The article is about the poetic-practical philosophy of dialog of Lesia Ukrainka, which is manifested in the dramatic creativity of the prominent poetess, her translation activity and the concept of “person-nature relations”. In the text it is shown that Lesia Ukrainka created a new genre of contemporary drama on the basis of application of “Socratic dialog”, which started an important direction in contemporary literature and coincides with a leading trend of world philosophy associated with the paradigmatic turning point from the philosophy of subjectivity to the philosophy of inter-subjectivi ty. The kinship of the Socratic philosophy of dialog and “Socratic drama” is also referred to. The author also showed that the meaning of Socratic dialog of Lesia Ukrainka in the resolution of the main problems of world outlook of modernity and the role of argumentation, in particular, the method of elenctics, the realization of such notions as “truth” and “verity”, which is particularly important the modern day situation of “post-truth” and “post-morality”. Against the background of the global environmental crisis, it is important to look at the way how Lesya Ukrainka suggests treating nature as a subject and partner in dialogue. This paradigm continues and deepens the Romantic concept of nature as a partner in a conversation and co- crea tor of the liber mundi ("the book of the world"). It also opens the opportunity to apply hermeneutical methods of understanding nature as a common world (Mitwelt) of communication, love and creativity. The article also analyzes the topic of dialogue between cultures, as well as perception and understanding of another culture as a subject in a dialogue. We can see this focus in Lesya Uk rainka's approach to translation of poetic texts produced by cultures from distant places and epochs.

The article examines the individualistic manifestations of the heroes of Lesia Ukrainka’s poetic dramas. The key point is focused on the confrontation between a free personality and a passive mob. The author draws parallels between Friedrich Nietzsche’s and Lesia Ukrainka’s individualistic manifestations, and describes how the Ukrainian poetess creates her own accounts of individualism, which are close to Nietzscheanism: anti-Christianity, will to power, acceptance of destiny, self-overcoming, etc. The main difference between the two thinkers consists in Lesia Ukrainka’s approach when her ideas are expressed by a strong type of woman.

The article is focused on Lesia Ukrainka’s famous drama The Stone Master (Kaminnyi Hospodar), her remake of the Don Juan legend. The author of the article, Ukrainian philosopher Volodymyr Yermolenko, localizes Lesia’s masterpiece in a broader European tradition of the legend. He compares The Stone Master with the previous version of the Don Juan legend, by Tirso de Molina (The Trickster of Seville), Moli re (Dom Juan), Mozart (Don Giovanni), Hof fmann (Don Juan), Grabbe (Faust and Don Juan) and others. He analyzes Lesia’s originality within this tradition. He also reads The Stone Master in the context of the dialogue between different epochs: the Baroque, Classicism, Rococo / Enlightenment, Romanticism, Post-Ro man ticism. Each of the epochs develops its specific version of Don Juan legend, according to Yermolenko, which reflects a specific concept of human being and human relations developed at each particular period. While the “Baroque” Don Juan of Tirso de Molina marks the crisis of the culture of honor, the “Classicist” Don Juan of Moli re shows the development of a culture of knowledge and general concepts, and the “Romantic” Don Juan of Byron and Hoffmann is a symptorm of a new 19th century culture of will and transformation. In this respect, it is important to look at Lesia Uk rainka’s text as a battleground of “Romantic” will to freedom and “Post-Ro mantic” (or fin de siècle) will to power. In this context, Yermolenko reads The Stone Master (written in 1912) as a criticism of the fashionable topic of “will to power”, and as a political war ning, with Lesia Ukrainka showing the upcoming horrors of the 20th century’s authoritarianism and totalitarianism. With the help of the concept of eropolitics, the author shows how, through the erotic topic, Lesia Ukrainka passed a major political message to her epoch — and ours as well.

