Oleksandr Kulyk

This research is an attempt to address the issue of evil in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine in an analytical way, trying to specify what evil is and check whether this or that feature of evil is applicable to the reality of the war. It is argued that there are the following three conditions that are separately necessary and jointly sufficient for the characterization of something or somebody as evil: the phenomenon needs to be the result or the source of (1) wrongful acts of action or inaction that (2) lead to the ruination of lives of other people and (3) are either planned or foreseen or being the results of willful blindness about consequences of the acts. The research gives arguments in favor of the thesis that many acts of a significant part of the people of contemporary Russia show the abovementioned features. Moreover, it is argued that their evildoing is also characterized by regularity. Then it is argued that evil in Russia’s war against Ukraine exists in the following three modes: the factual evil (acts of ruining lives), the active evil (initiators and implementers of ruining lives and those who actively support them) and the passive evil (those who do nothing to stop the acts that are ruining lives).

The relevance of this research has been caused by the return of “war” as a central subject of thought to the attention of European thinkers. The complexity of this subject requires special attention to the methodological aspects of its cognition. The purpose of our research is to find effective epistemological means for transferring the immediate experience of war into the sphere of rational thinking and knowledge because this article focuses on the analysis of the specifics of thinking about war in one’s own country. The results of the study show that thinking about the war “from the inside of war” differs from the “external view” as it is built on personally experienced feelings. This article argues that the immediate experience of war is not an obstacle for the process of cognition but, on the contrary, is a prerequisite for having a close view of the factual reality of war. Also, this research argues that for the thinker of a country waging a just defensive war, a true interpretation of the reality of war is an effective means of countering the enemy. This article proposes the use of Heinrich Rickert’s theory of the ordering of the chaos of sensations through concept formation and the further systematization of the formed concepts. This is because this theory is one of the means of transferring the experience of war into the sphere of rational thinking. Furthermore, this article demonstrates the application of this theory when dealing with the feeling of encountering evil. The concept of three modes of evil (factual, active, and passive) is proposed, and its applicability for characterizing Russia’s military actions against Ukraine is demonstrated. In addition, the idea of collective and personal responsibility of the citizens of the Russian Federation for the war their state unleashed against Ukraine was elaborated through the means of philosophy. In particular, the applicability of Karl Jaspers’ theory regarding the political, moral, and metaphysical guilt of the aggressor nation is shown in relation to the people of contemporary Russia. Throughout this review, two types of toleration of war by Russian citizens are distinguished. Also, three conclusions were drawn from the obtained results. First, thinking about war in one’s country make one capable of taking into consideration data that researchers “outside the war” do not have. Secondly, the main methodological difficulty of thinking about the war in one’s own country is the search for a reliable means of transferring the sensations from experience into a rational and clearly articulated system of concepts. Thirdly, using the methodological tools of H. Rickert and K. Jaspers, one can effectively start to research complex aspects of this war such as the essence of the actions committed by the invaders and the question of their guilt.

This article adds to the existing descriptive and generalizing studies of the specifics of Ukrainian philosophy an attempt to analyse it. This study examines in which aspects philosophy can be carried out as a national tradition of philosophizing. It is argued that the national peculiarities of philosophy can manifest themselves in the choice of (1) the topic of philosophizing, (2) the standards of logical rigor of philosophical thinking, and (3) certain philosophical methods and forms of thought development. Linguistic and geographical criteria for determining belonging of a philosopher to a national philosophical tradition are analysed and the heuristic limits of these criteria are shown. It is argued that not only personal, but also national peculiarities of this or that philosophizing may exist. These national peculiarities must be connected with the historically formed cultural traditions of this or that nation, in particular with the existing practices of the functioning of philosophy in the society and in its education system. It is also shown that the formation of national specificity of one or another philosophizing is caused by the challenges a given nation faced during its historical development. The study argues that there are two features, the combined presence of which is the sufficient condition for determining any philosophical thought as a Ukrainian philosophical thought. First, this thought must be created in the context of Ukrainian traditions of philosophizing, which manifests itself in using certain philosophical methods and forms of thought development. Second, this thought must be a response to the historical challenges the Ukrainian people faced. It is suggested that not all manifestations of philosophizing in Ukraine can be called Ukrainian philosophical thought. Those manifestations, which do not suffice both the first and the second of the mentioned features, are suggested to be labelled as "philosophy in Ukraine" and not as "Ukrainian philosophy". The study shows that the national specificity of philosophizing manifests itself most clearly in such philosophical areas as political philosophy, social philosophy, and ethics. This study also determines what unites Ukrainian philosophy with European philosophy.

