Hegel`s studies in Ukrainian philosophy in Taras Shevchenko state university of Kyiv in 60`s - 80`s of XX century

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Kyiv Taras Shevchenko National University

HEGEL'S STUDIES IN UKRAINIAN PHILOSOPHY IN TARAS SHEVCHENKO STATE UNIVERSITY OF KYIV IN 60'S - 80'S OF XX CENTURY

Savchenko V.,

aspirant, Department of History of Philosophy

Kyiv

Annotation

hegel philosophy dialectical anthropological

The article analyzes the works of a representative of Hegel`s German philosophy in the philosophical heritage of Ukrainian philosophers V. I. Shynkaruk, P. Kopnin and M. Bulatov Ukrainian philosophers in their philosophical activity repeatedly relying on the dialectical method turns to research anthropological and ideological problems. In their works through the dialectic are covered problems of human, the dialectic of his material and spiritual being, worldview and culture.

Keywords: Hegel's studies, worldview-anthropological issues, spirituality, humanism, approach, Kyiv School of Philosophy.

Анотація

У статті проаналізовано праці представника німецької філософії Гегеля у філософській спадщині українських філософів В. І. Шинкарука, П. Копніна та М. Булатова. Українські філософи у своїй філософській діяльності неодноразово покла- даючись на діалектичний метод, звертаються до дослідження антропологічних та ідеологічних проблем. У своїх працях через діалектику висвітлюються проблеми людини, діалектика матеріального та духовного буття, світогляд та культура.

Ключові слова: гегелівські дослідження, світоглядно-антропологічні проблеми, духовність, гуманізм, підхід, Київська філософська школа.

Purpose of Research

The purpose of the research is to study the role of researches of Ukrainian philosophers in the sphere of interpretation of Hegel's philosophy. An important aspect of the relevance of the work is that the consideration of anthropological issues in the work of G.VF. Hegel opens a new section of his work, which is very important for understanding the heritage of the philosopher as a whole. In the domestic history of philosophy, Hegel's anthropology has been studied much less than other aspects of his work.

Despite the fact that the analysis of Hegelian philosophy belongs to the field of the history of philosophy, it has not only historical value. As the further discourse will show, Hegelian analysis of such topics as the dialectics of the social and the individual, the nature of thinking, the determination of individual consciousness, the specifics of social exclusion and other issues that are at the forefront of modern philosophical knowledge is of lasting value. Hegelian analysis is very important for a deeper understanding of the urgent problems of modern philosophical anthropology.

The intellectual space in which the new Ukrainian philosophy was formed and developed was the teams of the Faculty of Philosophy Taras Shevchenko State University of Kyiv (as he was then officially called), as well as the research community of the Institute of Philosophy named after G. S. Skovoroda. Around P. N. Kopnin, and then V. I. Shynkaruk arises and affirms the “mediation environment”, which has received recognition of its value in both creative, intellectual and civic terms [1, p. 210].

At first glance, it may seem that the “Kiev Philosophical School” arose in an organized way, decree of the party leadership, thanks to the appearance in Ukraine after the Great Patriotic War the galaxy of young Russian philosophers, especially P. V. Kopnin, M. L. Zlotina, I. P. Golovakhi, already in Kiev who brought up an entire generation of Kievans, starting with V.I. Shinkaruk, who then will pass the baton of the traditions of the new school. Such features of the history of the formation of Kiev thought only emphasize the belonging of this school to the context of Soviet post-war philosophy - and the connection Kiev school with Moscow, Leningrad and others. It is no coincidence that it was in the 1950s in Moscow thanks to the activities of young thinkers, especially E. V Ilyenkov and A. A. Zinoviev, a new wave is emerging, as they say now, of “creative Marxism”, the foundations of a holistic epistemology and methodology.

