Gisel – Ukrainian educator, church leader, historian, philosopher.

Man, in his opinion, creates not only himself, but also like a divine creation – being, the world of things, where he imitates God, his work, which is especially evident in science, art. Thanks to such imitation, the boundaries between natural and artificial creation are smoothed out, because both are the realization of creative potential. The only difference is that God creates the universe from nothing, acts as a creator in an absolute way, while man – only in a relative way.

Not less role than artists is played by outstanding statesmen, hetmans-generals, who direct whole nations and armies to certain actions, thus taking part in the creation of history. By such actions-creations, people performing not so much humanize God as elevate themselves to him, give their activities divine abilities. Man appears as a creator through his involvement in the deity, through the spirit and mind, the manifestation of the image and likeness of God.

Manifestation of the ideas of Renaissance humanism in the work of K. Sakovich is his deep patriotism and the fact that in contrast to the religious worldview with its inseparability of confessionalism and nationality, he brought to the fore national, civic interests, rather than devotion to a particular suzerain, land, denomination nationality can belong to different denominations and even to different states.

Unlike other figures of the fraternal movement, his predecessors and contemporaries, K. Sakovich did not make negative remarks about philosophy, but, on the contrary, gave it the right of citizenship.

“Aristotle’s Problems, or Questions about Human Nature” is one of the first textbooks by an East Slavic author on philosophy, which Sakovich read at the Kyiv Fraternal School.

Quite thoroughly in the work describes the structure and functioning of all major organs of the human body, each of which is devoted to a separate chapter (section) with reference to personal observations, data of other authors. Thus, when describing the eyes, Plato’s point of view is set forth, according to which vision occurs through the emission of a ray from the eye. It is opposed by Aristotle’s point of view, arguments for its proof are given and it is concluded that although Plato’s arguments seem stronger, but Aristotle’s they are more true.

In explaining the functioning of a body, its structure, Sakovich not only does not refer to the Holy Scriptures, but also refutes theological interpretations. “Some,” he writes, “claim that a man lacks one rib because Adam personal narrative topic ideas was pulled out of it to create Eve, but that is worth laughing at.” Of all the parts of the body, he singled out the heart, emphasizing that this part of the body is most important for life.

Other bodies with changes in references and arguments are described in the same way. In describing the stomach, for example, in addition to natural science data Sakovich uses the achievements of folk wisdom, philosophical legends. Opposing excessive drinking, he writes: “The old ancient philosophers drank wine only during meals and never again, and so they spoke of drinking: the first glass for need; the second – for medicine, the third – for pleasure, the fourth – for fun, the fifth – for drunkenness, the sixth – for fooling around, the seventh – for jokes.

In the section “About sleep and dreams. Description of a dream” Sakovich with reference to Tom Aquinas considered dreams as visions of various things that appear in a dream, which occurs due to the arousal of sensations that saw or heard objects in a tired state , because at night the thought is freed from daytime worries. connected with the external senses, and can more freely consider those things which the day has dismantled thinking, but because of the variety of obstacles at the time when they were perceived, could not do so.

The Treatise on the Soul was probably the second part of Sakovich’s lectures on philosophy and was a kind of continuation of the previous treatise. The work is dedicated to Prince Chortorysky, a dedication almost literal to that in “Aristotle’s Problems”. The preface sets out different views on the origin of the soul, its localization. Describing the soul in general, Sakovich defines it as “the actual state of organization of the physical body, which has the ability to live”, “the form of the natural body, which is subject to change and may have different qualities” (Treat on the soul // Gam. – P. 448). As the successor of Aristotle, he singled out a driving, sensitive and intelligent soul. The driving (vegetable) soul is a form of the natural body composed of various parts and members that have the ability to plant life. Its main forces are nourishing, irrigating and generating.

A sensitive, or sensitive, soul is the soul of an animal capable of living a sensitive life. In addition to the previous forces, she has external and internal senses. Like the plant, the animal soul is not created by God, but arises, like other material forms, from the bodily factor. As for the ability of the sensitive soul, it is twofold: external (sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch) and internal (general sense, imagination and memory).

