Ukrainian Philosophical Thought

Ukrainian Philosophical Thought in the 19th to Early 20th Century

Thus, the baroque language and philosophical tradition of that era laid the groundwork for the transition to the next—romantic—period in the history of Ukrainian philosophy. An example of this transition is found in the image of Bohdan Khmelnytsky, presented in a different style and with a distinct evaluation in the poem by T. Shevchenko, "If Only You, Drunken Bohdan...," which reflects the poet's oppressive impressions from his stay in Pereiaslav in August 1859:

“Amen to you, great man!
Great, glorious! but not very...
If only you had not been born into this world
Or had drunk in your cradle...
I would not bathe in the puddle
You, the renowned. Amen.”

Or, in "The Unearthed Grave," where Mother Ukraine seems to address her son:

“Oh Bohdan, little Bohdan,
Had I known, I would have smothered you in your cradle,
Rocked you to sleep beneath my heart.”

The third period, chronologically spanning the 19th century to the early 20th, is primarily marked by the significant role played in philosophical life by a current that formed within the culture of Romanticism.

Romanticism emerged as an opposition to Classicism and the "enlightenment." Romantics believed that reason was merely one of the faculties of the human spirit and insufficient for comprehending all of reality. Alongside reason, they sought other paths to knowledge: in addition to science, they embraced poetry, imagination, myth-making, intuition, and more. It was not reason but feeling, not the "head" but the "heart," that held paramount importance for humanity—reality was seen not as a mechanism but as an organism. Romanticism contributed to the awakening of national sentiment and consciousness in Ukraine, much as it did across Europe. While Classicism sought its ideal and aesthetics in antiquity (Greece and Rome), Romanticism turned to its own sources and spiritual origins.

Mykola Hohol (1809-1852), a native Ukrainian who wrote in Russian and was passionately devoted to Ukraine, achieved fame as a Ukrainian romantic ("Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka," "Taras Bulba") and as a Russian realist who depicted people with "Dead Souls," as well as a satirist—portraying the gallery of officials in the Russian police-bureaucratic state and the entire imperial order. However, the positive image of Russia, the ideal of the Russian person, and the ideal Russian "girl" in the second volume of "Dead Souls" was consumed by a fire in February 1852, just before Lent...

Traditions regained weight and significance in all spheres, particularly historical and national traditions: "the spirit of history," "the idea of the nation," and so forth. It was precisely through them that the range of problems constituting the core essence of Ukrainian philosophy expanded to include the issue of "Man—Nation," which initiated the development of the philosophy of national identity.

The beginning of the exploration of the philosophy of the Ukrainian idea is linked to the activities of the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood, which existed for just over a year (December 1845 - March 1847).

The primary ideological manifesto of the society was the work of M. Kostomarov (1817-1885), "The Book of the Being of the Ukrainian People": "Ukraine lies in the grave, but has not perished." All the "brothers" were united by one idea—the idea of the resurrection of Ukraine. This path was followed by P. Kulish (1819-1897) through "Two Russian Nationalities" and T. Shevchenko (1814-1861) through his "Kobzar."

Thus, the undeniable merits of Romanticism lie in awakening historical consciousness, interest in ethnography, and, ultimately, national awareness and national movements.

A special contribution of Ukrainian romantics is found in the awakening of interest in one’s own national individuality and the beauty of our nature and the unique Ukrainian landscape. Significant outcomes of this period were achieved through the interplay of philosophy with science, history, linguistics, political and religious thought. Romanticism provided momentum.

Within the romantic cultural paradigm throughout the 19th century, professional philosophical knowledge developed significantly, most vividly represented by the philosophy of Pamfil Yurkevich (1826-1874), a prominent Ukrainian philosopher and educator. P. Yurkevich was born in the village of Lipniavka in the Zolotonosha district of Poltava province to a family of Orthodox priests. He completed his studies at the Poltava Spiritual Seminary. From 1847 to 1851, he studied theology at the Kyiv Spiritual Academy, becoming a master and bachelor by 1852. From 1854 to 1857, he served as assistant inspector, and from 1857, he was a lecturer in philosophy and German language at the academy. In 1861, P. Yurkevich became an ordinary professor and, by the decision of the Ministry of Education, took the position of ordinary professor of the Department of Philosophy at Moscow University. From 1869, he also served as the dean of the Faculty of History and Philology. Among the students who attended P. Yurkevich’s lectures were the future Russian philosopher V. Solovyov and historian V. Klyuchevsky.

