Ukrainian Philosophical Thought

Ukrainian National Idea: V. Lypynskyi, M. Mikhnovskyi, D. Dontsov, and Others

Since the Romantic period, the self-awareness of Ukrainians as a nation has emerged as one of the most pressing tasks, placing significant emphasis on the doctrines of Ukrainian thinkers that are dedicated to justifying the Ukrainian national idea.

Vyacheslav Lypynskyi (1882-1931), a Ukrainian philosopher, historiographer, and representative of the conservative tradition, was a creator of the monarchical idea and a political figure and diplomat. He was born on April 17, 1882, in the village of Zaturtsi in Volhynia. He completed his high school education in Kyiv and later pursued university studies in history and agronomy in Kraków and Geneva, eventually settling in his estate in Uman. In 1917, he participated in organizing the Ukrainian Democratic Peasant Party, drafting its program based on the defense of Ukraine's state sovereignty and the preservation of land ownership rights. In 1918, he served as an ambassador of the Ukrainian state in Vienna.

In 1920, he wrote the work "Ukraine on the Verge" (1657-1659). Between 1926 and 1927, during his time in emigration, he headed the department of Ukrainian statehood history at the Ukrainian Scientific Institute in Berlin. At his initiative, the political organization of an “order” type, the Ukrainian Union of Peasants-Statehood Advocates (USHD), was established. During this period, he emerged as a prominent leader of the conservative-monarchist movement among emigration circles. The ideological organ of the movement, the collection "Peasant Ukraine," published his fundamental historiographical treatise "Letters to Brothers-Peasants," which was released as a separate book in 1926. Due to a conflict with Hetman P. Skoropadskyi and a split among the hetman supporters, Lypynskyi declared the USHD disbanded in 1930.

In the initial phase of his activity, Lypynskyi was a narodnik and a democrat. However, even then, he represented a state-political aspect of thought, specifically prioritizing the political over the ethnographic and folkloric when it came to establishing national affiliation. The "Materials for the Program" of the Ukrainian Democratic Peasant Party, written by Lypynskyi, constitute the first program of Ukrainian independent and national-state orientations. It lays down the concept of uniting all Ukrainian lands into one national state, along with the ideas of popular sovereignty and the positions of Ukrainian peasant democracy.

The Ukrainian national idea can only invigorate the Ukrainian ethnographic mass when it aligns with the idea of the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people, calling for complete national liberation and replacing subservience to foreign state organizations with demands for the establishment of an independent state. "The internal struggle of Ukrainians could only be creative, rather than destructive, if it were conducted in the name of complete freedom—both state and cultural—of the entire Ukrainian nation without exception. No European nation exists without a common idea of national independence and without a collective struggle for that independence. Only when a unifying common idea of Ukrainian national independence exists can we speak of the existence of the Ukrainian nation."

The philosopher perceived the reasons for the defeat of the Ukrainian state between 1917 and 1920 as stemming from the fact that the fight for the creation of a Ukrainian state was undertaken by individuals who not only had never believed in Ukraine's state independence but also regarded the very idea of state independence with contempt and hostility. Throughout the period of ideological preparation for the national revolution at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the Ukrainian democratic intelligentsia could not envision itself as the builders of a Ukrainian state; thus, the idea of a state built by certain Ukrainian classes was, if not hostile to them, then at best completely alien. Instead, they sought to assume the singular role to which they felt inherently suited—that of intermediaries between the Russian state and the Ukrainian masses. The collapse of the Russian Empire came as a catastrophic surprise to the Ukrainian intelligentsia. It was not because the intellectual socialist parties suddenly felt an irresistible desire for the masses to have their own state, as the Bolsheviks aimed to replace the decaying Russian state, but simply because the new Bolshevik Russia refused to speak with them as representatives of the nation. Suddenly, there was no one before whom they could act as intermediaries. Thus, it was the Russian Bolsheviks, not the national Ukrainian idea, that compelled the Ukrainian intelligentsia to embark on the path of complete national liberation, self-determination, and state-building. In this way, through the boycott of their own state, the Ukrainian intelligentsia bears historical responsibility no less than those who led the Ukrainian state at that time. When the revival of a nation occurs without national idealism, without love for the entire nation across all its classes and groups, without that ideological national pathos, that romantic enthusiasm for the freedom and independence of the nation that accompanied the resurgence of all European peoples, the very concept of a nation discards all its living creative content, leaving only a lifeless shell devoid of substance.

