Page 53 - 6241

process, and the second task is to establish trends in the development of culture.
Thus, Chizhevsky distinguishes between culturology and science as a
predominantly theoretical one from the history of culture as a study of the
sequence of cultural facts.

As for the Soviet scientists, in the second half of the XXth century (since the
1960s) a large cohort of Ukrainian philosophers has been able to overcome, to a
large extent, the simplicity and obnoxiousness of official Soviet philosophy,

including the inherent anthropological and culturological issues. One can name
such, for example, names like GI. Kopnin, V. Shynkaruk, M. Popovich, S.
Krymsky, V. Tabachkovsky, I. Bychko, V. Ivanov, A. Yatsenko, M. Bulatov, M.

Zloty and many others.
The neo-Marxist position of the Kyiv Philosophical School deserves special
attention in the 1970s of the last century. A definite role in the formation of such a

position belonged to Pavlo Kopnin (1922-1971), who, having occupied the post of
director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR,
took an unprecedented Soviet decision to close the department of dialectical and
historical materialism in this research institution. Instead, directorates opened

departments of specific sociological research, logic and methodology of science. A
special scientific group was created to study the philosophical heritage of the Kyiv-

Mohyla Academy. P. Kopnin believed that philosophical knowledge is based on
the overall experience of human spiritual development. The basis of this
experience, according to Kopnin, is a critical analysis of previous achievements in
the way of theoretical, practical and spiritual development of the world by man.

The influence on the processes of the birth of a new scientific value
paradigm in the territory of Ukraine was significant (and even decisive, according
to some Ukrainian scholars, for example, V. Ognevyuk), anthropological

reorientation of Kyiv philosophers under the leadership of Volodymyr Shynkaruk
(1928-2002), who took office Director of the Institute of Philosophy after P.
Kopnin. Taking note of the peculiarities of the Kyiv Philosophical School of that

time, including in the research of human problems, worldview and culture, V.
Shynkaruk wrote that fundamentally new here was the taking as the basis of the
problem of "unity of thinking and being, spiritual and material, instead of called

Leninist reflection principle (Lenin's theory of reflection) - the principle of activity
... In this principle, the notion of unambiguous certainty of the present past and the
future of the present is overcome. The connection between them is carried out not
by the action of objective laws independent of man, but through a person, their

activity, which is free, because it is able to rise above circumstances ... and to
create a new reality, which is largely non-mediated, can not deduced from the
circumstances of the activity, that is, from the past.

52