The most fruitful period for P. Yurkevich’s academic work was during his time at the academy, where he produced nearly all his major philosophical works, including: "The Idea" (1859), "The Heart and Its Significance in the Spiritual Life of Man According to the Teaching of the Word of God" (1860), "On the Articles of Theological Content" published in the "Philosophical Lexicon" (1861), "Materialism and the Tasks of Philosophy" (1860), "Peace with Neighbors as a Condition for Christian Coexistence" (1861), "Proofs of the Existence of God" (1861), and others. After moving to Moscow, P. Yurkevich largely focused on pedagogical issues. His philosophical concept, which emphasized the significance of the emotional, unconscious, and fortuitous aspects of the human soul, provoked sharp criticism from adherents of materialism and positivism, which then dominated Russian philosophical thought, including figures like M. Chernyshevsky, M. Saltykov-Shchedrin, D. Pisarev, and others. In Moscow, P. Yurkevich prepared several works on pedagogy, including "Lectures on Education" (1865) and "Course in General Pedagogy" (1869).

Teaching philosophy was a favored pursuit of P. Yurkevich. He exhibited exceptionally broad erudition in the realm of world philosophy. His profound knowledge of the philosophical systems of Plato, Kant, Böhme, Leibniz, and a critical review of these ideas shaped the originality of Yurkevich’s thought.

1. Yurkevich posited that the spirit is a genuinely existing substance characterized by movement and development. The spirit's outward direction constitutes a motion that generates the external world of phenomena and their interactions. Its inward orientation represents a self-reflection of essence, the internal foundations of phenomena.

These movements are enacted and harmonized according to the laws contained within the idea. According to P. Yurkevich, the idea serves as the source of these laws and is the singular foundation of any reality. Thus, he defined the idea as the primal principle of philosophy and truth.

Consequently, the task of philosophy, in Yurkevich’s view, is to comprehend the world of phenomena in their dependence on the absolute foundation of being. Philosophy deals with the necessary, the unconditional, the eternal, the universal. Therefore, as a system of knowledge concerning the absolute dimensions of existence, philosophy does not contradict other forms of cognition.

The conception of philosophy as the reflection of a singular, unconditional spiritual foundation of being, and the derivation of the entirety of real existence from this foundation, defines the essence of Yurkevich's theoretical framework, namely: concrete idealism. P. Yurkevich’s concrete idealism represents a decisive step from Kant’s transcendental idealism to Platonic idealism—an assertion of the insufficiency of recognizing the world of ideas merely as an ideal reality, emphasizing the necessity of acknowledging its real existence.

The highest form of knowledge is attainable through reason, which is the knowledge via the idea. Reason synthesizes the understanding gained through judgment into a unified, holistic worldview. Reason complements cognition with faith in a higher realm, in something absolute, such as faith in the immortality of the soul or faith in God. It is within the idea that thought and being are united.

Thought is recognized as the objective essence of a phenomenon. In other words, the idea is known as the foundation, the law of the phenomenon. Reason is deemed real, and reality is regarded as rational. Hence, reason provides us with the fullest understanding of truth.

The notion of philosophy as the knowledge of the idea of good contributes to resolving questions regarding the essence of humanity. It is worth noting that anthropological issues are central to P. Yurkevich, akin to the concerns of figures such as H. Skovoroda, M. Gogol, Christian thinkers, or contemporary existentialists and personalists. P. Yurkevich endeavored to better understand the inner world of humanity, illuminating those qualities that render individuals free beings of responsibility. Almost all his works are imbued with thoughts about humanity, yet we believe the finest elucidation of his anthropology can be found in the remarkable essay on the heart—“The Heart and Its Significance in the Spiritual Life of Man, According to the Word of God.” Yurkevich departs from the biblical teaching of the heart as the core of human life and attempts to reconcile it with the findings of contemporary science.

Based on what has been stated thus far, it must be acknowledged that while “Yurkevich did not leave us a complete philosophical system… the foundations he developed serve as a remarkable example of pure and transparent philosophical thought. If the ideas of Platonism and theosophy could be developed in a similarly positive, substantiated, and crystal-clear manner, then… our contemporary world has suffered greatly from the fact that Yurkevich’s legacy remains concealed under the burden of philosophical unculture.”

1. Yurkevich bequeathed a distinctive doctrine that stood on par with the Western philosophy of his time while being entirely original, rooted in profound national traditions. His exploration of humanity was a priority sphere of interest. P. Yurkevich sought to comprehend the spiritual life of individuals as an expression of uniqueness and individuality. Firmly rejecting the one-sided intellectualism of the modern era, he substantiated a “philosophy of the heart,” insisting on the harmonious interaction of all layers of the human soul—intellectual, sensory-emotional, and so forth. Reason, he asserted, is merely the pinnacle of spiritual life, the roots of which are found in the heart, and the life of the heart constitutes the essence of humanity and its moral freedom. The creative legacy of P. Yurkevich was highly regarded by V. Solovyov, H. Shpet, M. Berdyaev, O. Losev, M. Lossky, and V. Zenkevich. Ukrainian philosophers D. Chizhevsky and V. Rudko noted the undeniable connection of P. Yurkevich with his predecessors in Ukrainian philosophy—H. Skovoroda, M. Gogol, and other Ukrainian thinkers.