However, the existence of Kiev philosophy, along with other schools that flourish in the same time in other major cities of the USSR, as well as the fact that a huge contribution to the formation The Kiev school was introduced by Russian thinkers, graduates of the famous MIFLI, does not level characteristic features of the Kiev tradition, radically distinguishing it from the other schools mentioned. Moreover, in my opinion, it can be argued that the Kiev philosophical school of the Soviet period in ideological, “human-centric” problems of their interests, developed and P. V. Kopnin, and V. I. Shynkaruk, and V. G. Tabachkovsky, and many others, is legal the successor of the traditions of Ukrainian philosophizing - humanism T. G. Shevchenko, I. Ya. Franko and L. Ukrainka, “philosophy of the heart” P. Yurkevich, the concept of deep involvement of the world and human G. S. Skovoroda. Another thing is that the ideas of this national tradition were presented in the second half. XX century the language of modern professional philosophy - and, above all, the language of German classical philosophy, the language of Hegel and Marx. The concepts of the luminaries of world classics were interpreted in this case, again, in the light of the tradition of Ukrainian and Russian thought, let such an interpretation and it turned out, in accordance with the purely ideological and political properties of that era, very veiled like a reproduction of authentic marxism [8, p. 207].

The most known Ukrainian scientists in the field of history of philosophy, who provided their researches on Hegel's philosophy in frames of Marxist tradition, were: Pavlo Kopnin, Volodymyr Shynkaruk, Myhailo Bulatov, Jurij Kushakov and so forth. This researches touches upon the most significant personalities.

Pavlo Kopnin (1922-1971) was a soviet and Ukrainian philosopher, founder of several philosophical research communities (Tomsk philosophical community, Kyiv philosophical community and so forth), which represented his general and special scientific interests -- philosophy of science, epistemology, logic, dialectics, history of philosophy. Despite of the fact that he was born and died in Russia, he is acclaimed as one of the most honored personalities of Ukrainian philosophy and history of philosophy. He graduated from Lomonosov State University of Moscow (1944), In 1958, after gaining the Doctoral degree (Doctor of philosophical sciences) he moved to Kyiv, where he spent ten years working on different teaching and administrative positions (Head of the philosophy chair in Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, Head of the historical and dialectic materialism chair in Taras Shevchenko state university of Kyiv, Director of the Institute of Philosophy (scientific research institution) of Ukrainian Soviet Socialistic Republic) and publishing his main scientific works: “Dialectics as Logic” (1961), “Hypothesis and reality cognition” (1962), “Idea as the form of reasoning” (1963), “Logical basis of the science” (1968), and so forth. In his books he developed several scientific theories concerning to methodology of science, logic of science and leading role of dialectics in all fields of research. He took part in the discussion of the concept of unity of Logic, Dialectics and Epistemology which was evaluated as crucial and significant.

Pavlo Kopnin interprets Hegel as follows: “Bridging the gap between logic and the doctrine of being, Hegel rejected the misunderstanding of forms of thinking as purely subjective, showing their objective content. The merits of Hegel in developing the principle of the identity of the laws of existence and the laws of thinking were appreciated by the founders of Marxism-Leninism... Hegel's laws of thought are both laws of objective reality, since everything underlies everything, and the whole process of development is nothing else. as knowledge of thinking by oneself, ie self-knowledge... Thus, instead of really solving the difficult question of the relation of the laws of thinking to the laws of being, Hegel generally removes this question, making it non-existent, because thinking is itself a lnist, being itself” [7, p. 472].

The merit of Marxism in the field of logic is, according to Kopnin, that “Marxist philosophy has overcome the gap of ontology and epistemology on the dialectic-materialistic basis of the theory of reflection and understanding of the dialectics of the subject and object in the process of practical activity of man to create a new world of things and relations” [7].

P. Kopnin [7, p. 334-343] notes that one of the common concepts of the denial of objective truth is Kantianism, with Kant grasping the complexity and contradiction of the very concept of truth. In his opinion, truth must be objective, indispensable signs of this objectivity are commonality and necessity. A thought can be considered true if it is thought with absolute necessity and commonality.