Lypynskyi first articulated the "monarchical idea" in 1911 at meetings of Ukrainian patriot-independents. He contended that relying on the democratization of Russia was imprudent and that Ukrainians would gain nothing unless they fought for the "state side of our cause." He was uninterested in purely cultural discussions regarding who spoke Ukrainian well or who belonged to which faith. He did not believe that being Ukrainian in politics required him to cease being a Roman Catholic.

The first task he set for himself was the historical rehabilitation not only of the Ukrainian nobility that remained true to the faith of their forefathers but also of those who had changed their confessions. In his work "The Nobility in Ukraine," Lypynskyi argues that the Ukrainian nobility participated in the Great Ukrainian Revolution not as random individuals but as a distinct social stratum with individual characteristics and specific interests. This stratum was sufficiently robust to elevate its class demands to a national level.

Lypynskyi emerges not only as a historian of Ukrainian statehood but also as the creator of an original concept of statehood. The essence of this new, original concept is that it was during the times of Khmelnytsky that the greatest idea produced by Ukrainian political thought began to take shape, albeit perhaps only in broadly outlined contours: the idea of the independence and self-sufficiency of the Ukrainian state. As a historian-philosopher, Lypynskyi shapes our understanding of statehood, asserting that the era of the Cossacks was an era of Ukrainian statehood. He opposed the traditional concept of Khmelnytsky with a new idea—the process of building the Ukrainian state. In his view, the revival of the Ukrainian state in the 17th century was prompted by several factors:

1. a) The unification of all strata of Ukrainian society around the Cossack core, which, during the liberation war, absorbed the most active elements from other classes—peasantry, townspeople, and nobility;
2. b) The active participation of the Ukrainian nobility in the Cossack movement, which at a crucial moment determined the political cultivation of the Cossack movement, or the “taming” of semi-nomadic lowland Cossacks by settled, urban Cossack forces;
3. c) The triumph of Cossack landholding by the senior nobility and the associated intensive peasant agriculture over extensive forms;
4. d) The colonial economy of Polish magnates and the sanctification of the liberation war by the authority of the Orthodox Church.

In society, Lypynskyi identified three sources of power: material strength, or "warriors"; economic strength, or "producers"; and intellectual strength, or "intelligentsia," among which certain combinations were possible. The instinct for state creation is inherent in the warrior-producers. According to Lypynskyi, the intelligentsia plays a supporting role, significant in that it recognizes and shapes the spontaneous, subconscious orientations in society.

The theory of the absolute monarchic orientation of the Hetmanate arises from a specific perspective on the course of universal history. It is grounded in the conviction that every nation must undergo a period of monarchy. Given that absolutism prevailed in Europe and Russia during the seventeenth century, which produced many state institutions that significantly influenced state consolidation, V. Lypynskyi concluded that the very absence of an absolute monarchy within Ukraine was the reason for the lack of its own state organization and its enduring absence for centuries. “The calling, recognition, and affirmation of the autocratic power of the tsar ultimately marked the end of the great Ukrainian uprising of 1648. It concluded so tragically for our nation because the politicians—our statesmen—failed to establish a necessary Ukrainian entity, one that would unify all classes and rest on a new legal foundation of absolutist monarchy.” As a scholar, Lypynskyi endeavored to illuminate those aspects of the Pereyaslav Agreement that supported the notion that it was a fortuitous military alliance between two states, and that at Pereyaslav, the Ukrainian state was represented as a partner. He acknowledged several positives within the Pereyaslav Treaty without succumbing to the imperial historiography of Russia propagated by M. Karamzin and his historical school.