У статті докладно проаналізована методологія трьох захищених в університетах США дисертацій PhD з філософії. Зокрема, було розглянуто особливості застосування в даних дисертаціях дескриптивного методу, регресивного аналізу, декомпозиційного аналізу, трансформаційного аналізу, методу кейсів, мисленнєвого експерименту, герменевтичного методу, компаративного методу та історичного методу. Використання цих методів було проаналізовано у контексті наявних напрацювань методологів щодо засобів забезпечення плідності застосування даних методів. Зокрема, були розглянуті питання особливостей використання дескриптивного методу у філософських дослідженнях, було прослідковано застосування п’яти модусів герменевтичного методу, показані відмінності між широким та вузьким тлумаченням завдань компаративного методу, розглянуті методологічні вимоги до застосування методу кейсів, виокремлені компоненти застосування історичного методу. У статті аргументована теза, що наявні у розглянутих дисертаціях розбіжності у виборі методів викликані насамперед різними методологічними підходами даних дисертантів – позаперсоналістським, персоналістським та трансперсоналістським. Були встановлені та наведені характеристики кожного з цих трьох методологічних підходів. Також у статті показано, що, незважаючи на наявні відмінності у методологічних підходах, усі автори, дисертації яких було розглянуто, використовували дескриптивний метод та аналіз. Ці два методи були охарактеризовані як базові для наукового дослідження з філософії. Викладені в цій статті дані можуть бути корисними як для молодих дослідників, котрі прагнуть опанувати науковий методологічний інструментарій, так і для досвідчених вчених, котрі в умовах активізації міжнародної співпраці у сфері підготовки наукових кадрів хочуть ознайомитися з аналізом прикладів проведення наукових досліджень з філософії у США.

Universities seeking to provide modern education face a constant need to update their courses. This study was conducted to collect and analyze empirical data to help philosophy course designers consider the views of Ukrainian students about effective ways to learn this subject. A survey was conducted among 40 humanities students and 34 social science students to determine participants’ views on a number of key issues related to the organization of the learning process in the Philosophy course. Most of the students surveyed said that of the types of skills and knowledge that can be acquired during the course, they will find critical thinking skills and the skills needed to build and argue their own positions on ethical, social and worldview issues most valuable in their future professional activities. The majority of respondents named traditional lectures and discussions of lecture videos as their preferred forms of learning philosophy. Their preferred forms of assessment of students’ knowledge and skills in philosophy were essays, as well as reports and participation in the discussion during practical lessons. The study also identified three significant differences in the responses of the surveyed humanities and social science students. First, socio-scientific students valued the opportunity to develop their communication skills in the framework of the Philosophy course significantly more than humanities students. Second, humanities students included thought experiments among the most desirable ways of learning philosophy, unlike social science students, who included case studies. Third, in contrast to humanities students, social science students considered quizzes to be one of the best forms of assessment for the course. In addition to the above, this study also compared the data on the opinions of social sciences and humanities students with the results of the previous survey of 60 STEM students about their thoughts on the course. The comparative analysis revealed five common features and two significant differences in the responses of students from these three fields of knowledge. The common belief among surveyed students in all three groups is that learning philosophy can provide them with the skills and knowledge they will need in their professional activities after graduation from university. Moreover, they prefer skills to knowledge. In all three groups of respondents, a large number of students named critical thinking and argumentation skills as the ultimate achievements in the learning of philosophy. Another finding was that surveyed students from all three groups do not give priority to learning the concepts of modern philosophers over learning the ideas of ancient philosophers. In addition, respondents from all three fields showed the least interest in those forms of knowledge and skills that are difficult to use outside of highly specialized philosophical activities. As for the differences, the study showed that STEM students are significantly less likely to believe that they will need the historico-philosophical components of the Philosophy course in their further professional activities than students in the humanities and social sciences. They are also more interested in developing communicative skills in the process of learning philosophy than the surveyed humanities students.

