Andrii Kadykalo

Science is very difficult system which for a lot century. It was formed and in this process agglomerate knowledge, structure, tradition, special language and institutional elements. Today the science is not limited by the scope of one paradigm and even can communicate «through the paradigm». Many philosophers, scientists consider this form of science is transdisciplinary. Structure and information of science become more and this process must developing, perfecting, founding special approach for interpretation of scientific knowledge. Understanding of interaction between the subject and the object of the cognitive process, interpretation of it performs a special role in this process. This problem should consider one of the fundamental because it always «shows itself» since the time when it has begun classical science and philosophy. Absolutely scientific conceptions and categories were reinterpreted, role of the subject in cognitive process and interpretation were modified. In philosophy some methodological tradition was formed that helps to carry out hermeneutical analysis process of legalization knowledge’s of subject in objectivity form. However, we don’t speak about traditional hermeneutics which fixed on Schleiermacher’s and Gadamer’s philosophy as well as sense of the ancient Greek notion ερμηνεύειν which is famous «give an interpretation». In the field of Humanities and Social Science became denote interpretation of a text or principal of philosophical approach make scientifically knowledge such as intellectual activity of the subject. This subject can interpret reality in form of actuality. The classical science and philosophy (methodology of science) appeared in XVII-XVIII centuries and together with it aroused a new problem. This problem is explain the reality in a science and philosophy (understanding it such as actuality). It`s a necessity to know which one of notions make guidelines of this Scientific’s knowledges. The subject (person) related together with notion of rationality, logic, systematic, objective and this notions don`t work separately. Science is the system, which interpreted knowledge, and this assumption is attribute of modern scientific paradigm. In this paradigm knowledge is available as positive, exact, significant. Another information about actuality, which was outside positivity, is interpreted as not being knowledge. This situation was normative untill the XX century. The foundation of modern interpretation of knowledge and function system of knowledge was made a long time before Auguste Comte. The notion «objectivity» in opinion of modern philosopher didn’t need reasoning or special status. This discourse indicated evidence, impartiality and separation between subject and object. So it is precision of displayed in gained under the knowledge. It was based on classical universal science methodology and modern philosophy. Then the methodological of specific science take part in it. Einstein’s theory changed the pace of science. The quantum mechanics played a special role in this process. The subject has large influence on objectivity. The problem of understanding by subject or explorer of object is difficult because the rule of rationality can allowable by being. This is faith in intelligibility of reality and accordance of structure of reality to structure of psychics (brain based on mathematical principals explains the nature process). The mathematics is considered to guaranty status of «objectivity” of subject. The subject did not make mathematics. Scientist was opened the mathematic. However, the mathematic without notion of «time», «space» and «mater» is not important in science. This notion doesn’t have meaning outside people’s understanding. Only mind and intellect can unite mathematic with fundamental imaginaries about reality in science. Key words: subject, object, cognition, paradigm, interpretation, reality.

The author offers the first detailed biobibliographic description dedicated to Klymentiy Hankevich (1842–1925), a little-known Ukrainian researcher of the history of philosophy among the Slavs. Based on Hankevich's little-known text, his manuscripts, and publications about him, the individual stages of his academic life and the chronology of his research on the history of Slavic philosophy have been reconstructed. Hankevych’s explorations were the first attempts to understand the place of the philosophy of the Slavic peoples in the development of European philosophy. Based on a detailed analysis of Hankiewicz's research intentions and their implementation, as well as on reviews and responses of Polish, Czech, and Russian historians of philosophy of the last quarter of the 19th century, the author concludes that Hankiewicz's works were authoritative for a number of European (primarily Slavic) researchers of the period in question. Hankiewicz was well acquainted with the main trends in 19th-century philosophy among Poles, Czechs, and other Slavic peoples, and his research was based on solid factual material. His research was based on factual material. This assessment of Hankevich's work contrasts sharply with the corresponding assessments of D. Chyzhevsky and V. Zaikyn.

The article examines whether Klymentiy Hankevych can be considered a representative of Ukrainian philosophy. In the beginning, I define the criteria for a philosopher’s belonging to national philosophy by analyzing the concepts of Gaukroger-Peden, Sorley, and Hösle. Despite some differences between these authors, I argue that they all recognized such criteria as: (1) language, (2) institutionality, (3) intellectual continuity. Analyzing the lexicon of some of the Hankevych’s publications and his activities as a university lecturer, I conclude that he fully meets the three aforementioned criteria. Based on it, I argue that Hankevich’s philosophical legacy undoubtedly belongs to the Ukrainian philosophical tradition.