Just as the Lublin legend in Poland, the Pereyaslav legend ideologically and legally rescued the Ukrainian aristocracy—after the bankruptcy of its own state—from the position of the conquered, subdued, and enslaved in a foreign realm. These legends granted our aristocracy all rights and privileges of a state nation’s aristocracy on the premise that they had, of their own accord and without coercion, willingly attached themselves to these states. The Ukrainian monarchist V. Lypynskyi envisioned Bohdan Khmelnytsky as the first Ukrainian absolute monarch who established the Ukrainian hetman dynasty. However, all of Bohdan's efforts were doomed from the outset, as there was no existing monarchical tradition in Ukraine at that time, and the Cossack elite sought only to elect their hetman. This led the populist school, particularly M. Hrushevskyi, to perceive the hetmans of the Zaporizhian Army as presidents of a republic, while Lypynskyi discerned in some of them the traits of an absolute monarch.

In Lypynskyi's monarchical theory, which was rooted in Ukrainian historical foundations, another moment of his historical philosophy emerges—the cult of strength and the great individual. In Lypynskyi's later works, particularly in his "Letters to Brother Peasants," his inclination to assert that it is indeed great individuals who shape history becomes increasingly evident. At the heart of his philosophy of history lies the "great individual," the "powerful, God-sent" hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky, characterized by his thirst for power, desire to dominate, ruthlessness in war, cunning in negotiations, and steadfastness against his subordinates in achieving his aims.

The most crucial element of Lypynskyi's thought for us remains his understanding and assessment of the problem of strength. “Strength and authority—these are two attributes without which a nation cannot manifest the unifying and organizing power of its leading groups.” Reflecting on the significance of strength in politics, Lypynskyi defended a position bordering on the teachings of the eminent Renaissance thinker N. Machiavelli. Both were primarily concerned with how best to acquire a state and ensure its initial steps towards existence and development. These two historical figures are separated by four centuries, yet they share a unique philosophy of strength, which is so essential in the conditions of national consolidation and the struggle for state independence. Lypynskyi recognized that “without the sword's strength, without physical coercion, which from the beginning to the end of the world has been, is, and will be the prerogative monopoly, the hallmark and essence of the state, no public force can secure itself or realize its ultimate desires.” As a representative of Ukrainian Machiavellianism, Lypynskyi was the first political thinker to transform the problem of strength into his historical philosophy and to contemplate its foundational principles. His famous words—that no one will build the state for us unless we build it ourselves—resonated deeply. He argued that the state is a nation-creating factor and that a fully realized nation can only emerge when a state exists. Our nation remains politically, ideologically, and culturally divided. To avoid perpetual extinction, it must create its state, its singular national state idea, similar to the one possessed by the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, and many other great cultural nations—a singular national culture that unites each nation into a cohesive whole across the globe. From this stems Lypynskyi's understanding of national belonging. He equates state belonging with national belonging. In place of cultural-linguistic nationalism (as exemplified by O. Potebnia), Lypynskyi advocates territorial patriotism. In doing so, he establishes a view in Ukrainian political thought that holds that permanent residents of Ukrainian land, regardless of their social status, faith, ethnic origin, or even national-cultural consciousness, should be full-fledged citizens of the Ukrainian state. Lypynskyi's insistence on the equality between national and state belonging elevates our national thought to the level of twentieth-century European philosophy. In this, as well as in his perspectives and evaluations regarding the nation-state issue and many other matters, Lypynskyi significantly diverged from another statesman—D. Dontsov. While the former traversed “through the state to the nation” (the state precedes the nation), the latter approached it “through the nation to the state”; one was an advocate of conservative thought, while the other championed revolutionary ideas.