The philosophy of language, as represented in the Ukrainian tradition by Oleksandr Potebnia (1835—1891), is a clear scientific-psychological exploration of the very essence of the word and its connection to the process of thinking, understanding the relationship between thought and word.

Fundamentally, O. Potebnia maintained that, in any case, beyond the word and prior to it, there exists thought, and the word merely signifies a particular stream in the development of thought. Hence, three fundamental questions arise in the context of linguistic and ethnocultural relativism, which Potebnia posed:

1. How do people perceive the world (in what way does their entire previous linguistic and cultural experience influence this)?
2. How do they classify this world (into what classes and on what basis do they group it)?
3. How do they think about this world (in what manner and through which established linguistic-cognitive patterns)?

Thus, language is a substantial determination of the individual, a mode of their existence in the world.

1. Potebnia began his scholarly inquiries by seeking answers to questions raised in German classical idealism and linguistics, particularly by W. Humboldt. The primary among these is the question concerning the relationship between language and thought, which in turn leads to the question of the origin of language and suggests that an attempt to comprehend the beginnings of human language is impossible without clarifying the significance of the word for thought and the extent of its connection to the soul's life in general.

In analyzing the problem of the emergence of language, O. Potebnia refutes theories that posit the conscious and intentional creation of language and its divine origin. Relying on W. Humboldt (for whom the driving force of the national spirit is language), he confirms the undeniable connection between language and thought. However, whereas W. Humboldt asserts the identity (even a higher one) of language and spirit, attempting to escape a closed circle by claiming that without language there is no spirit, and conversely, without spirit there is no language, O. Potebnia explicitly states that such a resolution obstructs further inquiry, equating the questions of the origin of language and spirit. O. Potebnia goes further in this matter, asserting that “the domain of language does not coincide with the domain of thought. In the course of human development, thought may be connected to the word, but at the beginning, it was likely not yet mature enough to attain it, and at a higher level of abstraction, it leaves the word behind as something that does not satisfy its demands…” The word is necessary for transforming lower forms of thought into concepts and should appear only when there are materials in the soul that correspond to this transformation. Language is an essential enhancement (supplement) of thought and a natural development of abilities unique to humanity.

Considering the linguistic unit (the word) as an act of thought, in which the linguistic form emerges as a call to meaning, O. Potebnia in his work “Thought and Language” substantiates the theory of the inner form of the word. The notion of the inner form of the word is fundamental to Potebnia’s philosophical concept. The word is not only a carrier of meaning but also embodies the previous experience of humanity and the nation, through which all new cognition passes. From this, three aspects of the word arise: form, meaning, and inner form, which are identical to the structure of such verbal compositions as myth, folklore, and poetic creation. “In the word,” asserts O. Potebnia, “we distinguish: the external form, that is, the divisible sound, the content that is objectified through sound, and the inner form, or the closest etymological meaning of the word, the way in which the content is expressed. The same elements are present in works of art.”

The inner form of the word is the central image around which all other partial images coalesce, thus creating the complete representation of a particular phenomenon. Hence, in the word, O. Potebnia identifies, besides the auditory external form and the meaning of the word (that is, the complex of attributes of the named phenomenon), also the inner form of the word (the closest etymological meaning that represents the entire content of the word). Thus, the word is not an external addition to an already prepared necessity within the human soul. It is a means arising from the depths of human nature to create this idea, since it is only through it that the unfolding of thought occurs. In the word, a person first becomes aware of their thought, and therein they primarily see that determination which they then project onto the world. Thought, nurtured by the word, begins to relate directly to the very concepts and finds the sought-after meaning within them. The significance of the word for thought can be encapsulated in the assertion: “language objectifies thought.”

The word, as shown by the analysis of the social-philosophical concept of O. Potebnya, unveiled to humanity further possibilities for the development of thought. It was through the word that humanity made significant progress from isolated impressions drawn from the environment to higher forms of spiritual life, namely, the creation of concepts and categories.

One of the fundamental principles of O. Potebnya's system of thought is the idea of language as a cognitive activity. In his work "Thought and Language," the thinker reveals the heuristic function of language: “Language is a means not of expressing a ready thought, but of creating it... it is not a reflection of an established worldview but an activity that constitutes it.”