This research aims to address the hypothesis of the possible influence of Rickert’s ideas about chaos on the philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. This paper considers arguments in favor of the hypothesis and those against it. I show that pieces of evidence exist, proving that Rickert’s interpretation of chaos influenced Rudolf Carnap when he was working on Der logische Aufbau der Welt. I argue that Carnap’s pre-Aufbau unpublished manuscript Vom Chaos zur Wirklichkeit demonstrates this influence. This study opens new vistas in exploring the genesis of Carnap’s ideas.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify and evaluate the possibility of teaching doing philosophy. Using analysis as a main method, I argue that philosophizing, as an activity, has different levels, some of which are connected with specifically philosophical abilities. By analyzing John Rudisill’s minimal conception of «doing philosophy», I demonstrate that many philosophical practices, such as the interpretation, analysis, and critical assessment of arguments and presuppositions, as well as the application of simple philosophical concepts, do not need a background of specifically philosophical abilities. However, other philosophical practices, including the application of sophisticated philosophical concepts and the development of novel approaches, need such a background. I show that specifically philosophical abilities are: high ability of abstract thinking, high motivation to achieve intellectual autonomy, and capability to feel «philosophical astonishment». I also argue that there is a real possibility to teach doing philosophy, although students without specifically philosophical abilities will successfully learn only basic levels of philosophizing. Consequently, careful selection of prospective students for philosophy courses is important. Moreover, I claim that the possibility of teaching doing philosophy highly correlates with a teacher’s expertise in the pedagogical approaches and techniques of philosophy teaching. The results of my research provide to philosophy teachers information to help them choose proper methodology and raise teaching effectiveness.

This brief introduction is for people who want to know the leading approaches to philosophy in the twentieth century in English-speaking countries but do not have much time to study them. The book contains texts of lectures and quizzes with explained answers. By the end of this book, you will understand what analysis is and how to practice it in a philosophical way. Moreover, you will be able to talk confidently about some of the great ideas of such philosophers as L. Wittgenstein, B. Russell, G. E. Moore, A. Ayer, J. Austin, W. V. O. Quine, P. F. Strawson, and more.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze what neo-Kantian Heinrich Rickert designates by the term ‘chaos’. I argue that using this term Rickert means infinite manifolds of human life experiences, that philosophers have to convert into ‘cosmos’ of theories by using concept formation. Rickert thinks that cognition orders chaos. I show that Rickert’s version of ‘chaos’ is different from the ones that were expressed by I. Kant, J. G. Herder, F. W. von Schelling, F. von Schlegel, and F. Nietzsche. I also argue that ideas of I. Kant influenced the formation of Rickert’s ideas on chaos.

Мета дослідження полягає в отриманні порівняльних даних щодо цілей навчання філософії в Україні та США за допомогою методу компаративного аналізу. Було встановлено, що розуміння цілей навчання філософії в Україні та США суттєво відрізняється в чотирьох пунктах. По-перше, серед даних цілей в Україні домінує здобуття знань, а в США – вмінь. По-друге, в Україні у таких курсах, як «Філософія», «Вступ до філософії» надають перевагу історико-філософському матеріалу, а в США – матеріалу епістемології, логіки, метафізики, етики. По-третє, в Україні під час викладання філософії прагнуть виховувати особистість студента, а в США викладачі займаються лише навчанням. По-четверте, в вищих навчальних закладах США, на відміну від університетів України, серед цілей навчання філософії є розвиток навичок з аргументації та комунікативних навичок студентів. Як було показано, причини даних розбіжностей коріняться у відмінностях традицій тлумачення філософії, які поширені в США та Україні, а також в історичних особливостях розвитку викладання філософії в даних країнах.

This is an instructor’s manual with student exercises for the Analytic Philosophy and Philosophy of Language course. It is intended to assist the instructor in teaching the subject to students for whom English is a second language. This manual begins with a chapter that describes the types of learning activities during this course. Next are topic chapters, each of which has four sections: a synopsis of the lecture on the topic; a lecture lesson worksheet with tasks; a seminar lesson worksheet with tasks; and assignments for essay writing. At the end of the manual is a list of key definitions for the course, a list of exam questions, and answer keys for seminar tasks and lecture worksheets.