Volodymyr Shynkaruk (1928-2001) was a Ukrainian philosopher and historian of philosophy. He graduated from Philosophy department of Taras Shevchenko state university of Kyiv (1950). Since 1951 to 1968 has been working on different positions in University (associated professor, full professor, dean). In 1968 he was admitted on the position of Director of the Institute of Philosophy. Volodymyr Shynkaruk was proficient historian of philosophy, nevertheless he wasn't able (for the political reasons) to do history of philosophy itself. His historical inquiries in the field of philosophy were connected with the Marxist-Leninist dialectical researches he was persuaded to do. However, he published several books which specially touched upon some crucial points of Hegel's philosophy and some other German classic philosophers. (Epistemology, Logic and Dialectics of I. Kant (1974); Logic, Dialectics and Epistemology of Hegel (1964); Essays on Ludwig Feuerbach's philosophy (1982) and so forth). Some propounded ideas highlighted the necessity of independent evaluation of Kant's ideas, but mostly such intentions were never realized.

V. I. Shynkaruk's interest to the Hegel's heritage was not accidental: one must proceed from the urgent need of every philosopher to realize the logic of the phenomenological paths of human fate - individuals, peoples, nations, humanity. In addition, the appeal to Hegel, as well as to world philosophy as a whole, was a kind of spiritual and intellectual compensation for the simplified perception of the world that was imposed by official philosophy.

But the main reason for turning to Hegel's philosophy was, most likely, the need to rethink the subject of philosophy from the point of view of all the formations of the human spirit: mythology, religion, the classical and modern picture of the world, and also focus on rethinking the human personality. And the anthropolo- gized Hegel “opened” the opportunity to correlate a number of global phenomena of the new era with the search for meanings, which “actualized the elements of human centrism in Hegelian historicism” [9, p. 14]. Here, Hegel, in search of answers to the questions posed by him, carefully studies the entire history of the spiritual culture of mankind accessible to him.

A detailed historical and philosophical reconstruction of the outlined self-realization of a person ends with an emphasis that is fundamental for anthropological reflection: the power of moral consciousness and its vehicle - the individual - lies in the fact that it is through personal conviction that any reality can be “recognized” or “rejected”. Consequently, with the emergence of moral consciousness, a “subjectively independent freedom” arises, thanks to which an individual can, “even speaking out against the existing state system, base everything on his conscience. It is this subjective freedom that Hegel proposes to make “the absolute basis” of the state [9, p. 15].

Thus, in the system of Hegelian reasoning, the contradiction between the individual and the state is now overcome, then remains. Indeed, overcoming does not go beyond the limits of consciousness, acquires almost the status of Kantian antinomy, where the thesis and antithesis do not overlap with synthesis. Such antin- omicity is due to the insurmountable phenomenon of alienation for Hegel: the latter is identical to objectification, thanks to it the individual “brings” himself “to the element of universality”. Since “the public objectification of human nature takes on an alienated form, the world of social life also becomes the world of an alienated spirit” [9, p. 25]. Based on the foregoing, the Hegelian vision of the interaction of man and the world is not entirely optimistic.

Arguing its position regarding the unity of dialectics and Hegel's theory of knowledge, the Ukrainian thinker deduces the principle of “dialectical negation” as fundamental. The essence of this principle is expressed by the idea that everything that exists changes, turns into its “other”, because it contains the moment of one's own denial, “negation”. “Negation” is the driving soul of immanent development, the transition of an object with its definitions to the opposite, which, being a negation of the first, is at the same time something positive, containing its own negation. The “dialectic of negativity” is “the starting point and the beginning of the Hegelian stage in the development of idealistic dialectics in German classical idealism” [9, p. 22].

In Hegel's understanding, “negation” acquired the meaning of the mutual mediation of opposites, where the mediating opposite, to the extent that it mediates (determines), is negative, and the mediated, to the extent that it is mediated, is positive. Negative (negative) does not make sense in itself, but only in the process of mediating movement. Lies, of course, are the opposite of truth, but they appear to be the denial of truth in the process of the movement of knowledge towards truth. Without this “negative” truth is impossible, and a lie is contained in the truth precisely as a negative mediator in the process of the movement of knowledge. This point, emphasized by Shynkaruk, is of fundamental importance today for all who seek the truth in endless debates about democracy, the “civilizational choice” of Ukraine, political or economic expediency, etc.

