Select your language

author: Anatolii Vovk


Urgency of the research. Volodymyr Shinkaruk and his colleagues were well aware of the reality of the danger of a technocratic vision of the future, where humanity lives in a technocratic utopia as in reality, minimizing the effect of their own beliefs, their own freedom, and tried to constantly fight this danger. Today the humanistic ideas of Volodymyr Shinkaruk are relevant and their application makes it possible to preserve and develop personal and universal worlds.

Target setting. The emergence of various interpretations of Volodymyr Shinkaruk's philosophy is caused not only by the texts of the classics of modern Ukrainian philosophy and facts from the history of philosophical thought in Ukraine in the second half of the XX century, but also by the struggle of various narratives that already exist or are offered by philosophers. and post-Soviet times. Different interpretations of the history of philosophy in Ukraine in the second half of the XX century lead to the emergence of different views on the prospects for the development of philosophical thought today.

Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. The discussion about the identity of Volodymyr Shinkaruk's philosophy and his "personalist humanism" arose in the early 2000s in connection with the publication by V. G. Tabachkovsky of a number of articles and chapters in books devoted to the interpretation of V. Shinkaruk's figure as the founder of Kyiv's worldview. anthropological school. The discussion, which arose in 2003 and has not actually been completed to date, revealed different approaches to the very phenomenon of philosophy that existed under the Soviet regime, to the meaning and significance of V. Shinkaruk's philosophical ideas. Such contradictions are largely due to the lack of a comprehensive analysis of V. Shinkaruk's philosophical ideas in their individuality and specificity.

The research objective. The aim of the article is the critical analysis of the features of humanism of Volodymyr Shinkaruk.

The statement of basic materials. Within Marxism, anthropologisation and humanization took place either under the influence of the ideas of early Marx or in view of social change. The latter was characteristic of Volodymyr Shinkaruk's philosophy. The proposed philosophical concept of creative scientific and technical work proved fruitful in post-industrial society. It is proved that Volodymyr Shinkaruk saw the anthropological principles of humanism in the personal pursuit of the future. This desire ensured the acceptance of values and accelerated progress in science, but could also be a reason for utopianism.

Conclusions. The scientific and technological revolution has helped to raise the objective requirements for the humanism of the personal worldview. Based on this, Volodymyr Shinkaruk proposed the concept of humanism, which was based on the idea of rapid triumph of scientific and technical creativity as the main type of work in a society of knowledge and high technology. An additional basis for humanism was the orientation of existence to the future and the dependence of individual activity on the worldview of the future.

Keywords: history of philosophy in Ukraine, modern Ukrainian philosophy, philosophy of Volodymyr Shynkaruk, Kyiv anthropological school.


References:

1. Verloka, V 2003. ‘U tini filosofiv kvitiv (In the shadow of flower philosophers)’, Kritika, Vipusk 10 (72), s. 17–18.

2. Verloka, V 2004. ‘Antropologiya antropologiyi (Anthropology of anthropology)’, Kritika, Vipusk 3 (77), s. 15.

3. Yemec-Dobronosova, Ya 2003. ‘Poshuk antropologiyi (Search for anthropology)’, Kritika, Vipusk 10 (72), s. 19–22.

4. Lisovij, V 2004. ‘Ritorika zamist argumentaciyi (Rhetoric instead of argumentation)’, Kritika, Vipusk 3 (77), s. 17–18.

5. Ponomarov, V 2003. ‘Proektuvannya shkoli (Designing a School)’, Kritika, Vipusk 12 (74), s. 28.

6. Tabachkovskij, V 2002. U poshukah vtrachenogo chasu: narisi pro tvorchu spadshinu ukrayinskih filosofiv 60-h rokiv (In search of unlost time: essays on the creative legacy of Ukrainian philosophers of the sixties), Kiyiv: Parapan.

7. Tabachkovskij, V 2003. ‘Konceptualni landshafti Gegelya ta vitchiznyana neomarksistska fenomenologiya (Hegel's Conceptual Landscapes and Domestic Neo-Marxist Phenomenology)’, v: Shinkaruk V. I. Vibrani tvori u 3-h tomah, Kiyiv: Ukrayinskij centr duhovnoyi kulturi, Vip. 2, s. 5-25.

8. Tabachkovskij, V 2004. ‘Ukrayinskij personalizm V. Shinkaruka (V. Shinkaruk's Ukrainian Personalism)’, v: Shinkaruk V. I. Vibrani tvori u 3-h tomah, Kiyiv: Ukrayinskij centr duhovnoyi kulturi, Vip. 3, Chastina. 1, s. 5–55.

9. Homa, O 2004. ‘Posttotalitarne filosofstvuvannya (Post-Totalitarian Philosophizing)’, Kritika, Vipusk 3 (77), s. 18-20.

10. Shinkaruk, V 2003. Vibrani tvori (Selected works), u 3-h tomah, Kiyiv: Ukrayinskij centr duhovnoyi kulturi, Vip. 1.

11. Shinkaruk, V 2003. Vibrani tvori (Selected works), u 3 -h tomah, Kiyiv: Ukrayinskij centr duhovnoyi kulturi, Vip. 2.

12. Shinkaruk, V 2004. Vibrani tvori (Selected works), u 3-h tomah, Kiyiv: Ukrayinskij centr duhovnoyi kulturi, Vip. 3, Chastina 1.

13. Shinkaruk, V 2004. Vibrani tvori (Selected works), u 3-h tomah, Kiyiv: Ukrayinskij centr duhovnoyi kulturi, Vip. 3, Chastina 2.

14. Yaroshovec, V 2010. Filosofiya yak istoriya filosofiyi (Philosophy as a history of philosophy), Kiyiv: Centr navchalnoyi literaturi.