To feel the movement of one's soul, to make sense of one's external perceptions, a person is compelled to objectify each one in words and to relate those words to others, to create imagery, develop science, and believe; that is, to engage in the movement of the soul rather than merely performing a ritual.

Another fruitful thought of O. Potebnya pertains to the influence of language on mythological consciousness. Mythological thinking is distinguished from subsequent forms by the absence of a separation between the image of an object and the object itself, the objective and subjective, the internal and external. Mythology, Potebnya notes, is the history of mythological worldviews, manifesting itself in words and narratives, as well as in material artifacts, customs, and rituals. For the scholar, a myth is primarily a particular word. The creation of a new myth consists of the creation of a new word. “Mythology, in the highest sense, is the power of language over thought in the most diverse realms of spiritual activity.” Potebnya's theory of myth is a part of a broader concept of language and thought. Myth serves as the starting point for the entire subsequent evolution of spirituality: myth → poetry → prose (science).

In examining Potebnya’s philosophical concept, scholars rarely note that, beyond the categories of language and thought, categories such as "people," "nationality," "national," and "nationalism" hold paramount significance. The people create language. Language gives birth to the spirit of the people, the spirit of the people gives rise to the national idea, the national idea gives rise to national aspiration, and national aspiration leads to national will and action. The very essence of the people becomes the ready material for this process. Language is not only one of the elements of nationality but also its most perfect embodiment. Thus, the social-philosophical aspects of the reflections of this prominent Ukrainian thinker, articulated here, hold exceptional significance for the development of Ukrainian statehood as a unified natural foundation for the realization of the national idea.

1. Potebnya linked the concept of "people" not to state affiliation or independence but to a certain higher, independent national and cultural life. He emphasized that we do not recognize a people based solely on the unity of origin or external similarity of types. The unity of a people, he argued, is evidently determined not by geographical unity of territory, nor by political or religious unity, nor by similarities in lifestyle, food, clothing, housing characteristics, customs, or the level of economic, legal, scientific, and artistic development.

The best proof of this can be found in the absence of all these unities among any of the great peoples. If this is the case, then the only characteristic by which we recognize a people—and at the same time the sole, irreplaceable characteristic and necessary condition for a people’s existence—is the unity of language, or linguistic unity. The normal development of language, as one of the principal elements of nationality, is one of the basic prerequisites for the healthy development of an entire nation. Language acts as a unique synthesis of all that is national, a focal point for its vision.

Language animates the world, concentrates the energy of the world; thus, the relaxation or activation of the national organism occurs through words. Language is not merely a means of transmitting and signifying a ready-formed thought, but also an instrument for its creation. By viewing languages as deeply distinct systems of modes of thought, O. Potebnya demonstrated that linguistic unification would inevitably lead to the degeneration of a people’s cognitive capacity, causing a loss of its spiritual independence. Preserving one's linguistic structure guarantees the preservation of the original style and logic of national thought. Observing the structure of the Ukrainian language aids in recognizing the national uniqueness of the people, which can “emerge” from the dark depths of the ethnic subconscious. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that O. Potebnya associates the core meaning of the concept of "nation" with its "mystical core," that subconscious element of the ethnic group from which various external manifestations of national and cultural life arise.

Thus, the distinguished scholar and patriot O. Potebnya, with his brilliant intellect, revealed the connections between the development of the national language and the overall viability and multifaceted productivity of the nation. He was convinced that without a profound knowledge of the Ukrainian language, all Ukrainian aspirations would be built on sand, and without a conscious effort from Ukrainians themselves, a strong-willed nation capable of state-building would not emerge. The native language must serve as a tool for the development of the entire spiritual energy of the nation. Without the native language, the Ukrainian people would remain a frail ethnographic material, incapable of robust independent life, remaining an open field for the expansion of other cultures and peoples.

Viewing language as the uniquely inherent means and possibility for each individual and nation to perceive and conceive of the world leads to O. Potebnya’s sharp protest against denationalization in general, and particularly against Ukrainian denationalization, which he equated with moral and spiritual decay. Thus, the limitation of the sphere of Ukrainian language use signifies a contraction of the zone of spirituality, a impoverishment of the spiritual universe of the Ukrainian. Indeed, language is one of the elements of nationality, and assimilation leads to the loss of collective unconsciousness encoded in language and folklore. A foreign language enriches the national spirit only when the native language fully functions in all spheres of the people's life. This is due to the fact that a foreign language is acquired to a certain degree formally, as its "schemes" and "structures" remain unfilled with content that organically arises from the depths of the subconscious of one’s own people. Mastery of a foreign language does not necessarily indicate that a person has psychologically, emotionally, or associatively embarked upon the path of national self-awareness and understanding. The examples of M. Gogol and V. Vernadsky illustrate the complexity of entering the realm of another national psychology and way of thinking, where a person continually faces an imbalance between form, which reflects the uniqueness of the spiritual world, and the mode of its expression.