For Shynkaruk, the authority of the German philosopher is not absolute, although we constantly see a high appreciation of his creative achievements. Thus, Hegel's idea of the initial expedient orientation of the historical and philosophical process, of the “management” of this process by any one, “absolute” idea, is undoubtedly wrong. And further Shynkaruk gives a description of the historical and philosophical process that determined the fate of Ukrainian philosophy, which could become truly lively, meaningful, activating thought. From his point of view, the history of philosophy is “a process of philosophical activity of different people of different historical eras, people who in their philosophical work were guided by different worldview ideas. Each of them, of necessity, considered his philosophical doctrine to be true and, of course, did not realize that his idea was only a moment in comprehension of absolute truth. The general laws governing the development of philosophical thought paved their way spontaneously, in addition to the consciousness of individual philosophers. Ultimately, the development of philosophical thought was determined by the development of social practice and scientific knowledge in general” [9, p. 20].

In the process of studying Hegelian philosophy V I. Shynkaruk identifies in it at least nine anthropologists who, with certain modifications of their content, have not lost their relevance today. In summary, they look like this: The Absolute Spirit carries out its mission through the activities of individuals and entire nations. Therefore, the essence of man is also derived from his creative activity, without which the Spirit is barren; the universal spirit becomes the substance of the individual when the latter masters its morphogenesis, and they become the inorganic nature of the individual. The method of such mastering is education, acquiring which the individual receives that which is outside of him; by nature, man is man “in himself” (in possibility). “For himself, man,” he becomes in society, turning into his inner objective and spiritual human world; society as the “substance” of an individual becomes reality only through the activity and in the activity of individuals; personality - the initiating principle of society; outside the “phenomenology of the spirit” is the historical epic of the struggle of self-consciousness and substance, society and personality, until the latter has established its essence in substance; the first step in affirming the substantial significance of an individual is the “legal state” arising on the basis of private property; in the world of property (alienated spirit) wealth becomes the universal “equivalent” of a person; the way out of this situation is in the development of personality self-awareness, in the understanding that the world of its real power is the world of its beliefs, the world of its own moral spirit; with the emergence of moral consciousness, people find self-confidence, therefore, subjective freedom arises [8, p. 15-16].

Myhailo Bulatov (born in 1936) is a Ukrainian philosopher and historian of philosophy, disciple of Volodymyr Shinkaruk. He worked on the research positions in the Institute of Philosophy of Ukraine and taught “German classical philosophy” course on philosophical department of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. His research heritage consists of books and articles published both in soviet and independent times. His past and recent works perfectly describe the distinction between soviet and contemporary approaches in history of philosophy. His book “Lenin's analysis of German classical philosophy: problems of Logic, Dialectics and History of Philosophy” published in 1974 was a good example of the soviet image of Kant's philosophy problems and the frames of its possible analysis.

M. Bulatov in his monograph “Dialectics and Culture”, notes that Hegel's “The Phenomenology of Spirit” is an all-encompassing depiction of the spiritual history of mankind, predominantly from the perspective of knowledge as its internal content [3, p. 220].

As he saw the essence of the world spirit in knowledge, the purpose of this process for him was to “penetrate the spirit into what such knowledge is” [4, p. 15]. But since the spiritual life of society is not reduced to knowledge, the education of the individual should be understood more comprehensively - as the formation of a practically active person, as well as the carrier of certain socio-political, aesthetic, moral and other philosophical attitudes and ideals. Despite the narrowness of Hegel's point of view on the process of education, the task of constructing the scientific phenomenology of spiritual life is undoubtedly rational.

No less important feature of classical German philosophy is its deep interest in the problem of activity.

M. Bulatov draws attention to the fact that Hegel for the first time in the history of philosophy introduced into the logic of the concept of life, which VI Lenin considered a brilliant idea. In practice, Hegel also gave the status of a general philosophical category and, in connection with cognitive activity, introduced it into the system of dialectical logic [6, p. 22].

