Suchergebnisse

The article aims to reveal the meaning of principle justice in studies of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It was determined that Socrates, who considered justice to be the more expensive subject than gold and wished to prove the existence of general and the only notion of justice, associated it morality and knowledge. According to the philosopher injustice was unnatural, as it was a fruit of ignorance and error. Plato's justice is expressed in the devotion of all states (some are engaged in sciences and govern the country; the other faithfully follow the laws and bravely defend their homeland; others take care of the necessary supplies and obey the rulers) to one's business taking into consideration that everyone should be responsible for his duties and justice does not mean equality. There is no element of different social groups' equalization in Plato's sense of justice. While treating justice as general and private, Aristotle's concept recognizes inequality as the basis of the principle of justice. He believed that every person or thing had their own corresponding sphere of activity and influence and to confuse them seemed to be unfair, for some people due to their character and habits, have more opportunities than others. Therefore, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle while raising the problem of justice, associating it with such concepts as wisdom, beauty, harmony parallel to the problems of equality, inequality, state, law, politics, created the theoretical background for the development of further judgments about justice. These preconditions have found their expression in the subsequent history of the development of this concept, reflecting the uniqueness of the historical era, the school of philosophy and social class functions. ; У статті розкрито зміст принципу справедливості у вченнях Платона і Арістотеля. У Платона справедливість виражається у відданості всіх станів своїй справі, в тому, щоб кожен виконував свої обов'язки. Це говорить про те, що справедливість не може означати рівності. Арістотель поділяв справедливість на загальну і приватну, вважаючи, що кожна річ або людина мають свою власну, відповідну сферу діяльності і вплив, переступати які несправедливо, а деякі люди в силу свого характеру і схильностей, мають більш широкі можливості, ніж інші.

The article aims to reveal the meaning of principle justice in studies of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. It was determined that Socrates, who considered justice to be the more expensive subject than gold and wished to prove the existence of general and the only notion of justice, associated it morality and knowledge. According to the philosopher injustice was unnatural, as it was a fruit of ignorance and error. Plato's justice is expressed in the devotion of all states (some are engaged in sciences and govern the country; the other faithfully follow the laws and bravely defend their homeland; others take care of the necessary supplies and obey the rulers) to one's business taking into consideration that everyone should be responsible for his duties and justice does not mean equality. There is no element of different social groups' equalization in Plato's sense of justice. While treating justice as general and private, Aristotle's concept recognizes inequality as the basis of the principle of justice. He believed that every person or thing had their own corresponding sphere of activity and influence and to confuse them seemed to be unfair, for some people due to their character and habits, have more opportunities than others. Therefore, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle while raising the problem of justice, associating it with such concepts as wisdom, beauty, harmony parallel to the problems of equality, inequality, state, law, politics, created the theoretical background for the development of further judgments about justice. These preconditions have found their expression in the subsequent history of the development of this concept, reflecting the uniqueness of the historical era, the school of philosophy and social class functions. ; У статті розкрито зміст принципу справедливості у вченнях Платона і Арістотеля. У Платона справедливість виражається у відданості всіх станів своїй справі, в тому, щоб кожен виконував свої обов'язки. Це говорить про те, що справедливість не може означати рівності. Арістотель поділяв справедливість на загальну і приватну, вважаючи, що кожна річ або людина мають свою власну, відповідну сферу діяльності і вплив, переступати які несправедливо, а деякі люди в силу свого характеру і схильностей, мають більш широкі можливості, ніж інші.

The article deals with the interpretation of the principle of justice in Islam as a religion of society's prosperity based on social justice. The author proves that the category of "justice" in Islam has several meanings: firstly, it is equally the same treatment of any person to anybody in the community; secondly, it is the equality between people; thirdly, these are actions corresponding to the generally accepted moral and legal standards; fourthly, these are conscience, accuracy, impartiality, faithfulness, certainty, correctness and truth; fifthly, it is justice; and finally, it is a kind of counterweight to tyranny injustice and evil. But the Islamic understanding of justice differs in interpretation of it not only as a personal virtue, but as a principle of organization of community of believers and political system. The use of different values of justice aims to fi ll the very meaning of justice by means of these terms. It includes equity, equality, sincerity and control. On the one hand, it is justice between creator and creation, when power of Allah consider above you own happiness, His prosperity above your own whims and desires, and also when follow His commandments and keep His prohibitions. On the other hand, justice is reflected in relationships between people and their own "I", when it rejects any destruction. Thirdly, there must be justice between among all Allah's creations for them to be guided by law, to help each other with advice and deed, but not to cheat and bring any harm, to endure insults patiently and always follow the middle path. It has been proved that the Muslim idea of justice is based on the principle of coordination of own actions according to the requirements of natural order of things, where the law refers to the God's established order of life relationships, derived from human nature, the nature of things and the nature of relationships. The requirements of justice in this order presuppose the need to return to its original state in case of violation of this order. Muslims are expected just to follow this order, including the way of social cohesion in mind (community), limits of which coincide with the limits of the Islamic world itself. ; У статті розкрито трактування принципу справедливості в ісламі як релігії процвітання суспільства на основі соціальної рівності. Доведено, що уявлення про даний принцип в ісламі базується на основі узгодження своїх дій з вимогами природного стану речей, де під справедливістю розуміється порядок життєвих відносин, встановлений Богом; порядок, який випливає з природи людини, природи речей і природи відносин. Вимоги справедливості в ісламі полягають у необхідності повернення до початкового стану у випадку порушення даного порядку. Від мусульман вимагається лише дотримуватись цього порядку, у тому числі і шляхом соціального єднання в уммі (громаді), межі якої збігаються з межами всього ісламського світу.