29 жовтня 2020 року інститут філософії імені г.С. Сковороди нан україни спільно з гро- мадською організацією «in situ» провели online круглий стіл, присвячений 250-річчю з дня на родження ґ.В.Ф. Геґеля (1770–1831). У заході взяли участь не лише наукові працівники ін с ти туту філософії, а й викладачі та дослідники провідних вищих навчальних закладів ук раї- ни – національного університету «києво-могилянська академія», київського національного університету імені тараса шевченка, харківського національного педагогічного університе- ту імені г.С. Сковороди, а також незалежні вітчизняні дослідники філософії геґеля. Із вступ- ним словом до учасників круглого столу звернувся директор інституту філософії, член-ко- рес пондент нан україни, доктор філософських наук, професор анатолій єрмоленко, який наголосив актуальність розмаїтої спадщини німецького філософа для сучасного філософського дискурсу і потребу в поглибленому дослідженні його творчості з огляду на сучасні реалії. Учас- ники круглого столу не лише зробили цікаві доповіді, присвячені різним аспектам філософії ге ґеля, а й активно обговорювали й дискутували складні та неоднозначні питання системи абсолютного ідеалізму. Наводимо доповіді кількох учасників заходу, які дали згоду на опри- люднення своїх матеріалів.

The article represents the explication of some Hegel’s ideas with coherence to Hölderlin’s philo sophical reflections, all of which are dealing with the problem of making more significant the philosophy for the social life especially in the period of the national self-statement and radical cultural transformations on the crossing of the XVIII-th and XIX-th centuries. The communication between Hegel and Hölderlin shows the different ways of making philosophy more available for lower classes of population. Hölderlin’s considering on this problem was to make philosophical thinking more sensuous through its transforming into a new rational religion. Hegel perceived solving of this problem in education and teaching without reducing standards of philosophy as a science. The university philosophy with its abstract concepts and systems was criticized by Hölderlin and accepted by Hegel, because his aim was to activate the social and orientation functions of philosophical ideas. The popular philosophy with its metaphorical language was regarded by him as preparing for fundamental philosophical studies. The role of the philosophical lyric in the evolution of German Idealism is analyzed with its impulses for the renewal of philosophical thinking. Hegel shows some risks of symbiosis of the lyric and philosophy such as losing its freedom and turning into a new mythology with eclipse of reason. Hegel em phasizes the role of the grammar of philosophical thinking: its concepts and categories. The dialectical potential of concepts is illustrated on their cunning possibility what might be regarded as opening of closed systems. The adaptation possibilities of this theoretical and practical expe rien ce to the Ukrainian social and cultural contexts are regarded. Hegel’s interpretation of the dialectical interconnection existing between the philosophical creativity and the philosophical education for the foundation of the philosophical inquiring culture are actual today as well his demand to search for the truth. The causes for explaining Hegel’s intuitions about the concept’s and reason’s cunning are stating in their validity for developing strategies and practices of the spi ritual renewal of the Ukrainian society.

The paper deals with two Ukrainian translations of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (on the example of Introduction): a contrastive critical review is presented (involving a number of translations of the book into other languages), numerous errors were found in both (as well as, although not in such a concentration, in other translations). Given the well-known extreme difficulty of Hegel's Phenomenology, it is quite natural that the first Ukrainian attempts to interpret it, without sufficient preparation, were not successful. An adequate Ukrainian translation of this work is to be performed in the future: further considerations on this issue are transferred to the announced next article regarding other translations of Hegel.

