“We begin to understand our reality only when we juxtapose it with eternal problems”

Professor Myroslav Popovych is one of Ukraine’s most outstanding intellectuals. He is the head of the Institute of Philosophy and a full member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. As a longtime friend and contributor to The Day , he does not need any introduction. This scholar’s knowledge is encyclopedic, as attested by the 100 or so works that he has published in the most diverse areas of philosophy. An active public figure, Prof. Popovych has an excellent and well-deserved reputation in Ukrainian society. The very fact of his presence in the Ukrainian spiritual space is having an essential impact on it. An indefatigable researcher, Prof. Popovych is constantly searching for his next research project. His Red Century , a fundamental study of 20th-century history (the book launch was sponsored by The Day ) was quickly followed by another book, Hryhorii Skovoroda: Philosophy of Freedom , which has just been published.

The Day’s reporter began his interview with Prof. Popovych by asking about his latest book. But, owing to the fact that the interviewee is an extremely interesting person, who is skilled at analyzing a large range of subjects — from the history of culture to modern-day politics and “eternal questions,” our conversation went far beyond the limits of the prearranged topics.

It would be a good idea to begin with the latest event, the launch of your book on Hryhorii Skovoroda on Sept. 25. On the one hand, Skovoroda is a ‘visiting card,’ the undeniable acme of Ukrainian philosophy. But, on the other, there are reams of literature about our philosophical genius — it is hundreds of times larger than what Skovoroda himself wrote. What are the essential differences between your approach to Skovoroda’s biography and writings and Soviet-era concepts? No doubt you set yourself a goal to see Skovoroda in a new light.

SKOVORODA LIVED ON A HISTORICAL FAULT LINE

“An altogether strange thing happened with Skovoroda. His own works barely fill two modest volumes, including extensive annotations. The point is that the famous philosopher did not publish any works in his lifetime as a matter of principle. He rewrote manuscripts and presented some to his friends, but left no printed matter for himself. Sometimes certain works by Skovoroda would disappear only to resurface in other copies. Among ordinary people he was known not as a scholar or writer but for his oral stories, even anecdotes, if you like, which revealed his wisdom, his unusual lifestyle, and unconventional actions that made quite an impression on people. It is unfortunate that all these stories about Skovoroda were never collected and systematized because they spotlight not so much the personality of the great philosopher as the public’s attitude to him, which is very interesting.

“Skovoroda’s works began to be published and studied only in the 19th century. There were all kinds of attitudes to him: Shevchenko’s was very negative and we should not hush this up. It is important to remember that Skovoroda lived on a historical fault line, so some Ukrainians viewed him through the prism of traditional approaches, while intellectuals who were consciously striving to build the national culture and defending the right to use their native language were very critical of Skovoroda. As time went by, there were more and more diverse interpretations of Skovoroda. Among those who considered him one of their own were the Molokans, Doukhobors and other church sectarians, as well as Freemasons. His works were first printed in Freemason publications.

“In Soviet times, Skovoroda was canonized and turned into a kind of people’s leader, almost a haidamaka, which was far from the truth. This raises the inevitable question: how is it possible that Skovoroda’s few works (about a dozen philosophical dialogues) evoked so many completely different interpretations, conjectures, and opinions? Our Institute of Philosophy is named after Skovoroda, which imposes certain obligations on me and other research associates, who would like to write about him.

“Ivan Drach, Prof. Serhii Krymsky, and I wrote a book on Skovoroda. The fourth version of this book was shelved for 14 years in publishing houses. Why did the party leaders dislike it so much? They hated it because we had tried to examine the life and works of Skovoroda as part of the same Western European philosophical continuum and to understand this thinker against the backdrop of world culture. This was a total violation of the established canon, and we were severely criticized for this. The book was nipped in the bud and it only came out during Gorbachev’s perestroika.