Philosophy as ideology within the Ukrainian spiritual tradition is represented by M. Mikhnovskyi and D. Dontsov. The phenomenon of national ideologies, that is, philosophy as ideology, is a manifestation of the German spirit that began with J. G. Fichte. During the occupation of Germany by Napoleon's army, J. G. Fichte delivered a public lecture series in Berlin entitled “Addresses to the German Nation” (1807-1808). In these, the philosopher urged the German people to revive, to unite around a single idea, and to reform the education system on national foundations, which ultimately contributed to the growth of national self-awareness in Germany during the Napoleonic Wars. Such addresses, wherein the philosopher speaks to citizens and the nation as a whole, are essential and inseparable components of the national spirit. In them, he expresses the maxims of his people and his personal views, revealing an understanding of existing political relations and the principles that define various objectives and courses of action. In the philosopher's words resonates not an alien consciousness but his own tradition and culture: “Be as German as possible; then you will be true human beings,” asserted J. G. Fichte.

Ukrainian nationalism, both as ideology and as an organized political factor on Ukrainian soil, are closely related yet not identical phenomena. The establishment and development of Ukrainian nationalism took place between the two world wars. The initial stage of Ukrainian nationalism is associated with the figure of Mykola Mikhnovskyi, his orientation towards social justice, and his grounding in the principles of international law; the second stage, following World War I, is linked to Dmitro Dontsov, with his revanchist fervor. Both played significant roles in the history of Ukrainian political thought, laying the groundwork for certain worldview positions within national ideology.

Mykola Mikhnovsky (1873-1924)—a prominent Ukrainian political figure of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, an organizer of the Ukrainian army, and a lawyer by profession. Persecuted by the Bolshevik regime, he took his own life. In 1891, with the support of several initiative students, Mikhnovsky founded the Tarasivtsi Brotherhood, aimed at advocating for the restoration of rights to the Ukrainian people. The Brotherhood, of which Mikhnovsky, a law student, was the soul, not only proclaimed the primacy of the nation in contrast to individual or group interests but also defined the primary task of every Ukrainian as the struggle for the political liberation of their nation.

Mikhnovsky articulated his national "creed" in the speech "Independent Ukraine," published in Lviv in 1900 at the expense of the newly established Revolutionary Ukrainian Party (RUP). The programmatic "Ten Commandments of the Ukrainian National Party" should be regarded as foundational in the formation of a new modern ideology on Ukrainian soil. He was not only the first to advocate nationalist ideas and the slogan of Ukraine's independence "from the San to the Caucasus," but also the first to attempt to organize Ukrainian nationalism into structured forms. This endeavor culminated in the creation of the Ukrainian National Party, around which Ukrainian nationalist elements began to gather. Mikhnovsky understood well that the era of embroidered shirts, swaying, and vodka was over and would never return. A harsh time had come for the struggle for his people—a struggle that was bloody and merciless. The need for struggle arises from the fact of national existence and presupposes the establishment of a just, socially-oriented order on Ukrainian lands. Only such a social order could ultimately satisfy the Ukrainian people, eradicate exploitation and lawlessness, and abolish the unjust system built on violence, coercion, inequality, and domination.

Thus, the ideological and political principles of the national ideology can be summarized in the following theses:

— National ideology is grounded in the principle of the nation's exclusive primacy and national interest, placing the nation and national interest at the forefront of the overall system of socio-political values, asserting that national interest can only be fully secured in one's own, independent state.
— It views the national principle as the sole basis for a truly just international order and therefore rejects the right of any nation to subjugate another, recognizing the right of every nation in the world to political independence.
— It is self-sufficient and unifying regarding the restoration of an independent and sovereign state for the Ukrainian nation.
— It relies on its own strength in the struggle for the political and social liberation of the Ukrainian nation.
— It recognizes the principle of popular sovereignty (democratic governance) on the path to the political and state organization of the nation, as this form can best satisfy the interests of broad masses.
— It embraces socialist principles concerning the socio-economic organization of the nation.

Based on these considerations, we have ample reason to regard Mikhnovsky as the founder of the modern Ukrainian nationalist movement, the first to delineate the foundations of Ukrainian nationalism as an ideology, and the first to attempt to establish a Ukrainian nationalist organization aimed at the struggle for an independent, unified, democratic Ukrainian state. Therefore, the assertion by D. Dontsov, who, in the later years of his life, after World War II, denied Mikhnovsky's role as a creator of nationalism—claiming that he was merely the founder of Ukrainian independence—contradicts the actual facts. Mikhnovsky's independence is derivative of his nationalism.

