Nataliya Kovalchiuk, DoS (Philosophy), professor Philosophy Department, Kyiv Borys Grinchenko University
The article regards the creative contribution of the famous Ukrainian philosopher D. Tchyzhevsky in the global context. He was the first scientist who separated Ukrainian philosophy as a special and unique link of the Ukrainian culture and so launched a beginning of the Ukrainian study as a new scientific branch. He was a founder of the Ukrainian baroque study through the phenomenon of “style”. Tchyzhevsky proposed a new methodology of the Ukrainian baroque research. According to this original conception of D. Tchyzevsky, baroque was a style of art that could have had its influence on the culture in general. He was the first to research the philosophical legacy of H. Skovoroda not only as a famous Ukrainian philosopher, but also as a philosopher of the European level. The philosopher created his own concept of the second human birth through the interior human, which, in its turn, was based on the H. Skovoroda’s idea of the interior human. The latter shows 4 stages of its cognition: first stage is a preparative one and presents in recognition that the interior human exists. Second stage is a tentative to know the interior human. Third stage is a struggle of the interior human with exterior human. The final, forth stage, is a blossom of the interior human which had the attributes of God. Through the research of the Ukrainian mentality, D. Tchyzhevsky has characterized the condocentrizm as a main feature. The main representatives of the “philosophy of heart” (H. Skovoroda, P. Kulish, P. Yurkevych, M. Gogol) had different interpretations of the phenomenon of the heart. The philosophy of heart as an archetype of the Ukrainian culture in its understanding is linked mainly with cordocentrizm in the philosophical anthropology context. It means that this concept should not be regarded as an autonomic view, but as a range of symbolical worldview.
Condocentrizm, H. Skovoroda’s philosophy, Ukrainian baroque, Ukrainian philosophy, D. Tchyzhevsky.
1. CHY`ZHEVS`KY`J, D. (2003) Deyaki problemy` porivnyal`noyi istoriy i slov’yans`koyi literatury`. Slavy`sty`ka. Dmy`tro Chy`zhevs`ky`j i svitova slavisty`ka. Vol. 1, p. 353-365.
2. CHY`ZHEVS`KY`J, D. (2003) Deyaki problemy` porivnyal`noyi istoriy i slov’yans`koyi literatury`. Slavy`sty`ka. Dmy`tro Chy`zhevs`ky`j i svitova slavisty`ka. Vol. 1, p. 353-365.
3. CHY`ZHEVS`KY`J, D. (1992) Nary`sy` z istoriyi filosofiyi na Ukrayini. K.: Orij.
4. NALY`VAJKO, D. (2004) Vstup. Ukrayins`ke baroko: ty`pologiya i specy`fika. Xarkiv: Anta. Vol.1, p. 7-19.
5. CHY`ZHEVS`KY`J, D. (1993) Ukrayins`ke literaturne baroko Vy`brani praci z davn`oyiliteratury`. K.: Oberig.
6. KRY`MS`KY`J, S. B. (1997) Specy`fika ukrayins`kogo baroko. Kul`tura narodov Pry`chernomor`ya. 1. p. 48-54.
7. CHY`ZHEVS`KY`J, D. (1934) Filosofiya G. S. Skovorody`. Varshava.
8. SKOVORODA, G. S. (1994) Narkis. Rozmova pro te: piznaj sebe. Tvory`. Vol. 1, р. 150-195.
9. SKOVORODA, G. S. (1994) Sy`mfony`ya, nazvanakny`ga Asan,`pro piznannya samogo sebe. Tvory`. Vol. 1, p. 196-262.
10. TY`XOLAZ, A.G. (2002) Platony` platony`zm v russkoj rely`gy`oznoj fy`losofy`y` vtoroj polovy`nы XIX – nachala XX veka. K.: PARAPAN.