“Although I am immensely grateful to both of my co-authors, the book’s shortcoming is that we did not have an adequate knowledge of theology, religious publications, and church history. This is why we could not tackle many problems that we were facing at the time. So, in continuing this tradition of correlating Skovoroda to the world philosophical process in my latest book, I also tried to understand the philosopher in the context of our old Ukrainian culture, which was primarily based on religion. This was a secular culture and Skovoroda himself was a deeply secular person, but during the entire 18th century all secular culture in Ukraine (as well as in Western Europe) was based on church ideals and church dogmas.”

WE CAN ONLY FIND A SOLUTION TO OUR UKRAINIAN PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD PROCESS

“I am dwelling on this question because, to some extent, it reflects our present-day philosophical reality. We can only find a solution to our purely Ukrainian problems (including political and philosophical ones) in the world process. This is very important. We begin to see where ‘the left, ‘the right’ and ‘the center’ are only once we correlate this to world classifications, world systems of coordinates. We begin to understand our reality only when we correlate it to eternal problems. This is also no less important and urgent today. Eternal problems were mostly reflected in religion, not just in philosophy, which was really a ‘servant of theology’ in certain eras (especially the Middle Ages). So everything should be taken and examined as a whole.

“To briefly characterize the meaning and goals of our institute’s work, we want to be in step with today and find an adequate way to address our big and small problems. We would also like to consider the problems of contemporary Ukraine as a certain link in the global humanistic chain.”

You are absolutely right to note that Skovoroda was tendentiously and deliberately “canonized” in Soviet times in order to portray him as a kind of radical haidamaka, which he never was. But when you look closely at our busy and even somewhat neurotic life today, which creates colossal difficulties on the path to eternal wisdom (and Skovoroda followed this very path), you suddenly think: maybe it would have been better if Skovoroda had been branded a Ukrainian nationalist and banned, as this was done to many prominent figures of our culture? Then there might be a different attitude to him now, a qualitatively different understanding and interest.

“Without a doubt, this canonization did great harm to our honest understanding of Skovoroda. But when we look at this astonishing person without idealizing or canonizing him, we will see a very interesting thing: he becomes more defenseless. Yes, defenseless! Of course, one can level a lot of criticism at Skovoroda’s many projects, sometimes very naive ones (‘put a flute into a bag and walk barefooted throughout Mother Ukraine’). Naturally, this is a utopia. But at issue here is that a utopia is always attractive and perhaps necessary because it exposes all the vices of society, the vices of our life, and, much to our regret, it is very easy to put a utopia into practice — yes, very easy, contrary to the widely-held view. Utopian projects (for example, building socialism in one country) are very easy to implement! You just deploy a whole division wherever and whenever ‘necessary.’ It will wipe out a couple of villages and everybody will start obeying. But we have all seen what comes of this. And God forbid that we should ever forget. And when we are analyzing the ‘ideal communist project,’ we should not judge it by its consequences alone. We must recall what was once declared, promised, and really intended.”

NEITHER MONEY NOR POWER WILL REPLACE YOUR HUMAN QUALITIES

“In general, we should all understand that the very ‘ease’ (imaginary) of achieving a goal is what lures people to commit terrible and bloody crimes. Going back to Skovoroda, I must say that the key distinction of his utopias is that they were not bloody. He was truly an outstanding and unique individual. I’ve just recalled one of his brilliant but little-known aphorisms. Skovoroda once said that what matters in a theater is not whether the actor plays a leading or ‘prestigious’ role, but whether he has shown enough talent and inspiration even in the very small role that he has been assigned. This is what we should remember every day. After all, only the people who have played their roles well are remembered and go down in history. But when an individual who has climbed into a very high position proves to be a fool or scum (or both), this cannot be corrected, and this person will go down in history with that reputation. Neither money nor power will ever replace your human qualities. Incidentally, this is an old Christian truth.”

Concluding this part of our conversation, I would like to express the hope that your book on Skovoroda will be read by society, and that it will speed up positive changes in our spiritual life at least a little.