The close connection between language and the inner life of a person compelled O. Potebnya to ponder the significance of the native language for the development of individuals and the nation as a whole, and subsequently the significance of multilingualism in early childhood and the influence of foreign-language schooling. Addressing the question of whether it is beneficial to teach children a foreign language from a young age, Potebnya concludes that it is extremely detrimental to overall development: “Knowledge of two languages at an early age does not equate to mastering two systems of expressing the same realm of thoughts; rather, it causes a bifurcation of this realm, hindering the formation of a coherent worldview and obstructing scientific abstraction.”

A holistic understanding of the essence of denationalization is made possible by the principle of historicism through the analysis of the characteristics of Polonization and Russification as the main forms of the denationalization of the Ukrainian people. The policy of Russification is also linked to the activities of foreign-language schools, which instill in students an attitude towards the language of their homeland as something marginal, as if it were of lesser value.

In early childhood education, multilingualism impedes the general development of the child. O. Potebnya consistently argued this thesis, supporting its validity with numerous historical examples from pedagogy and his own scholarly research. It undoubtedly contains a kernel of rational truth!

Thus, denationalization determines the de-individualization of the person, who strives to adapt her own "I" to the foreign collective "We," hindering the cultural awareness of the social organism. The ethno-cultural concept is based on the understanding that language is a means of creating thought, and the transition from non-verbal and pre-verbal experience to articulated and comprehensible words—i.e., to modes of thought—always defines consciousness as national. For O. Potebnya, it was evident that the feeling and consciousness of national unity is not merely the result of the exchange of thoughts; it is possible only in the presence of linguistic unity and a national idea. He identified the absence of a national idea among Ukrainians, the lack of conscious efforts by those who call themselves Ukrainians, as an affliction of the Ukrainian nation. This represents an internal cause of the impotence and unproductiveness of the entire nation, which is no less dangerous for its continued existence than external pressures of denationalization.

In the national idea, he saw a force capable of lifting Ukraine from ruin and guiding it towards a new life. Therefore, he openly stated that "the idea of nationality is always a form of messianism."

From this national idea, O. Potebnia goes further—he posits "the right of national cultures, that is, the right of peoples to independent coexistence and development." This already suggests the idea of sovereignty, for only the people can be sovereign, that is, the bearers of inalienable rights. The scholar warns against the danger that, in seeking our national distinctiveness, we might find not what exists, but what we desire. He clearly perceived the domain of the human soul where the force lies that leads to resolving such questions as the right to independent coexistence and development. A nation, like a language, has numerous goals, which it achieves by living, as O. Potebnia stated. It lives and, by doing so, refuses to be interpreted as "ethnographic material" that the West seeks to remold into Poles and the East into Little Russians.

The philosophical significance of O. Potebnia's theoretical legacy lies in the notion that the foundation of a people's spiritual life is language, which determines the existence and reproduction of a specific ethnosocial community. Thus, for O. Potebnia, not only the psycholinguistic but also the cultural, that is, the axiological dimension, was important. It is crucial to emphasize that the relationship between language and thought is not the only systemic relationship; the relationship between language and culture is equally fundamental. The components of the philosophical paradigm include Potebnia's symbolic generalizations (laws and concepts of linguistic theory), the philosophical elements that determine worldview and its ontology, the value (axiological) settings that influenced the choice of research directions, and ultimately, the "generally accepted models," that is, the schemes for solving specific problems that ensure the existence of a scientific tradition. In general, O. Potebnia's philosophical paradigm is much broader than his linguistic theory and undoubtedly precedes it in time.

Mykhailo Drahomanov (1841-1895) became one of the first victims of the wave of repression against the Ukrainian movement, culminating in the Ems Decree of 1876. By the personal order of Alexander II, he was expelled from Kyiv University in 1875 and forced to emigrate abroad. Settling in Geneva in 1876, he began publishing the collection "Hromada" (1878-1882), which consisted of five volumes. This was the first modern Ukrainian political journal; in addition, brochures were published in Ukrainian, Russian, and Western European languages to inform the European public about the Ukrainian issue. Mykhailo Drahomanov's closest collaborators were S. Podolynskyi and M. Pavlyk. Drahomanov's "Geneva Circle" became the first seed of the Ukrainian socialist movement.