The article considers the interpretation features of category "justice", by the Roman lawyer and political leader Marcus Tullius Cicero, based on the analysis of his works "On the State" and "On the Laws". The author proves, that Cicero, keeping the line of Plato and Aristotle, who were the spokesmen of city-state, acts from humanistic and universal positions. This fact allows us to speak about him as about a theorist of cosmopolitan justice.Political justice, theoretically expressed in "consensus of status" principle and practically embodied in the model of mixed government, according to Cicero, as well as before in Aristotle's philosophy, did became the result of appeasement of the Roman society but not of abstract outlook and the way of solving problems of practical policy. Ideological basis of justice, which realized in moderately conservative position of Cicero himself, is obvious.The other and no less important aspect of political justice according to Cicero is the law, and to be more exact "the natural" law (as he follows his predecessors). Cicero understand it as a certain moral and ethical substance of civil law and civil community itself.As a whole the natural law doctrine of Cicero, which includes the principles of a global community of people and gods, general ethical (and legal) equality, natural love for people and moral obligation as the basis of law, presents a classic model of the concept of justice based on humanistic ideals. ; У статті розкрито особливості трактування категорії «справедливість» римським юристом і державним діячем Марком Тулієм Цицероном на основі аналізу його головних робіт «Про державу» і «Про закони». З'ясовано, що Цицерон, зберігаючи лінію Платона і Аристотеля залишаються як виразників інтересів полісу, виступає з гуманістичних, загальнолюдських позицій, що дозволяє говорити про нього як про теоретика космополітичної справедливості.Обґрунтовано, що справедливість, за Цицероном полягає у досягненні «згоди станів», чий практичний сенс полягав у досягненні суспільного примирення і згоди.

The article reveals the idea of political justice based on the analysis of theviews of Plato and Aristotle, the representatives of the period of "high classics" in the development of Greek philosophy.It was established that the basis of the interpretation of the category "justice" in the ancient political philosophy was a specific culture with its "polis thinking", which was limited to a certain political community, localized in time and space (a polis).It is figured out that Plato and Aristotle argue that a political justice is a requirement for everyone to be engaged in what is determined by his or her nature.In this sense, the best stage is a certain stable socio-political balance, in which overall consent is achieved and conflicts are resolved. In their opinion, the priority of all the most important public affairs is given to the best ones – the aristocracy, whose representatives are regarded as the wisest, most skilled and experienced in politics and, most importantly, the most virtuous. However, given that there were a large number of policies that had a different arrangement that corresponded more or less to the ideal pattern, Aristotle did not have an unambiguous answer to the question "What should be considered as fair?", while in Plato's opinion the question of justice gets a single and final answer on the basis of appeal to some eternal and immutable sample. ; У статті розкрита ідея політичної справедливості на основі аналізу поглядів представників періоду «високої класики» у розвитку грецької філософії – Платона та Арістотеля.Встановлено, що як Платон та Арістотель стверджують, що політичною справедливістю є вимога, щоб кожен займався тим, що визначено йому його природою. У цьому сенсі найкращим станом є певний стійкий соціополітичний баланс, у рамках якого досягається загальна задоволеність і вирішуються конфлікти.Ключові слова: справедливість, рівність, нерівність, монархія, аристократія, демократія, олігархія, політія.