This dissertation aims to show the philosophical content of the ‘society of spectacle’ concept, which was elaborated by a French thinker from the second part of the 20th century, Guy Debord. The study achieves this aim by means of the history of philosophy, analyzing this concept in the context of previous and contemporary philosophical ideas. Analysis, the structural method, the hermeneutic method of interpretation, and the comparative method are prime research methods. The philosophical part of Guy Debord’s legacy is underexplored, so the dissertation helps to make significant progress in its exploration, because it sheds light on the key concepts of this theoretician. The topic is divided into three themes discussed in the corresponding chapters. In the first chapter the research discusses the literature on the ‘society of spectacle’ and the proper methodology for exploring the philosophical content of this concept. In the next chapter the research covers the ontological basis of this concept in the framework of the history of philosophy, and in the third chapter the study focuses on the historical and philosophical research of the portion of the content of the concept which expresses Debord’s social and political philosophy. The dissertation argues that the ‘society of spectacle’ concept is rooted in Guy Debord’s ideas about discrete space and the specific ontological status of ‘image’ as a substitute for reality. Thoughts in the area of ontology distinguish Guy Debord’s concept from similar ideas of other authors; for instance, from Roland Barthes’ theories. On the contrary, the ontological basis of the ‘society of spectacle’ places this concept in close quarters with Jean Baudrillard and Jacques Derrida’s ideas about space and reality. The dissertation particularly argues for the conceptual proximity of G. Debord’s notion of ‘image’ with Jean Baudrillard’s notion of ‘simulacrum’, and also of G. Debord’s notion of ‘creating of images’ with Jacques Derrida’s notion of ‘deconstruction.’ The study then argues that G. Debord’s ‘society of spectacle’ concept is a more radical interpretation of the irrationality of social behavior than similar concepts of thinkers such as Karl Marx, Herbert Marcuse, and Paul-Michel Foucault. Moreover, the analysis shows that G. Debord’s ‘society of spectacle’ concept is a result of a long development of philosophical ideas which compare world, society or cognitive processes with spectacle throughout all main periods of the history of Western philosophy, primarily its modern period. In contemporary research literature on G. Debord’s theoretical legacy, the dissertation primarily contributes the new idea that Debord’s thoughts have an ontological basis that opens new vistas for further researching their content and explaining their influence on contemporary culture.

