts express the fundamental aspects of existence. That is why Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s thinking can be used as methodological basis for translation of Nietzsche’s works. From this point of view we can understand and translate Nietzsche not only as a philosopher but also as a poet. -/- So the strategy of translation is based on the following principles: (a) The text should be interpreted in the context of Nietzsche’s life experience. (b) The principal words of Nietzsche should be understood not as rigorous notions but as «existentials». (c) The Ukrainian translation should reproduce not only the meaning of the original text but also the poetical style of Nietzsche’s writing. (shrink)

Phenomenological thinking in Ukrainian terms.

The other experience: to comprehend the incomprehensible. The "Philosophical Thought" Round Table.

У статті йдеться про трансцендентальний поворот у розвитку феноменологічної філософії, який засновник феноменології Едмунд Гусерль здійснив у своєму творі «Ідеї чистої феноменології і феноменологічної філософії. Книга перша: вступ до чистої феноменології». Від цього моменту й до самого кінця життя Гусерль визначав власну філософію як трансцендентальну феноменологію. Про це свідчить насамперед назва його останнього незавершеного твору «Криза європейських наук і трансцендентальна феноменологія: вступ до феноменологічної філософії». Автор намагається прояснити історичне і філософське тло цього повороту і його вплив на феноменологію та інші (...) філософські напрями аж дотепер. З одного боку, цей трансцендентальний поворот є дуже важливий для сучасної дискусії про проблему свідомості не лише у феноменологічних дослідженнях, а й у сучасній філософії свідомості та когнітивних науках. Наприклад, проблему «explanatory gap» можна побачити в новому світлі з феноменологічного погляду. Отже, стверджується, що феноменологія – це одна з найрозвинутіших версій трансцендентальної філософії досвіду і що на засадах трансцендентальної феноменології можна створити універсальну методологію гуманітаристики, а також додати дещо нове навіть до формулювання фундаментальних проблем природничих наук. (shrink)

Review of Apostolescu, I... The Subject of Phenomenology: Rereading Husserl. Cham: Springer Nature.

The article is devoted to the Tibetan-language work of the modern Tibetan master Geshe Tupten Pelsang "Compilation of Sutras for the synthesis of the path to Enlightenment with reference to the topics set forth in the Great Lamrim" (lam rim chen mo'i sa bcad kyi zur rgyan mdo btus lam sgrig). It is established that this is the first Roman (extra-sectarian) Lamrim based solely on excerpts from the Word of the Buddha (Kangyur) and does not use a set of Buddhist (...) shastras ‒ Tengyur. There are various texts that bring together the instructions transmitted by Shakyamuni Buddha. It is determined that in this case such kind of genre as anthology (btus-pa) is considered. It is a thematic selection and bringing in a certain order of quotations of the Word of the Buddha, but at the same time expresses a certain opinion and creativity of the author himself. At the same time, it was revealed that the work is based on a structural presentation of the stages of the path to enlightenment according to the "Big Lamrim" of Je Tsongkhapa. It is determined that the author does not derive the justification of the correctness of the provisions of the lamrim (step-by-step path) from logical argumentation, but conducts it by fully quoting a canon that is appropriate in the meaning of a part of the text. The source editions for citation are the Kangyur editions of Nartang (snar-thang) and Derge (sde-dge). (shrink)

Kyiv-Mohyla Seminar on the History of Philosophy was established by the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy’s Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies in 2003. In this yearly seminar, the Department’s members as well as the historians of philosophy from other academic institutions regularly take part. Since 2003, 16 meetings of the seminar took place. They were focused on such topics as “Historiography of Philosophy in Ukraine: Current State and Perspectives”, “Actual Problems of the Source Studies in the Historiography of Philosophy”, “The Problem of (...) Text Interpretation in the Historiography of Philosophy”, “Dmytro Chyzhevskyi as a Historian of Philosophy”, “Historiography of Philosophy in Ukraine: Current State and Perspectives”, “The Problem of Method in the Historiography of Philosophy”, “Oleksii Losiev: Personality and Heritage ”, “Methodology of the Historiography of Philosophy: Actual Strategies”, “Wilhelm Windelband as a Philosopher and Historian of Philosophy ”, “Hegel’s Heritage in the Mirror of Interpretations”, “The Studies on the History of Philosophy: New Generation”, “Kant’s Criticism from the perspective of Wolf’s dogmatism”, “The Reception of Indian Philosophy in Ukraine: 1840s–1930s”, “Did Kant Answer the Question on What a Man Is?”. The proceedings of the early three meetings were published in a special volume. The current issue of “NaUKMA Research Papers in Philosophy and Religious Studies” contains the proceedings of the sixteenth meeting of Kyiv-Mohyla Seminar on the History of Philosophy, which took place at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy on February 1, 2017. The main speaker was Dr. Taras Lyuty, while the co-speakers included Dr. Mykhailo Minakov and Dr. Vakhtang Kebuladze. The meeting was conducted by Prof. Vadym Menzhulin. The audio recording of the meeting was deciphered by a PhD-student Taras Fostiak. (shrink)