The second period in the development of Ukrainian nationalism is closely associated with the figure of Dmytro Dontsov (1883-1973). On which main principles is his worldview constructed?

1. The uniqueness of Ukraine as a nation.
2. The organic unity of Ukraine with the Western European world.
3. Hostile opposition of Ukraine to Moscow.
4. A near-total rejection of Ukrainian spiritual currents of the 19th century.
5. The elevation of a new psychological type of Ukrainian.
6. The urgent demand for the emergence of a new leading class among Ukrainians.

A defining characteristic of Dontsov's philosophy as an ideology is the thesis that all aspects of Ukrainian life must align with the most essential philosophical truths. He interprets the role of philosophy in life as follows: philosophy, on the one hand, cannot replace politics, religion, culture, education, military affairs, or economics, while on the other hand, life cannot do without philosophy.

Philosophy as an ideology raises the critical question: what is the fundamental law of existence? Dontsov answers: the struggle for existence; he asserts that life is a struggle, not a pleasure, primarily a struggle between good and evil. According to Dontsov himself, the roots of conscious Ukrainian nationalism can be partially traced back to M. Gogol and P. Kulish. They are distinctly evident in the works of T. Shevchenko, Lesia Ukrainka, and M. Mikhnovsky. In Mikhnovsky's "Independent Ukraine," Dontsov writes, "we see a new worldview, thoroughly nationalist and thoroughly activist... The brochure is based on the concept of the nation and its struggle as indisputable facts of history, and builds its demands upon them... There are inherent revolutionary and challenging nationalist tendencies; therefore, I include this small brochure among the few voices that broke away from provincialism, calling for a new nationalism."

Dontsov himself constructs a new nationalism as the worldview of the Ukrainian people, which recognizes the idea of the nation and aspires to be a political unit organized on the principle of freedom. He defines freedom similarly to A. Schopenhauer—as that which acts from itself. Thus, Dontsov builds his national ideology, linking it with the phenomenon of the soul, one of whose manifestations is freedom. Such inherent properties of the soul, such as the desire for activity, possession, creativity, interests, love, and national and social concerns, he terms the will to live and dominate. This represents a natural striving and a fundamental basis of national ideology. Expansion is inherent in the concept of the nation. The strengthening of the nation's will to live, to power, and to expansion, according to Dontsov, constitutes the first foundation of nationalism, which he opposed to "Dragomanovism," that is, the views of M. Dragomanov. The second foundation of the national idea, as per Dontsov, is the aspiration for struggle, which seeks to change the face of the world, coupled with the awareness of its finitude. Thus, Dontsov proposes a heroic-romantic mythology of the nation, which serves the role of national ideology.

Fanaticism (intolerance) of the new idea is yet another feature of nationalism, hence its aggressiveness and intolerance toward other viewpoints. The next requirement of volitional nationalism is the role of a leading class, which has always been a minority. An active minority acts as the engine that propels the national machine. It provides direction and driving energy to the people, binding the dispersed masses into a unified organism, transforming the populace into a nation united by a singular idea.

What is common to both Mikhnovsky and Dontsov is that they both arose from the primacy of the nation, the principle of struggle, and the importance and necessity of state independence; however, their nationalist ideologies diverge sharply beyond this similarity.

Dmytro Chyzhevskyi (1894-1977), as a scholar, perceived that throughout the history of human thought, two distinct perspectives on the issue of nationality have long existed and continue to contend with one another. One of these perspectives is rationalistic, while the other is romantic. The rationalistic view of the nation is grounded in the understanding that what has meaning in life can be comprehended and substantiated by reason. Consequently, the fundamental conclusion of rationalism asserts that all people are unequivocally equal, yearning for justice, which is universally applicable and independent of time and place. However, this assertion is far removed from reality, as history reveals a rich tapestry of diverse forms and types. In the realm of history, we encounter various scientific, philosophical, and religious perspectives. From the rationalist standpoint, it naturally follows that some of these views on justice and beauty are erroneous, while others are correct. The history of humanity and our present circumstances testify to such mistakes. Therefore, national life, national characteristics, and national differences are regarded as such errors, or "deviations." The historical development, according to rationalists, is aimed at the elimination of these differences and errors, viewing the existence of these peculiarities as a "necessary evil" rooted in tradition, which cannot simply vanish, just as all errors cannot be expunged. What is truly valuable and significant from a rationalistic viewpoint is solely the universal, ahistorical, and timeless.