After the discoveries of such scholars as J. H. Poincaré, E. N. Lorenz, I. Prigogine, etc. the term ‘chaos’ is used actively by representatives of various scientific fields; however, one important aspect remains uninvestigated: which attitude one should have toward chaotic phenomena. This is a philosophical question and my dissertation aims to find the answer in the history of philosophy, where chaos theme has had its investigators from ancient philosophy to the philosophical theories of the 21st century. My dissertation is based on the idea that sciences and philosophy can achieve significant success in exploring chaos theme when their efforts are combined. This dissertation research is designed to help in the planning of conscious, rational actions towards chaotic phenomena, since it is aimed at exploration and systematic presentation, as well as comprehension of possible systems of such actions – philosophical strategies for interacting with chaos. Results of the dissertation are the following. I reveal, reconstruct, and explain the content of six possible strategies for interacting with chaos that were worked out in history of philosophical thought: ordering, avoiding, transfiguring, preventing, controlling, and integrating. I argue that the first philosophical strategies for interacting with chaos were worked out in the 19th century by German philosophers K. W. F. Schlegel and F. W. Nietzsche on the basis of their rethinking the ideas which were expressed by different thinkers during classical antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the modern period. I show that ideas of strategic views towards chaos were also elaborated by such 20th-century thinkers as H. Rickert, N. Berdyaev, I. Prigogine, H. Haken, G. Deleuze, Q. Meillassoux, and others. I outline the main stages of the evolution of philosophical strategies for interacting with chaos as well as its regularities. The dissertation shows perspectives of further development of each one of the six strategies for interacting with chaos. In contemporary scientific and philosophical research on chaos, my exploration contributes to the new approach to improving the understanding of aims of acts towards chaotic phenomena. I think that knowing a range of different strategic views of chaos help researchers of chaotic phenomena to choose the most appropriate and rational reactions. In the area of history of philosophy, my research contributes detailed data about development and conceptual transformations of the notion of ‘chaos’ through all periods of Western philosophy. The dissertation consists of five chapters: 1) Literature Review, Methodology and Key Research Terms, 2) Ancient and Medieval Philosophical Ideas about Chaos, 3) Genesis of the First Strategies for Interacting with Chaos, 4) Strategies for Interacting with Chaos in the 20th and 21st Centuries, 5) Regularities and Prospects of the Development of Philosophical Strategies for Interacting with Chaos. In the first chapter I analyze more than five hundred books, articles, and other philosophical and scientific sources in which the chaos theme is raised. I also argue the necessity of applying methods such as analysis, the structural method, the hermeneutic method of interpretation, and the comparative method in my dissertation research. Moreover, in this chapter, I define key terms for my dissertation – ‘chaos’ and ‘philosophical strategies for interacting with chaos.’ Then, in the next chapter, I analyze the appearance and development of Ancient and Medieval philosophical ideas about chaotic phenomena and order. Particularly, I explore thoughts of philosophers such as Anaxagoras, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Plato, Aristotle, Augustine of Hippo, Bernard Silvestris, Ramon Llull, etc. In this chapter I also compare the first Western ideas about chaos with similar thoughts from Eastern philosophy, analyzing Indian and Chinese philosophical ideas about disorder. In the third chapter I explore transformations in understanding the meaning of the term ‘chaos’ in philosophy from the 15th to the end of the 19th century. I analyze ideas about chaos and order from thinkers such as M. Ficino, Paracelsus, F. Bacon, P. Bayle, Voltaire, J. G. Herder, I. Kant, F. W. J. Schelling and other philosophers from the Renaissance, the Age of Enlightenment, and the German idealist period, showing that these thinkers’ new approaches to interpreting the notion of ‘chaos’ were the background for K. W. F. Schlegel’s and F. W. Nietzsche’s creations of the first strategies for interacting with chaos in the 19th century. I finish the chapter with detailed analysis of K. W. F. Schlegel’s strategy for transfiguring chaos and F. W. Nietzsche’s strategy for ordering chaos. The development of philosophical strategies for interacting with chaos in the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century is the topic of the fourth chapter. I research new ideas about ordering chaos (H. Rickert) and transfiguring chaos (N. Berdyaev). Also, I reveal thoughts about avoiding chaos (A. Camus), preventing chaos (J. Ortega y Gasset), integrating chaos (G. Deleuze, Q. Meillassoux). Moreover, I analyze a philosophical component of the strategy for chaos control (I. Prigogine, H. Haken). In the final fifth chapter of the dissertation I trace the major features of philosophical strategies for interacting with chaos and find out the main conditions and periods of their development. Then I outline the prospects for the development of the philosophical strategies for interacting with chaos and show the most productive ways of their progress.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify and evaluate the possibility of teaching doing philosophy. Using analysis as a main method, I argue that philosophizing, as an activity, has different levels, some of which are connected with specifically philosophical abilities. By analyzing John Rudisill’s minimal conception of “doing philosophy,” I demonstrate that many philosophical practices, such as the interpretation, analysis, and critical assessment of arguments and presuppositions, as well as the application of simple philosophical concepts, do not need a background of specifically philosophical abilities. However, other philosophical practices, including the application of sophisticated philosophical concepts and the development of novel approaches, need such a background. I show that specifically philosophical abilities are: (1) high ability of abstract thinking, (2) high motivation to achieve intellectual autonomy, and (3) capability to feel “philosophical astonishment.” I also argue that there is a real possibility to teach doing philosophy, although students without specifically philosophical abilities will successfully learn only basic levels of philosophizing. Consequently, careful selection of prospective students for philosophy courses is important. Moreover, I claim that the possibility of teaching doing philosophy highly correlates with a teacher’s expertise in the pedagogical approaches and techniques of philosophy teaching. The results of my research provide to philosophy teachers information to help them choose proper methodology and raise teaching effectiveness.

I have been lecturing Analytic Philosophy course in English at Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Ukraine, for three years. Teaching using CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) techniques enables me to do it effectively. All three groups of my master’s-degree students who had learned analytic philosophy by CLIL techniques demonstrated good results of their learning. They not only achieved strong knowledge of analytic philosophy but also sufficiently improved their skills in English writing, speaking, reading, and listening.