At the core of the scholar's worldview lies the idea of progress, which he regarded as the highest achievement of European science. In his work "Shevchenko, Ukrainophiles, and Socialism," he clearly shows whose views he adopted among European scientists. These include K. A. Saint-Simon, P. J. Proudhon, and A. Comte—the creator of positivism—along with L. A. Feuerbach. These names represent those whom Drahomanov himself considered his spiritual guides. Together, they, along with universal history, led Drahomanov to conclude about the "continuous social progress." The goal of this progress is to realize the ideals of liberalism and socialism, and the highest ideal that all humanity should strive for is, in his opinion, an anarchic order in the socio-political realm—a "leaderless" society, that is, a voluntary association of harmoniously developed individuals, with elements of coercion in social life minimized. The path to this ideal is federalism, characterized by decentralization and self-governance of communities and regions. Hence, Drahomanov's negative attitude toward centralist republicanism of the "Jacobin" type and his sympathies for the Swiss Confederation.

Thus, under the influence of P. J. Proudhon and extreme representatives of English liberalism, Drahomanov saw the ultimate social ideal in the theoretical concept of anarchy ("leaderlessness"), that is, a stateless federation of individuals and collectives united by purely economic interests, as well as communism in the socio-economic realm, and probably, alongside atheism in the spiritual domain.

Drahomanov strongly opposed those who sought to prove the moral value of religion. The development of science, he believed, presents humanity with a dilemma of defining one thing—"either astronomy or Joshua, either geology or Moses, either physics or walking on water, either physiology or the resurrection of the dead, or comparative physiology and history—or plainly defining any religious system at all." Therefore, in concluding his reflections, he reached the conclusion that in the advanced circles of Europe, Christian faith has "broken" and a belief in the natural continuous progress of history has emerged.

Drahomanov was a socialist, and at the foundation of his teaching lay a profound empathy for the peasantry, striving to create a social order in which injustice would be minimized. He considered the community as the smallest unit of social-political organization. Thus, he referred to his socialism as "hromadivstvo," meaning an organization based on the autonomy of communities within a federal union. The foundations for forming and reforming these relations, in Drahomanov's view, should primarily be the fundamental human rights—freedom of thought and speech, the right to assemble and form coalitions, and tolerance for political and religious beliefs, as he articulated, faith and non-belief.

The main flaw of the social-democratic doctrine of the future social order, which Drahomanov did not share, was the very regulation and bureaucratization of all life, against which he advocated for the freedom of individuals, particularly the autonomy of the community as an independent social unit that best understands the needs and abilities of each of its members. It was on that mystical ground that various shoots of Slavophilism grew, with its belief in a destined mission for Slavs, particularly Russia, to revive and renew all humanity.

In opposition to any mystical Slavophilism and social-democratic fatalism, Drahomanov advanced the principles of culture and education. From these positions, he opposed the utopian theory of a general social revolution that was to overturn the existing order in one blow and establish the realization of the socialist ideal on earth. The greatest proponents of this theory were Russian socialists. Against it, Drahomanov asserted that any revolution primarily has a political character, altering the political forms of domination but lacking the power to create a new social order. He rejected ethnographic and national principles as outdated and disadvantageous, proposing in contrast his concept of "economic basins." For him, nationality was no more than a form, a mode of expression, a contour that should be filled with a universal content. He did not dare to base future state construction on the national principle but sought to mask it with the principle of regional autonomies, although he well understood that regional autonomy (given territorial integrity) is not equivalent to the autonomy of a nationality within a national state. It is precisely for this reason that Drahomanov agreed to draft and publish an outline of the Russian constitution in 1884 without basing it on the principle of national autonomy, as he did not consider it a principled issue and thought it possible to do without it. "A review of the history and current practices of European peoples shows," wrote Drahomanov, "that political and national autonomy is possible even without state separateness. Therefore, I see the full possibility of political and national autonomy for Ukrainians based on zemstvo autonomy." Drahomanov did not believe in the practical feasibility of separatism for Ukraine; he advised fighting for the democratization and federalization of the existing empires of Russia and Austria-Hungary so that Ukrainians could develop "freely" within them.

The ideal of statelessness led M. Dragomanov to consistently reject the ideal of Ukrainian national-political independence. Reflecting on past times, he expressed the view that a Ukrainian state might have been beneficial for the universal "progress"; however, at present, the creation of a Ukrainian state is both impossible and unnecessary. In the future, according to his concept, the state order should be replaced by anarchy. From this, M. Dragomanov draws the conclusion that the ideal of an independent Ukrainian state is unnecessary for the future and even harmful to the general "progress."

Ivan Franko (1856-1916) predominantly articulated his philosophical credo as a thinker through his poems and specialized scientific essays. What philosophical convictions did I. Franko hold? In answering this question, it is essential to note that we have no grounds to deny I. Franko in the point where he defines his worldview position as rationalism. Rationalism, he asserts, "is the struggle — to be guided by reason, by enlightenment."