1. Chyzhevskyi championed a "romantic" approach to the problem of nationhood and nationality. This seemingly "incomprehensible" variety of forms and types merely indicates that nature is not wholly "rational," but it cannot serve as an argument or proof that this nature is "mistaken" or straying down a false path. Rather, it is precisely this diversity of organic forms in nature that engenders the splendor of organic life. Similarly, human society, Chyzhevskyi concludes, exists only because of the diversity and variety of individual types. No society could emerge from entirely identical, uniform individuals. Eternal values cannot be so monotonous and one-sided as the proponents of the rationalistic approach would have us believe. Through the richness of historical life, distinct facets and forms of eternal beauty are realized. Their value lies precisely in their individuality and uniqueness, for it is the individual traits that complement other manifestations.
2. Chyzhevskyi concludes that each nation is but a limited and one-sided manifestation of the human ideal. Yet, it is only within these limited and one-sided realizations that the universal human ideal remains alive. Just as there are living, diverse human individuals in society, so too are specific nations interconnected within humanity. It is through them and in them that humanity becomes possible. Thus, the romantic view of the nation does not lead to national exceptionalism or blindness.

Philosophy, like the nation, can be viewed as the spiritual embodiment of a people. Here, two perspectives on philosophical knowledge are possible. One may see the development of philosophy as a continuous accumulation of individual insights, suggesting that philosophy comprises discrete propositions, whether correct or incorrect. The progress of philosophy thus becomes a process of increasing correct assertions while disproving and rejecting the incorrect. Consequently, the history of philosophy emerges as the history of the errors of the human spirit. Against this view, Chyzhevskyi posits another: absolute truth cannot be fully revealed in any completed manifestation. Each individual expression of absolute truth, each philosophical assertion we encounter in the historical evolution of human thought, represents merely a partial truth—a fragment, an incomplete reflection of the Absolute. This "incompleteness," he argues, is the source of changes and struggles of ideas throughout the history of thought, as well as the existence of many "philosophies," signifying diverse schools, currents, directions, and worldviews. Each specific philosophical system is simultaneously a limited and partial expression of absolute truth and a manifestation of a particular temporal, national, artistic, scientific, or religious perspective. It should not be presumed that "errors" in philosophy are entirely absent, Chyzhevskyi states. However, the sources and nature of these errors differ from what is commonly imagined. "Errors" primarily exhibit a "negative" character—they negate some reality unnoticed by the author of a given theory. In other words, the erroneousness in philosophy entails the proclamation of the "one-sided" and limited as absolutely correct and unconditional. Thus, every "philosophy," every individual system that seeks to regard itself as the embodiment of absolute truth becomes erroneous. Each national philosophy that aims to present itself as the singular and total truth strays down a false path.

Chyzhevskyi interprets the trajectory of philosophical thought as a transition from one partial truth to another, from one "one-sidedness" to another, which may sometimes amount to a fruitless oscillation between these one-sided, limited truths, and at other times—an elevation above those one-sided perspectives, represented at a certain historical moment within a specific nation and culture, culminating in the fusion of these "one-sidednesses" into a unity, a "synthesis." This synthesis remains, nonetheless, limited and one-sided; however, by incorporating two one-sided representations of the Absolute, it constitutes a "higher" understanding, closer to absolute truth.

The development of philosophy is thus comprised of these moments of synthesis; in other words, the progression of philosophy represents a genuine movement among oppositions and through oppositions toward synthesis. This movement occurs within each national philosophy as well. Therefore, one may assert that within every nationality, certain polar oppositional currents are represented. Yet, these polar oppositions share something in common, enabling them—not individually, but collectively—to characterize this nation, era, philosophical direction, and so forth. Hence, Chyzhevskyi concludes that national philosophy is predominantly characterized by three elements:

1. the form of expression of philosophical thoughts;
2. the method of philosophical inquiry;
3. the structure of the philosophical system, its "architectonics," particularly the position and role of specific values.

