Sententiae

The article analyzes the philosophical course of Stephan Kalynovskyi taught at Kyiv-Mohyla Academy in 1729–1731. By now researchers considered this course to be one of the best monuments of Ukrainian philosophical thought of that time. However, the textual analysis has shown that the course was borrowed verbatim from François le Reés, a French author who wrote it in Paris in the 1630s. The article also analyzes all other currently known educational courses of Kalynovskyi (courses on rhetoric, history, mathematics). Neither they were written by the professor himself, but borrowed, mostly verbatim, from other authors. The article drew conclusions about the (un)originality of Kalynovskyi's courses based on a comparison of his courses with their sources, identifying authorial changes, deviations, etc. In addition, an attempt was made to find out whether the verbatim borrowing of someone else's text without indicating the author during teaching could be considered plagiarism at that time. Biographical information about Kalynovskyi, as well as an overview of the church sermons that he delivered as a bishop, allows a better understanding of his educational courses.

The purpose of the article is, firstly, to explicate and give a critical assessment of the methodological, epistemological, and philosophical foundations that led to the “rhetorical turn” in modern philosophy, and, secondly, to answer the question of how justified the grounds for such a “rhetorical turn” are. The answer proposed is based on a reconstruction of Eugene Dupréel’s critical arguments that were directed against the “classical philosophy” and their reception in Chaim Perelman’s works during his “turning point” period (1947 – 1949). The article proves that these two scholars’ critique of classical philosophy proceeds from a realistic position, therefore it does not apply to the epistemological principles of idealistic philosophy. Their criticism of the classical theory of progress and the ideal of universally valid knowledge is “axiological” in nature and boils down to a reassessment of all traditional values. As a result of this reassess-ment, the methodological principles of sophistry (subjectivism, pragmatism, pluralism, relativ-ism, conventionalism, etc.) are actually rehabilitated. The criticism of philosophy that appeals to spoken language and everyday knowledge, is not justified, since it is based on a misunderstanding of the conceptual and constructive nature of the philosophical language. Although the rhetorical analysis of philosophical texts should be recognized as fruitful and useful, rhetoric cannot be an instrument of philosophizing, since the interpretation of values depends on their understanding, which is given by “classical philosophy”.

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.

Olexandr Lukovyna’s interview with doctor of sciences in philosophy Oleksiy Panych, devoted to pyrrhonism’s principles, practice and contemporary status.

An overview of publications devoted to the philosophy of India, China and Japan (articles and translations of sources) in the journal The World of the Orient from 2018 to 2021 (publications in the field of Buddhist Studies are not included here).

Інтерв’ю Олександра Луковини з професором Плініо Жункейрою Смітом, присвячене дослідженню скептицизму у бразильській філософії, зокрема початковому етапові цього вивчення, внескам Освальдо Порчата та Єзекіля де Оласо, сучасному бразильському неопірронізмові та ґлобальному дослідницькому контекстові.

Interview of Illia Davidenko, Vlada Anuchina and Daria Popil with Svitlana Ivashchenko.

Interview of Vlada Anuchina, Yana Dziuba and Yana Gorobenko with Yevhen Prychepii.

Interview of Vsevolod Khoma with Professor Tamara Yashchuk within the framework of the research program “Ukrainian Philosophy of the 60s–80s of the 20th Century” of the Student Society of Oral History of Philosophy.