The article deals with the interpretation of the principle of justice in Islam as a religion of society's prosperity based on social justice. The author proves that the category of "justice" in Islam has several meanings: firstly, it is equally the same treatment of any person to anybody in the community; secondly, it is the equality between people; thirdly, these are actions corresponding to the generally accepted moral and legal standards; fourthly, these are conscience, accuracy, impartiality, faithfulness, certainty, correctness and truth; fifthly, it is justice; and finally, it is a kind of counterweight to tyranny injustice and evil. But the Islamic understanding of justice differs in interpretation of it not only as a personal virtue, but as a principle of organization of community of believers and political system. The use of different values of justice aims to fi ll the very meaning of justice by means of these terms. It includes equity, equality, sincerity and control. On the one hand, it is justice between creator and creation, when power of Allah consider above you own happiness, His prosperity above your own whims and desires, and also when follow His commandments and keep His prohibitions. On the other hand, justice is reflected in relationships between people and their own "I", when it rejects any destruction. Thirdly, there must be justice between among all Allah's creations for them to be guided by law, to help each other with advice and deed, but not to cheat and bring any harm, to endure insults patiently and always follow the middle path. It has been proved that the Muslim idea of justice is based on the principle of coordination of own actions according to the requirements of natural order of things, where the law refers to the God's established order of life relationships, derived from human nature, the nature of things and the nature of relationships. The requirements of justice in this order presuppose the need to return to its original state in case of violation of this order. Muslims are expected just to follow this order, including the way of social cohesion in mind (community), limits of which coincide with the limits of the Islamic world itself. ; У статті розкрито трактування принципу справедливості в ісламі як релігії процвітання суспільства на основі соціальної рівності. Доведено, що уявлення про даний принцип в ісламі базується на основі узгодження своїх дій з вимогами природного стану речей, де під справедливістю розуміється порядок життєвих відносин, встановлений Богом; порядок, який випливає з природи людини, природи речей і природи відносин. Вимоги справедливості в ісламі полягають у необхідності повернення до початкового стану у випадку порушення даного порядку. Від мусульман вимагається лише дотримуватись цього порядку, у тому числі і шляхом соціального єднання в уммі (громаді), межі якої збігаються з межами всього ісламського світу.

The article considers the interpretation features of category "justice", by the Roman lawyer and political leader Marcus Tullius Cicero, based on the analysis of his works "On the State" and "On the Laws". The author proves, that Cicero, keeping the line of Plato and Aristotle, who were the spokesmen of city-state, acts from humanistic and universal positions. This fact allows us to speak about him as about a theorist of cosmopolitan justice.Political justice, theoretically expressed in "consensus of status" principle and practically embodied in the model of mixed government, according to Cicero, as well as before in Aristotle's philosophy, did became the result of appeasement of the Roman society but not of abstract outlook and the way of solving problems of practical policy. Ideological basis of justice, which realized in moderately conservative position of Cicero himself, is obvious.The other and no less important aspect of political justice according to Cicero is the law, and to be more exact "the natural" law (as he follows his predecessors). Cicero understand it as a certain moral and ethical substance of civil law and civil community itself.As a whole the natural law doctrine of Cicero, which includes the principles of a global community of people and gods, general ethical (and legal) equality, natural love for people and moral obligation as the basis of law, presents a classic model of the concept of justice based on humanistic ideals. ; У статті розкрито особливості трактування категорії «справедливість» римським юристом і державним діячем Марком Тулієм Цицероном на основі аналізу його головних робіт «Про державу» і «Про закони». З'ясовано, що Цицерон, зберігаючи лінію Платона і Аристотеля залишаються як виразників інтересів полісу, виступає з гуманістичних, загальнолюдських позицій, що дозволяє говорити про нього як про теоретика космополітичної справедливості.Обґрунтовано, що справедливість, за Цицероном полягає у досягненні «згоди станів», чий практичний сенс полягав у досягненні суспільного примирення і згоди.

The article reveals the idea of political justice based on the analysis of theviews of Plato and Aristotle, the representatives of the period of "high classics" in the development of Greek philosophy.It was established that the basis of the interpretation of the category "justice" in the ancient political philosophy was a specific culture with its "polis thinking", which was limited to a certain political community, localized in time and space (a polis).It is figured out that Plato and Aristotle argue that a political justice is a requirement for everyone to be engaged in what is determined by his or her nature.In this sense, the best stage is a certain stable socio-political balance, in which overall consent is achieved and conflicts are resolved. In their opinion, the priority of all the most important public affairs is given to the best ones – the aristocracy, whose representatives are regarded as the wisest, most skilled and experienced in politics and, most importantly, the most virtuous. However, given that there were a large number of policies that had a different arrangement that corresponded more or less to the ideal pattern, Aristotle did not have an unambiguous answer to the question "What should be considered as fair?", while in Plato's opinion the question of justice gets a single and final answer on the basis of appeal to some eternal and immutable sample. ; У статті розкрита ідея політичної справедливості на основі аналізу поглядів представників періоду «високої класики» у розвитку грецької філософії – Платона та Арістотеля.Встановлено, що як Платон та Арістотель стверджують, що політичною справедливістю є вимога, щоб кожен займався тим, що визначено йому його природою. У цьому сенсі найкращим станом є певний стійкий соціополітичний баланс, у рамках якого досягається загальна задоволеність і вирішуються конфлікти.Ключові слова: справедливість, рівність, нерівність, монархія, аристократія, демократія, олігархія, політія.