The article contains the critical reconstruction of descriptive and analytical psychology of Wilhelm Dilthey and its influence on the phenomenological psychology of Edmund Husserl. Dilthey describes three fundamental features of intrinsic psychic life, which make it different from external physical world: 1. Immediacy — psychic life is directly perceived as intrinsic process; phy sical world is indirectly perceived as external reality. 2. Connection — psychic life is organic connection of interrelated experiences, physical world is conglomeration of the separate facts. 3. Value — psychic experiences use to have the value to us, physical facts can be irrelevant to us. According to Dilthey descriptive and analytic psychology is possible since the psychic life is directly given as organic connection of experiences, which have a special value. The main method of psychology should be description of the psychic experience. Dilthey sketches out three main direction of this description: 1. Description of the main types of the psychic processes. 2. Description of the main connections of the human experiences. 3. De scrip tion of the special parts of the human experiences. On one hand, the phenomenological psychology of Edmund Husserl is grounded on the descriptive and analytic psychology of Wilhelm Dilthey. On another hand, Husserl criticizes some crucial points of Dilthey’s conception. First of all the founder of phenomenology and phe no menological psychology points out the connection of the notions “understanding” and “induction” in the psychological conception of Wilhelm Dilthey. On the contrary, according to Husserl the method of understanding should be based on the concept of intuition, which plays an important role in his phenomenological project.

When we talk about historical revisionism, negative connotations as a rule are prevailing. Prohibition of revision of certain historical interpretation and assessment is one of the tasks of historical policy which is carried out by adopting so-called «memorial laws». Taking care of the formation of the desired representations of the past (narratives) is directly related to the interests of institutionalized power in its own stabilization and strengthening. Power is a function of the community, whose identity is formed historically. Consolidation of collective identity through the support and reproduction of common representations of the past is one of the tools to strengthen power. At the same time, the very nature of human experience acquisition which is permanent me diation of the horizon of the past and the present, presuppose a reinterpretation of this past. Major shifts in the experience of generations, which occur as a result of certain social changes, lead to a new look at the past of the community. In this sense, rethinking and rewriting history becomes necessary to clarify, update, rationalize the collective identity, which is problematized by new experience. Historical policy can both respond to this need for identity transformation through rethinking representations of one’s own past and come into conflict with it. In the latter case, the narratives transferring by institutional power begin to conflict with the communicative memory of the generation experiencing a shift. One of the tools of self-preservation of power in this situation is blocking of living historical experience, which can take various forms. The culmination of such a blockade is «hermetization» of historical time that take place in totalitarian state. The living historicity of experience, which requires a constant rethinking of one’s own historically inherited identity, is replaced by an artificial, time-frozen identity, which, precisely because of this nature, becomes fragile and doomed to destruction. On the other hand, the rewriting of history initiated by the authorities within the framework of historical policy may face resistance to the representations of the past rooted in the communicative and cultural memory. The resistance of historical narratives indicates that the collective memory and the identity founded in it are not only a power construct, but also a spontaneous layering of sediments of historical experience. In today’s world of global communications and unified everyday practices, historical narratives are beginning to play an increasing role, as they remain the only seat of identity. At the same time, this process reinforces the conflict potential of communities, which can be observed in many examples of the revival of historically motivated political ambitions. In this situation, a critical clarification of various interpretations of the past becomes a means of rationalizing the historically inherited identity of communities as a necessary condition for intercultural dialogue.

Modern dialogue between Western science and Buddhism raises an enormous range of cognitive issues that require interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research. The idea of methodological pluralism (MP) arises here as an ef fective solution for such projects. Having immersed itself in the study of the background of its opponent, Western science touched the fairly old and specific way of reality cognition, which in certain aspects actually can be identified as a Tibetan-Buddhist version of the MP. In an interview with the professor from the United States, who for many decades has been engaged in research on the boundaries of various science disciplines, ethics, and religious studies, we tried to clarify the specifics of this so-called version of MP, which is set out in the Buddhist doctrine of time, Kālacakra. Texts of this doctrine are included in the corpus of Buddhist canonical literature and form the basis for two classical Buddhist sciences: the science of stars (which is actually “social astronomy”); and the science of healing (which looks like a certain version of “psycho-medicine”). During the interview, we went directly to the possibility of using the Buddhist version of MP at least within the dialogue “Bud dhism- Science”, to the need to understand the specifics of such an implementation, and to the mandatory combination of MP with an integrated approach. The interview was intended to raise the question that deals with transgressing the abovementioned dialogue from the “consumer” level (when we are looking for something that could be useful to the Western neuro-cognitivist) to the philosophical one, in order to formulate a criterion for recognizing a different way of thinking, and finally, to move on toward the semantic discussion, without which the integration phase of any kind of MP is impossible.