In expounding his understanding of the development of human society, I. Franko takes as a foundation the general laws of evolution in organic nature; "it is necessary," he points out, "to understand its driving causes and the main forms in which it manifests." By his social-political orientation, Franko is a socialist. His conception of socialism does not coincide with the content of the "scientific socialism" of K. Marx, F. Engels, and V. Lenin, although I. Franko appreciated Marx for elevating the theory of socialism "to the level of positive science." Nevertheless, Franko conducted a profound futuristic analysis of contemporary Marxism, anticipating the communist despotism of the USSR (the life in Engels' people's state, as he termed it), as well as the double standards and their catastrophic influence on Ukrainian affairs. He referred to the contemporary social-democratic movement as a "religion of hatred."

For I. Franko, socialism as a societal ideal was founded not on class values but on universal human principles. These principles are "the foundation upon which the workers' ideal of future order rests, broadly understood, and in its entire purity. All of them are interconnected and mutually conditioned." Socialism, as a future arrangement, according to Franko, "will be based on the widest possible self-management of communities, districts, and regions, composed of several individuals and united among themselves in a free federation grounded in the solidarity of interests." I. Franko approaches the pathways to realizing socialism as a societal ideal with great caution. He categorically opposes its artificial imposition.

1. Franko formulates his social task as "national revival." "Before the Ukrainian intelligentsia," the thinker writes, "a tremendous practical task unfolds now, under freer forms of life in Russia — to create from the vast ethnic mass of the Ukrainian people a Ukrainian nation, a cohesive cultural organism capable of independent cultural and political life, resistant to the assimilative efforts of other nations, no matter where they come from, while at the same time being adaptable to appropriating, to the greatest possible extent and in the quickest tempo, universal cultural achievements, without which today no nation and no, no matter how strong a state, can endure."

Thus, I. Franko’s care for the development of national culture, his aspiration to elevate it to the level of advanced European cultures, his concern for education, the use of the native language, and its status among other languages are dictated by the socio-political conditions that had developed in Ukraine at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. The creativity of Lesya Ukrainka (1871-1913) distinctly reflects, on one hand, the moral-ethical aspect characteristic of Ukrainian philosophy, and on the other hand, the influence of Western philosophical ideas from F. Nietzsche and the romantic poet H. Heine. The principal motifs are those of nature, love, solitude, and early affliction. At the age of nine, she penned her first poem titled "Hope," in which the fundamental categories and concepts of her worldview are already embedded — fate-freedom-hope, life-death, Dnipro-step-tombs...

"I have neither fate nor freedom,
Only one hope remains:
The hope to return once again to Ukraine,
To gaze once more upon my native land,
To look once again at the blue Dnipro,
Whether I live or die, it matters not to me;
To see once again the steppe, the graves,
To recall, for the last time, passionate thoughts...
I have neither fate nor freedom,
Only one hope remains."

Lesya Ukrainka popularized Marxist works; however, she never became a Marxist herself. She translated into Ukrainian the "Communist Manifesto" by K. Marx and F. Engels, "The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science" by F. Engels, among others. The most characteristic feature of her creativity, according to D. Dontsov, is the Nietzschean voluntarism. "With the soul, we comprehend the immaterial truth, which is dogmatic and illogical." The nature of ideas, Dontsov explained using the words of O. Spengler: "Ideas cannot be expressed: an artist contemplates them, a thinker feels them, a statesman and soldier realizes them... Ideas manifest their existence through the style of peoples, through the type of humanity, through life."

Lesya Ukrainka well understood the weight and power of words:
"O Word, my only weapon,
We must not perish together!
Perhaps, in the hands of unknown brothers,
You will become a better sword against the executioners."

Thus, the immaterial truth is known to a select few — poet-geniuses, for example, Taras Shevchenko, Lesya Ukrainka, great statesmen — Volodymyr Monomakh, Ivan Mazepa, scholars — Nestor the Chronicler, church leaders — Metropolitan Petro Mohyla, and others.

The teaching on the noosphere in the Ukrainian intellectual tradition is also linked to the figure of Volodymyr Vernadsky (1863-1945). As a thinker and naturalist, he endeavored to answer the question: what are the real conditions or prerequisites for the formation of the noosphere that already exist or are being created in the process of humanity's historical development? In his view, the main prerequisites can be summarized as follows:

Humanity has become a unified whole. The historical process is fundamentally changing before our eyes. For the first time in human history, the interests of the masses — of all and each — and the free thought of individuals define the life of humanity, serving as a measure of its perceptions of justice. Humanity, taken as a whole, becomes a powerful geological force. The task before it is to reconstruct the biosphere in the interests of a single, freely thinking whole.