“I sincerely hope so. That’s why books are written. I would like to express my deep gratitude to the Maisternia Biletskykh publishers, who agreed to print my work at great risk, in fact at their own expense and without sponsors, hoping that the book will be in demand and the print run will sell out very soon.”

PHILOSOPHY WAS STUDIED ONLY IN KYIV

You have already emphasized that Skovoroda should be viewed in the context of the subsequent development of Ukrainian philosophical thought. Which prominent Ukrainian thinkers of the 19th-20th centuries would you single out and place in the same line as Skovoroda?

“There was a period in the history of the Russian Empire when philosophy was taught only in Kyiv and nowhere else. Taught at the Kyiv Theological Academy, it was banned in all other higher educational institutions throughout the empire. This was during the reign of Nicholas I. Thus, almost all the well-known lecturers and professors of philosophy studied here in Kyiv. Educated students graduated with a good grasp of philosophy, especially German, as well as people from other professions. I will just recall the name of Pamfil Yurkevych, and I think this will be enough.

“Let us not forget those celebrated individuals who were not professional philosophers but had a very great impact on the development of the general culture of the humanities not only in the Russian state but other countries. Foremost among them was Mykhailo Drahomanov, although it is difficult to confine his creative sphere to philosophy because Drahomanov was also a prominent political writer, political scientist, writer, and public figure. After Herzen, who died in 1870, Drahomanov became the leading figure of the emigre liberal movement. Incidentally, Herzen’s London archives were handed over to none other than Drahomanov.

“After Drahomanov, foreign liberals were led by Maksym Kovalevsky, who was also Ukrainian, born in the Kharkiv region. Kovalevsky chose to join the Ukrainian faction in the 1st State Duma, although he had lived most of his life abroad, in Moscow and Petersburg, not in Ukraine. He was considered a Ukrainian thinker, and rightly so. It was Kovalevsky who founded Russian (i.e., empire-wide) sociology as a science. In addition, he wrote brilliant works on history and law.

“Also close to ‘the Drahomanov circle’ was Oleksandr Potebnia, one of the founders of Europe’s new scholarly discipline called the ‘philosophy of language.’ He left a huge creative legacy, including philosophical works. I would also name here the illustrious scholar, cultural historian, and thinker Ovsianyko-Kulykovsky. Unfortunately, very few people know about him today. Many volumes of his works were published at the turn of the 20th century, and this academic was widely known as a founder of the humanistic, grassroots-oriented, philosophical outlook.

“We all know Tolstoy’s famous work I Cannot Remain Silent, in which he attacked capital punishment. But do we know that this great Russian writer’s work was in fact a response to a book by the Ukrainian jurist, philosopher, and public figure Oleksandr Kistiakivsky? His middle son Bohdan was the most famous of his three sons. Hardly anyone knows that his grandson, George Kistiakivsky, was one of the fathers of the American atomic bomb. I will add that the father of this George (Heorhii) Kistiakivsky was killed during the Civil War. Oleksandr Kistiakivsky was the secretary at the editorial office of Osnova, the first Ukrainian journal that frequently published the works of Shevchenko, Kostomarov, Kulish, and all those who had survived the suppression of the Cyril and Methodius Society. The life story of his son Bohdan is also very interesting. He was the secretary and a close associate (a comrade-in-arms, if you like) of the great 20th-century sociologist and philosopher Max Weber. It was he who collected and edited all kinds of Russia-related materials for Weber.