У цьому числі «Філософської думки» публікуються матеріали семінару «Лабораторії науко- вого перекладу», який був присвячений обговоренню українського перекладу твору Арис то теля «Метафізика». Семінар відбувся 22 вересня 2020 року в Інституті філософії імені Г.С. Ско вороди НАН України за підтримки ГО «Лабораторія законодавчих ініціатив» і видавництва «Тем- пора». Текст українського перекладу представив перекладач твору Олексій Панич. Екс пер- тами були Леся Звонська та Віталій Терлецький. Модерував семінар Вахтанґ Ке бу ладзе.

A. Yermolenko (moderator), S. Yosypenko, Ye. Golovakha, O. Bilyi, O. Maiboroda, M. Boychenko, T. Gardashuk, V. Zagorodniuk, Ye. Bystrytskyi, O. Mishalova, V. Kuznetsov, N. Viatkina, V. Nechyporenko)

The article examines the problems of philosophy development in Ukraine during the thirty years of independence; an attempt is made to periodize this development. It is shown that the independence of Ukraine, in addition to the state, political and economic dimensions, also contains a spiritual component associated with religious, cultural, linguistic, and ideological independence. The key here was independence from the Moscow Church and creating an autocephalous Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Nevertheless, since, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, no ideology can be recognized by the state as mandatory, spiritual independence is also a secular category and presupposes worldview and philosophical independence. The article highlights several stages of the creation of philosophical independence. First, the first stage required overcoming the ideologically biased philosophy of Russian Marxism, that is, Marxism-Leninism. The second stage is the involvement of Ukrainian philosophy in the models of modern world philosophy, the assimilation of its leading trends and paradigmatic complexes. The role of translations of philosophical classics and modern philosophical literature in entering philosophy into world philosophical thought in Ukraine is also shown. Finally, the third stage is related to solving the critical problems of our time, related to globalization, ecological crisis, universalism and particularism in ethics, ethical reclamation of modern society, etc. The article also deals with the role of philosophy and philosophical education in substantiating the value orientations of the development of Ukrainian society, the formation of communicative, moral, professional competencies of citizens as a factor in the civilizational choice of Ukraine.

The article analyzes the problem of Ukraine's development since independence. A comparison of the way of organizing social reality in modern Ukraine and in the Soviet period is carried out. The main regulatory factor in the life of Soviet society was the principle of domination. Ukraine has inherited the principle of domination and retains its leading role in the current social order. Its various manifestations that determine the structure of Ukrainian society, in particular the growth of the bureaucratic class and bureaucratic pressure on all spheres and sections of life, are analyzed. The dominance of bureaucracy contains latent violence, feeds corruption and minimizes social dynamics. It is also a phenomenon of power rent, which finds its expression in a kind of "privatization of the state." Another universal effect of the principle of domination is the doubling of social reality into apparent and hidden. The apparent reality becomes a space for the existence of ordinary citizens and the implementation of legal procedures, while the hidden one contains a system of real circulation of power, which is not regulated by any legal regulations, instead, controls all movements of the social body. The systemic role in the hidden society is played by cliques — informal groups of influential people who really control the course of events. The consequence of the principle of domination is the passivity and marginalization of the Ukrainian citizen, associated with the defect of political participation. Such non-participation in power is embodied in such forms of consciousness as hope, liking, and despair. Today, independence is not a given, but a chance that must be realized. The way to this is through the restoration of the role of the people as a sovereign power and the development of non-dominant regulatory factors of sociality