The transformation of means of communication and exchange, where humanity must become unified in economic and informational terms. The noosphere is a phenomenon of a planetary nature. The discovery of new sources of energy. The uplift of the population's well-being. The equality of all people, thus humanity must come to complete equality of races and nations, regardless of skin color and faith. The exclusion of war from the life of society.

The noosphere, as conceived by V. Vernadsky, represents a new geological layer of the Earth, established on scientific foundations. "Scientific thought," he asserted, "encompasses the entire planet, all the nations upon it. Numerous centers of scientific thought and inquiry have emerged everywhere. This is the first fundamental precondition for the transition from the biosphere to the noosphere."

In general, one may assert that the doctrine of the transition from the biosphere to the noosphere constitutes the pinnacle of Vernadsky's scientific creativity. It encapsulates the synthesis of the immense worldview significance of humanity's role in the evolution of the biosphere, as well as the unity of humanity and the biosphere.

A vibrant, relentless, youthful spirit infused scientific thought at the dawn of the 20th century. Under its influence, Vernadsky noted, the contemporary scientific worldview bends and trembles, is destroyed and transformed. This historical upheaval must be experienced by a bold and liberated intellect. We must cast aside the old "truths," which, before our eyes, morph into antiquated superstitions. This grand movement, now unfolding in the realm of scientific thought, inevitably influences other aspects of human consciousness. The ideal of Skovoroda—the pursuit of truth—was the bedrock of V. Vernadsky's life, a quest he undertook without compromise. For the scholar, this is the most profound repudiation of any hypocrisy or pharisaism, which constitutes the central force of his teaching. Here, his individuality and its social orientation are most vividly revealed. "I am convinced," Vernadsky wrote, "that everything is determined by the human individual, not the collective, by the elite of the nation, not the demos, and much of its revival depends on the unknown laws governing the emergence of great personalities... Certainly, nothing can change this dynamic but socialist scholasticism, just as the tsarist autocracy and the Orthodox Synod could not. In the force of free thought, I believe, lies the only true power, more potent than what we consider in our political calculations."

The scholar discerned the barbarism introduced by socialism into the fabric of society. Before his eyes, the destruction of higher education unfolded: unprepared youth were admitted to so-called workers' faculties, and universities devolved into applied schools. The universities of Ukraine suffered particularly, transformed into Institutes of People's Education, which persisted until 1933. The Russian Academy of Sciences remained the sole institution untouched; it retained its old form, enjoying complete internal freedom. Of course, this freedom is relative, like all freedoms in a totalitarian state. The material conditions for scientists improved somewhat, yet repression in the scientific sphere intensified.

1. Vernadsky held that the primary force capable of ultimately overcoming this oppressive condition is free thought and intellectual creativity, aided by the collaboration of science, philosophy, religion, and art. His respect for and recognition of the value of the human individual precluded him from embracing the path of Jacobinism in political struggle. He believed that societal flourishing resulting from revolution, particularly one like the communist, is impossible.

The communist revolution resembles a chemical reaction, where the outcome reflects the entirety of the process. The roots of communism extend into the old Russian statehood and the actions of entire generations of Russian intelligentsia, which prepared, with remarkable energy and fervor, this regime.

1. Vernadsky concludes that not only the communists but all socialists are enemies of freedom, for, in their view, the human individual diminishes before the whole. From at least the era of Peter's reforms, if not earlier, throughout all social transformations, a common pattern emerges—none of these transformations could, let alone destroy, even seriously destabilize a certain social superstructure, an elite-bureaucratic super-system that constrains society like a colossal shackle. As a result, this conservative, gigantic "whole" literally crushes the "little person." The period of "turmoil and anarchy" is how Russian historiography designates the era when the state apparatus disintegrates, and its components operate independently of the whole. V. Vernadsky was a liberal and played a significant role in the liberal movement of the pre-revolutionary period. Liberalism called forth individuals who detested the imperial past and doubted the viability of fantasies and schemes for a distant future. Liberals sought to create the present but were aware that Russian political thought was far from political action; that is, while political thought had not completely stagnated but merely become distorted, political action was utterly absent in Russian society.

As a scholar, thinker, citizen, and finally as a Ukrainian, V. Vernadsky was convinced that the Ukrainian movement is natural, nourished by the roots of folk life, and thus can never extinguish. It concerns the defense of the interests of genuine culture, which can penetrate the masses far more deeply and broadly than the all-Russian culture wielded by the opponents of the Ukrainian movement. V. Vernadsky formulated his comprehensive philosophy of the universe, a philosophy of social life, and articulated original thoughts on the Ukrainian cause that remain relevant today. His figure occupies a prominent place in the evolution of philosophical thought in Ukraine.