When we assert that the line of philosophical development traverses from country to country, it is hard not to concur with Chyzhevskyi that this assertion does not apply to Ukraine or other Slavic nations. Indeed, in the history of philosophical development, it has never occurred that a "great philosopher," whether Ukrainian or from another Slavic nation, produced a synthesis of global significance—that is, one that served as a starting point for further theoretical advancement in philosophy on a worldwide scale. We may speak of a "Ukrainian Kant" in Hryhorii Skovoroda, a "Russian Nietzsche" in Konstantin Leontiev, or consider M. Gogol and P. Yurkevich as typical representatives of national character. Yet none of them succeeded in implanting their unique thoughts into global thought. Specifically regarding H. Skovoroda and M. Gogol, it may be stated that they belong to those who pose problems rather than those who provide definitive resolutions. Slavic (and particularly Ukrainian) philosophy, Chyzhevskyi concludes, still awaits the voice of a "great philosopher." His scholarly contributions, encompassing over 450 works published in various languages, stand as compelling evidence that the most successful historian of philosophy can only be a researcher who simultaneously engages in systematic philosophy. Such was Dmytro Chyzhevskyi—a historian of philosophy and Slavic thought, whose endeavors fostered the rapprochement of European nations, believing that cultural ties among peoples outweigh political connections.

Thus, the contemporary reassessment of Ukrainian philosophical heritage within the framework of European culture enables the formation of a core of spirituality in the Ukrainian intellectual progression—the national idea as a cohesive program for building an independent, unified Ukraine. This idea emerges from a comprehensive awareness of one's national distinctiveness and a shared struggle for the ideal of independence across all realms of life. The sense of distinctiveness serves not only as a foundation upon which to rely on one's strength but also, more importantly, as a means to channel one's energy into purposeful avenues and safeguard it from dispersal. The philosophical underpinnings of the national idea and the worldview understanding of its formation increasingly become our state of being, an active force, and a driving impetus of spiritual life today.

The philosophy of the national idea unveils the moral and intellectual essence of our people. The destiny of this idea encapsulates the fate of the entire nation, serving as a material concentration of the unmeasured potential power inherent within the national organism. The Ukrainian idea offers the most substantial evidence of the national individuality of the people, affirming their right to autonomous existence; it, along with its philosophical understanding, awakens the nation to conscious life.

Regrettably, there remain, even today, some sages who assert that the national idea has not fulfilled its promises. The national idea is not a judgment that justifies or condemns; its eternal value lies in the fact that it simply exists, and through its existence, it realizes the grand idea of the unity of the Ukrainian world.

In this idea resides all the charm of our native nature, our rivers and lakes, as well as our marshlands, as depicted in "Forest Song"—the entire enchantment of sounds and concepts instilled by the rich tradition of early printed texts, chronicles, and other relics, transmitted orally from generation to generation. All of this reflects the work of the Ukrainian land itself, imbued with the mystical currents of its native soil.

For us, the national idea is inseparably linked with the unique Ukrainian landscape, the culture of grain, the gestalt of the Ukrainian homestead, the erotic spirit of cultivated earth, the refined aromas of lard roasted with straw, fresh wheat pancakes, and buckwheat honey; it is found in the cross of St. Andrew the First-Called, which first shone on the slopes of the Dnipro, in the dome of St. Sophia, and on Chernecha Hill; in the myths and legends, the words and songs of the folk, and in the soulful and rustic echoes of the past; the national idea expresses a return to the warmth of the family hearth, an attempt to grasp the whole reality of the "Ukrainian measure."

The philosophical essence of the national idea has materialized and been transmitted throughout history, crystallizing into various forms and structures. This is indeed the essence of philosophy: its conclusions are as multifaceted as the thoughts that precede them.