The author considers Kant’s philosophy on the main principles of classical paradigm in science. Kant’s conception of space, time and causality had a significant influence on natural scientific knowledge. The author draws attention to Kant as the creator of the classical scientific paradigm. The article examines Kant’s predecessors, in particular ancient philosophers, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and and investigates the peculiarities of their influence on the views of the German thinker. Some ideas and notions of classical science appeared before Kant’s philosophy. The author considers ideas of Kant’s philosophy weren’t the early background of classical science. The German philosopher finished the formation of the classical paradigm of science. However, this process began a long time ago before the XVIII century. The author assumes and shows that philosophers Pythagoras, Galileo, and Newton created the foundation of classical science. These three thinkers made a new science known as mechanics. Mechanics is a true science and hard basis for classical paradigm. This idea was then, and it is today, an important part of the conception of causality. The Ancient atomists said «Nothing comes into being from what is not». There is a very simple reason for this principle: if something could come from nothing, if an existent could emerge out of the non-existent, then everything could come into being out of everything. There would be no structure or order of generation, which is perhaps the most important feature of any physics. In a different language, this first principle prohibits generation ex nihilo. Moreover, not only is it impossible for something to come from nothing, something cannot become or «disappear into» nothing. The German astronomer Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion in the XVII century. It was affirmation that mechanics is a universal science. The mechanical causation became part of the main thesis for determinism. This situation became possible after Newton discovered the law of gravitation and laws of motion. Therefore, the idea is ancient, but first became subject to clarification and mathematical analysis in the eighteenth century. Kant used Newton’s laws about gravitation and motion for his Universe theory. Kant’s ideas about determinism related to the whole Universe, both human and natural. The author assumes that Kant made experimental science as confirmation of the universal thesis of classical paradigm.

This article analyses little-known short stories of modern Ukrainian writers Valerian Pidmohylny and Mykhailo Yatskiv in the context of the 20th century existentialism. It can be considered as a cultural phenomenon which combines philosophy with literature. Pidmohylny’s short stories were significantly influenced primarily by the ideas of the European philosophers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Therefore, we can search for similar motives in the works of Pidmohylny and the existentialists, which developed under the influence of the ideas of Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. Also, the authors consider Yatskiv’s short stories through the prism of the core concepts of existentialism, namely, fate and death. Pidmohylny and Yatskiv can be assigned to existential writers on the basis of retrospective analysis of the themes of their short stories and the thematic areas of 20th century existentialism.

Šiame straipsnyje XX amžiaus egzistencializmo kontekste nagrinėjamos mažai žinomų šiuolaikinių Ukrainos rašytojų Valeriano Pidmohylny’o ir Mykhailo Yatskivo novelės. Jos gali būti laikomos kultūriniu reiškiniu, sujungiančiu filosofiją ir literatūrą. Pidmohylny’o novelės visų pirma buvo ryškiai paveiktos XIX a. pabaigos ir XX a. pradžios Europos filosofų minčių. Todėl panašių motyvų galime ieškoti tiek Pidmohylny’o, tiek ir egzistencialistų, kuriuos paveikė Schopenhauerio, Kierkegaard’o ir Nietzschės idėjos, kūryboje. Be to, autoriai, pasitelkdami kertinių egzistencializmo sąvokų – likimo ir mirties – perspektyvą, nagrinėja Yatskivo noveles. Remiantis retrospektyvia novelių bei XX amžiaus egzistencializmo tematikos analize, Pidmohylny’ą ir Yatskivą galima priskirti egzistencializmo literatūrinei srovei.

This article examines the interaction of ideas of Modern Western philosophy, including Polish philosophy, and Ukrainian philosophy in Eastern Galicia in the late eighteenth century through the early twentieth century. The authors argue that during this period the methodological foundations of Ukrainian philosophy and its history, both in periodization, and the development of philosophical terminology, were intensively elaborated. This is proved by the analyzing works of such Galician thinkers and cultural figures as Klym Hankevych and Ilarion Svientsits’kyi. Both were able to involve Ukrainian philosophy in Central-Eastern philosophical discourse. Such an involvement was fruitful because it contributed to the development of Ukrainian philosophy and its methodology for both historic-philosophical researches and the formation of philosophical terminology.

The article analyzes aspects of the relationship between evolution and biological complexity and the attempts made by scholars and theologians to interpret it within the limits of reductionist scientism or theism. For this purpose, firstly, attention is focused on explaining the meaning of the concept of "evolution" and its historical and philosophical transformation in the context of the idea of complexity. Secondly, the notion of complexity in theology is used as evidence to support teleology. This approach is criticized by some scholars who consider evolution as a random prosses. They give it the status of a universal metaphysical assumption in evolution. The scientists and theologists both formulate metaphysical assumptions differently to interpret evolution.

The question of death accompanies a person throughout his life, is his antonym. The problem of the mortality of human beings always raises an eerie interest, the basis of which is, without doubt, the question: what about beyond death? - whether continued existence, or immersion in nothingness. Confirmation of interest in this problem is observed in all societies at different levels of their development, and expressed this interest primarily in the religious outlook of peoples, ethnic groups, etc. At the same time, the level of scientific knowledge of a society is irrelevant, since science can only partially try to outline the problem of death.

In the course of the modern stage of society development, religion as a phenomenon of spiritual dimension is especially important. It forms a special type of outlook that is perceived as an antagonism to the rational knowledge of reality by science. In view of this, it is necessary to identify such properties of religious comprehension of reality that disprove the ambivalence of science and religion. In this context, the notion of faith that is to be revealed becomes essential, and this process should not be a formal characteristic but a living perception of it in a religious context. Moreover, this approach justifies itself in terms of modern post-classical science.