Випуск 26 (АВФД)
Permanent URI for this collection
ENG: Issue 26 (AMPhR)
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Philosophical and Anthropological Theory of Violence by René Girard(Ukrainian State University of Science and Technologies, Dnipro, Ukraine, 2024) Savchenko, Serhiy V.; Prokofieva, Kateryna A.ENG: Purpose. The article aims to examine the key aspects of the theory of mimetic violence by the famous French thinker René Girard. Theoretical basis. The study is based on René Girard’s fundamental theory of violence, which includes the concepts of mimesis and sacrificial cycle. Girard argues that violence arises from mimetic rivalry, when people imitate each other’s desires and actions, leading to conflicts and crises. The theory suggests that societies historically resolved these crises and prevented chaos through scapegoating rituals. Christianity, however, stands apart in Girard’s view by rejecting sacrificial cults and instead offering Christ’s non-violent example as a path to conflict resolution. Originality. Girard’s concept of mimetic desire explains how people’s tendency to imitate others’ desires leads to rivalry and conflict. These tensions are typically resolved through scapegoating – directing collective aggression toward a common target. The term "scapegoat" itself stems from the Biblical ritual described in Leviticus, where a goat symbolically carried away the community’s sins. The mechanism remains universal, operating in both archaic and modern societies. The authors examine how this dynamic relates to modern totalitarianism and its exploitation of collective violence. They emphasize Girard’s analysis of Christianity’s unique role in countering violence, specifically through its radical proposition that it is better to be victimized than to victimize others. Conclusions. These examples demonstrate how victim sacralization rituals maintain social order, supporting Girard’s assertion that ancient and modern myths share fundamental similarities. Girard’s theory transcends religious and mythological contexts, offering a lens through which to examine diverse anthropological and social phenomena. His ideas offer a profound understanding of the mechanisms of collective violence and their consequences, including the connection between mimetic violence and possible apocalyptic scenarios.Item Hohol’s Anthropological Project in the Russian Empire(Ukrainian State University of Science and Technologies, Dnipro, Ukraine, 2024) Malivskyi, Anatolii M.; Kolesnykova, Tetiana O.; Snitko, D. Y.ENG: Purpose. To reconstruct Hohol’s point of view on his anthropological project, that is, to identify his answers to the question of what a person is in the dimensions of the essential and the proper. In other words, it is about clarifying Hohol’s position on the principles of Ukrainian existence in the russian empire. Theoretical basis. Our view of Hohol’s legacy is based on the conceptual positions of phenomenology, existentialism and hermeneutics. Originality. For the first time, an attempt is made to study Hohol’s legacy as a development of an anthropological project. In the process of its implementation, the authors reconstructed the main dimensions of this project, using the biography of the thinker, his correspondence, and texts. Close attention to the peculiarities of Hohol’s anthropology allows us to approach the understanding of the theoretical paradoxes of the writer’s worldview and the factors of his early death as a personal life tragedy of a patriot of Ukraine. The point is that Hohol, in the process of searching for forms of realising his high calling, set himself the task of substantiating a utopian goal. For him, the ways of building russia as a great power involve the emasculation of the basic values of European culture and the humiliation of human dignity. Conclusions. In the course of the study of Mykola Hohol’s works, the authors have identified: a) the importance of worldview and philosophical issues; b) the problems of man in his heritage. It is argued that Mykola Hohol, solving the problem of outlining the general features of human nature, at an early stage of his work demonstrated optimism and expressive life-affirming features rooted in Ukrainian centrism. Significant changes in our thinker’s worldview led to his attempts to substantiate an alternative version of the European anthropological project, which involves justifying the insignificance of the average russian citizen and the empire itself at the cost of denying the achievements of European philosophy and science. The painful experience of this theoretical dissonance was a prerequisite for Mykola Vasylyovych’s early tragic death. Today, it is a kind of warning about the impossibility of combining Ukrainian and russian culture, that is, the danger of a nihilistic attitude towards the achievements of European culture, of which Ukraine is an integral part. The authors associate the prospects for further study of Hohol’s legacy with focusing on his: a) criticism of the Enlightenment and b) clarification of the forms of substantive rootedness of his work in Ukrainian philosophy, primarily in the teachings of Hryhorii Skovoroda.