“Everybody knows Volodymyr Vernadsky. But Vernadsky, who was not only an outstanding geochemist, geologist, botanist, and organizer of scientific research but also a major philosopher and thinker, also belongs to the trend in Ukrainian scholarship that we are discussing. By political persuasion, Vernadsky was to the right of the Constitutional Democrats (Cadets) and was a member of this party’s leadership in the pre-revolutionary years. Incredibly, he survived the terrible years of the Civil War, the 1920s, and the 1930s (although the Cadets were being mercilessly exterminated) — perhaps owing to the fact that he had been a friend of Lenin’s brother Aleksandr in the 1880s, and the Bolshevik leader, who revered his brother’s memory, remembered this. Meanwhile, Vernadsky’s son Heorhii (also George) lived abroad and was a very active politician, a ‘Eurasian’ of sorts (his historical and philosophical works are well known). Soviet intelligence agents, perhaps hoping to make use of his connections, repeatedly approached Vernadsky Jr. (as well as George Kistiakivsky, because both of them were professors in the US), but they failed to win him over.

“Another very important thing: when we look at our 18th-19th-century spiritual history, we should not forget that many prominent Ukrainians wrote their works in Russian, for obvious reasons. They were all (including Mykhailo Tuhan-Baranovsky, a noted economist and philosopher of the late 19th-early 20th centuries, the closest to us in time) representatives of the Ukrainian intelligentsia. Although they wrote in Russian (remember Gogol, whose works are philosophically freighted), this is in no way a reason to expunge these immortal names from the history of Ukrainian culture. Here we are facing a very complicated problem of dividing the ‘cultural heritage.’

“A somewhat similar situation existed in the relations between England and Ireland, its longtime colony. Such cultural luminaries as Berkley, Swift, Joyce, and Yeats wrote in English, but it would be sheer nonsense to claim on these grounds that they are English, not Irish, writers.”

Do you think that comparing the histories of Ukraine and Ireland can allow us to draw important, instructive, and profound conclusions?

“Undoubtedly. Ireland also suffered a terrible manmade famine in 1848-51, and London’s 300-year-long colonial rule greatly influenced the language and culture of this nation. And what has officially recognized bilingualism resulted in? The native Irish (Gaelic) language is spoken only in small faraway towns, while English reigns supreme. In my view, this is a crucial and very convincing argument in the debate on the need for constitutional (or legislated) bilingualism in Ukraine and on what this can lead to.”

UKRAINIAN PHILOSOPHY HAS A FUTURE

The future of any science, and philosophy is no exception, is made by young people, who continue the creative search, acquire new knowledge, examines new ideas, and advance them. Could you single out any interesting and promising works by the young associates of your institute?

“Fortunately, there are a lot of studies, so I will confine myself to the most significant ones and be as brief as possible. The works of Serhii Proleiev focus on the philosophy of power (this academic works in our Philosophy of Culture Department). He is researching very important problems that have not been studied very much in our country: what is power as a social phenomenon? What is the essence of one human’s power over another? This problem is closely linked to the question of mentality.

“The young researcher Volodymyr Fadieiev heads a division in the institute that deals with the set of national problems in contemporary Ukrainian society. The issues that this sector tackles are as follows: while the Soviet concepts of ‘proletarian internationalism’ and ‘friendship of peoples’ have sunk into oblivion forever, with what do we fill the resulting vacuum? He is also analyzing such things as ‘national solidarity’ and trying to find the limits beyond which this solidarity ceases to work.

“Taras Liuty (Department of Philosophical Anthropology) is studying the following issue: is the historical process ‘rational’? Does this process have any sense at all? You will agree that this is an important and profound problem. Very fruitful work is being done by the Department of Social Philosophy (headed by Dr. Anatolii Yermolenko), which maintains contacts with German and French academics and is tackling a number of problems connected with spiritual factors in history.

“A new and extremely interesting scholarly pursuit is now underway: Oleh Yarosh is studying Oriental philosophy in Islamic countries, China, India, and Japan. Finally, we still maintain such traditionally strong and active scholarly pursuits as the history of Ukrainian philosophy, religious studies, and the logic of science, although the latter discipline lacks specialists with a good grounding in modern physics and mathematics.

“To summarize, I can affirm that Ukrainian philosophy definitely has a future!”