All three subjects - dialectic, culture, activity - were studied in organic unity in classical German philosophy. The interconnectedness of dialectic and culture is already evident in the fact that the Marxist materialism, focused on the study of nature, not cultural and historical reality, did not go beyond the metaphysical worldview as a whole.

The obvious connection of these traits with such a trait of Marxist materialism, such as contemplation, is quite insufficient attention to the analysis of the activity aspects of philosophical knowledge and the corresponding reality.

Revolution by virtue of validity of action gives the deepest knowledge of reality. With this provision is associated with the idea of absolute knowledge as the unity of theoretical and practical activity in Hegel's philosophy. In this case, absolute knowledge (or “absolute idea”) is a method of dialectics. This in an abstract-logical form expresses the idea of the dependence of dialectics on practical activity [5, p. 9].

Conclusions

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that the general anthropological sound of Hegelian philosophy remains contradictory: on the one hand, it reflects a kind of hymn to human capabilities; on the other hand, the absolute in Hegelian philosophy, in contrast to religion, is not omnipotent - it is “higher” than the existential problems of the human person, but higher - means outside of them. The spiritual universality of an individual, even being conscious, does not bring him protection from the usual negative factors that are characteristic of empiricism. No matter what is said about the preservation of subjectivity and individuality in the highest universality, the latter exist in the pantheon of images of the spirit only in the status of “for another”; with the departure of concrete consciousnesses into oblivion, they forever lose their “for-themselves”. Hegelian absolute, coming to the individual, enriches his life with a new change, but unlike the Christian does not give a soteriological effect. In this regard, the dissertation substantiates the position according to which the general anthropological sound of Hegelian philosophy remains contradictory and combines both life-affirming and tragic motives.

References

1. Andros E. I. (1980) Vzaimovliyanie yazyikovyih form i kategoriy myishleniya i ego granitsyi. Kategorii dialektiki, ih razvitie i funktsii. Kiev: Naukova dumka, s. 209-236.

2. Andros E. I. (1983) Invariantnyiy i variativnyiy harak- ter kategoriy v culture. Kategorii filosofii i kategorii kulturyi. Kiev: Naukova dumka, s. 166-204.

3. Bulatov M. A. (1981) Kategorii v kontekste kulturyi. Mirovozzrencheskoe soderzhanie kategoriy i zakonov dialektiki. Kiev: Naukova dumka, s. 220-234.

4. Bulatov M. A. (1983) Logicheskie kategorii i ponyat- iya. Kiev: Naukova dumka, s. 3-335.

5. Bulatov M. A. (1983) Ponyatie i urovni kulturyi v svyazi s kategorialnyim osvoeniem mira. Kategorii filosofii i kategorii kulturyi. Kiev: Naukova dumka, s. 13--89.

6. Bulatov M. A. (1980) Tipyi kategoriy i ih system. Kategorii dialektiki, ih razvitie i funktsii. Kiev: Naukova dumka, s. 21-188.

7. Kopnin P. (1962) Kategorii. Filosofskaya entsiklope- diya. Moskva: Sovetskaya entsiklopediya, T. 2, s. 472-475.

8. Tabachkovskiy V. G. (1983) Problema sootnosheni- ya kategoriy filosofii i kategoriy kulturyi v klassicheskoy i sovremennoy burzhuaznoy filosofii. Kategorii filosofii i kat- egorii kulturyi. Kiev: Naukova dumka, s. 205-253.

9. Shinkaruk V I. (1981) Kategorialnaya struktura nauchnogo mirovozzreniya. Mirovozzrencheskoe soder- zhanie kategoriy i zakonov materialisticheskoy dialektiki. Kiev: Naukova dumka, s. 11-25.

10. Yatsenko A. I. (1981) Sotsialno-prakticheskaya priroda i mirovozzrencheskaya funktsiya kategoriy kak form poznaniya, samosoznaniya i tselepolaganiya. Miro- vozzrencheskoe soderzhanie kategoriy i zakonov material- isticheskoy dialektiki. Kiev: Naukova dumka, s. 187-205.

Размещено на Allbest.ru