Sakovich gives a description of the animal and plant soul according to Aristotle, with reference to Avicenna in describing the common sense. Fantasy is described in detail, by which it is necessary to understand the inner sense, which perceives the ideas or similarities coming from the general sense, delays and disassembles them. In describing memory as a sense that causes reason, Sakovich again imitates Aristotle not only in determining its location, but also the function of accepting similarities that do not come from external sensations, but are formed by sensitivity itself. and people call it a “thinking force.”

12/13/2010

Philosophical thought of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. Abstract

The abstract considers the features and directions of development of philosophical thought in the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (I. Gizel, F. Prokopovych, G. Kosinsky and others.)

When evaluating philosophy courses, professors of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy note that they begin the schedule of the medieval church-theological worldview in the spiritual culture of Ukraine, but most of those who evaluate emphasize the scholastic nature of these courses. GG Shped drew attention to the inappropriateness of the latter, emphasizing that the name of scholasticism here can refer only to the methods of teaching, not to the content.

V. Nichyk agrees with him to some extent, noting that in substantiating Orthodox theology, philosophy used the forms inherent in scholasticism, but the professors of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy widely used the experience, scientific achievements, new achievements of science and philosophy of the time, sought in theology to rely not only on religious feelings but also on scientific evidence.

Neither the authority of the church fathers, nor the instructions of the councils, nor the Scriptures themselves were recognized by them as the highest authority and criterion of truth. For professors of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy is characterized by an appeal to the feelings themselves, common sense, observation, everyday experience, experiment. In their lectures, they did not follow the path of Byzantine theology, or Latin scholasticism, or Western European reformist theories, or the path that followed the traditions of ancient Russia. Using the achievements of these ways, they sought to develop independent thinking, their own type of philosophizing.

In addition, using the term “scholasticism”, we must take into account that it itself was heterogeneous. As a historical stage in the development of philosophical thought, the transition from materialism, ontology to logic and epistemology, scholasticism in addition to negative features had many positive aspects for the development of Ukrainian philosophical thought and philosophy in general, as evidenced by the second scholasticism , which contained a number of heretical moments. , firmness in judgments, knowledge of classical philosophical heritage, contributed to the spread of philosophical literature.

If we take into account the fact that most professors of philosophy at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy were educated in Western European educational institutions and were by no means simple epigones of certain philosophical systems, but creatively comprehended them, the content and direction of their courses will become clear.

I. Gisel

He defended the ideas of the level of European philosophical culture in the 17th century. I. Gizel – Ukrainian educator, church leader, historian, philosopher.

Due to the traditions and tasks set by the academy, I. Gisel in the first place brought the problem of God and his attitude to the world, when considering which he stood on deistic positions close to the Renaissance, which is manifested in the combination and equality of material and ideal moments in determining nature. and Neoplatonic conceptual interpretations of God.

God, according to Gisel, has no physical principles, he is immaterial, infinite, is a free cause, infinitely perfect, but known by the natural mind. He created matter and motion, as a result of which bodily substances arose, then various bodily things, which God endowed with their natural way of existence. Things that are different in appearance and shape are based on matter, which is the same for everyone.

Giselle explained the diversity of things by the unequal quantitative distribution of matter in its forms, because matter can be distributed differently in quantitative terms in things. Its quantity always remains the same. It is not born and is not destroyed, but only passes from one body to another as the basis of the mutual transformation of the cycle in nature. Gisel saw the greater perfection of celestial bodies in comparison with terrestrial ones in the combination of matter with more perfect, one-of-a-kind forms.

Considering the problem of motion, Giselle understood it as various changes taking place in nature (spatial displacement, quantitative and qualitative changes), emphasizing that where there are no opposites, there is no motion, and therefore the emergence and destruction. Giselle was one of the first professors at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, who in his lectures introduced students to the teachings of Copernicus, after whom he believed that the sun is the fixed center of the universe, and the periods of the Earth’s rotation around it form days and years. Space thought inseparable from things and the environment, completely devoid of emptiness, emptiness.

Action in the world of natural causes requires, according to Gisel, that the subject of science were the objective laws of nature.