The problem of the "revival" (renaissance) of the Ukrainian statehood has been the focus of attention for centuries. On the other hand, Ukrainian intellectual discourse has not been able formulate an integral and consolidated image of the past. A significant obstacle on this path was the state policy of memory of an ad hoc nature, which was built through a combination of Soviet and Ukrainian approaches to the interpretation of the past. The lack of a unifying historical narrative, the regionalization of history interpretations of Ukraine have fueled interpersonal and interregional hostility within Ukrainian society for decades. It has become a fertile ground for the humanitarian aggression of neighboring countries, aimed at desubjectivation of Ukraine through destruction of historical foundations of statehood in public consciousness of the Ukrainians themselves. The points of their spokesmen are reinforced by arguments of the conservative pro-Ukrainian historians, who, trying to consider the history of Ukrainian statehood in the context of general civilization development, have developed the thesis of “non-historical” Ukrainian nation due to interruption of national existence in the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. This approach, as shown in the article, was important for raising attention of global community to the Ukrainian issue in the second half of the twentieth century, even though it did not reflect the real case. After all, even at the time of strengthening of assimilation policy on the part of neighboring states, Ukrainians did not have the interruption of national existence and continued to cultivate diverse ideas of "revival" and development of their own statehood. Such desire was especially evident in the seventeenth century due to active position of the Cossacks, who managed to wield influence on all segments of Ukrainian population, raising it to an armed struggle for their own freedom and statehood. The inability of the Cossacks to fully implement the tasks gave rise to notes of pessimism in the minds of Ukrainians, whose faith in the revival of their own statehood faded away, but never waned at all. Cherishing the former Cossack greatness, Ukrainians, contrary to the assimilationist policy of the ruling nations or stratums, have always found the strength to speak out reminding themselves and the world that “Ukraine`s glory has not died, nor her freedom”, and therefore they will defend their own statehood.

The proposed article is an exploration of realistic social ontology, devoted to the study of the interaction between national memory, historiography and archives as defining social institutions of the modern era. The study focuses on the problems of formation and transformation of perceptions of the past of the national community — the bearer of sovereignty. During the analysis, the author concludes that national memory, archives and historiography are endowed with their own dynamics, and the relationship between them is a changing constellation of relations, that has undergone a complex evolution over the last two centuries. Beginning in the 19th century, the nature of relations changed in the direction of emancipation of archives from the guidelines of official historiography, distancing historiography from the exercise of state power, and the emergence of a new memorial culture in the late twentieth century. The result of these changes was the emergence of affirmative historiography, which has a significant impact on public life. The author concludes that the urgent problem of today is to create conditions for conflict-free interaction of all participants in the politics of memory in order to avoid politicization caused by inconsistencies in the interpretation of past events.

Linguistic convention (samaya/saṃketa) is one of the central notions of Indian philosophy of language. I present a new classification of traditions of Indian thought based on their view of linguistic convention. This classification is to be verified and expanded in further studies. 1) Nyāya, Vaiśeṣika, Buddhism, and later classical Yoga of the Tattvavaiśāradī accept samaya/saṃketa as an agreement initiating the relationship between words and their previously unrelated meanings. 2) Bhartṛhari the Grammarian and the continuators of his thought acknowledge samaya/saṃketa as the established usage of words that is rooted in the natural relationship between words and their meanings; the convention manifests (makes known) the relationship. This view was probably also shared by Mīmāṃsakas and Advaitins. 3) Classical Yoga of the Yogasūtrabhāṣya and probably also earlier Grammar thought of the Mahābhāṣya accept linguistic convention as the established usage of words, but this usage, though having neither a beginning nor an end, is not based on any natural and necessary word–meaning relationship. In this view, linguistic convention not only manifests the word–meaning relationship but also keeps it in existence. Finally, I also explain why the same Sanskrit term samaya/saṃketa was applied to the different ways of understanding linguistic convention. I explain this through the common aspects of all three kinds of samaya/saṃketa. The first aspect is the content of all these kinds of samaya/saṃketa. Irrespective of how linguistic convention is understood, its content is the same: “such and such a word has such and such a meaning”. The second aspect is the crucial role of linguistic convention in language acquisition, communication, and transmission.