У статті висвітлені основні віхи історії кафедри філософії як окремого структурного підрозділу Полтавського національного (державного) педагогічного університету (інституту) імені В. Г. Короленка. На основі аналізу переважно архівних матеріалів встановлено, що цьогоріч кафедра філософії відзначає 100-річчя від дня заснування, хоча цикл філософських дисциплін викладався і до появи окремого структурного підрозділу. За 100 років існування кафедра мала різні назви (суспільствознавства – 1918-1931; марксизму-ленінізму – 1931-1932; діалектичного матеріалізму – 1932-1935; соціально-економічних дисциплін – 1935-1939; марксизму-ленінізму – 1939-1947; марксизму-ленінізму, філософії та політекономії – 1947-1967; історії КПРС та філософії – 1967-1975; з 1 вересня 1975 р. – філософії), але упродовж усього цього часу на кафедрі працювали викладачі, які мали високий науковий та методичний рівень, кваліфіковано викладали цикл філософських дисциплін, сприяли формуванню високоерудованих, з глибоким почуттям патріотизму, високоморальних фахівців. ; In the article highlights major milestones of history of Department of Philosophy as a separate structural unit of Poltava V.G. Korolenko National (State) Pedagogical University (Institute). On the basis of the analysis of archival materials, it was found that this year Department of Philosophy celebrates its 100th anniversary from the date of its foundation, although the cycle of philosophical disciplines was taught even before the emergence of a separate structural subdivision. For 100 years of its existence, the department had a variety of names (of social sciences – 1918-1931, of Marxism-Leninism – 1931-1932, of dialectical materialism – 1932-1935, of socio-economic disciplines – 1935-1939, of Marxism-Leninism – 1939-1947, of Marxism-Leninism , philosophy and political economy – 1947-1967; of history of the CPSU and philosophy – 1967-1975; from September 1, 1975 – of philosophy), but throughout this time, the department had teachers who had a high scientific and methodological level, qualified the cycle of philosophical disciplines, contributed to the formation of highlyerudite, with a deep sense of patriotism, highly moral professionals. Today the Department of Philosophy has formed a powerful human potential, and the Department has become one of the leading scientific and educational centers in Ukraine. In the heart of scientific activity at the department there is a cientific school "Domestic cultural and historical experience in the process of formation of civil society", which since 1998 has been leading the doctor of philosophical sciences, professor, honored worker of Ukrainian education, academician of the Ukrainian Academy of Political Sciences P. A. Kravchenko. During the modern period of the history of the department (2004-2018), its teachers prepared and published 700 scientific works of a total volume of more than 360 printed sheets, which testify to the high scientific and methodological level of the teachers of the department.

У статті висвітлені основні віхи історії кафедри філософії як окремого структурного підрозділу Полтавського національного (державного) педагогічного університету (інституту) імені В. Г. Короленка. На основі аналізу переважно архівних матеріалів встановлено, що цьогоріч кафедра філософії відзначає 100-річчя від дня заснування, хоча цикл філософських дисциплін викладався і до появи окремого структурного підрозділу. За 100 років існування кафедра мала різні назви (суспільствознавства – 1918-1931; марксизму-ленінізму – 1931-1932; діалектичного матеріалізму – 1932-1935; соціально-економічних дисциплін – 1935-1939; марксизму-ленінізму – 1939-1947; марксизму-ленінізму, філософії та політекономії – 1947-1967; історії КПРС та філософії – 1967-1975; з 1 вересня 1975 р. – філософії), але упродовж усього цього часу на кафедрі працювали викладачі, які мали високий науковий та методичний рівень, кваліфіковано викладали цикл філософських дисциплін, сприяли формуванню високоерудованих, з глибоким почуттям патріотизму, високоморальних фахівців. ; In the article highlights major milestones of history of Department of Philosophy as a separate structural unit of Poltava V.G. Korolenko National (State) Pedagogical University (Institute). On the basis of the analysis of archival materials, it was found that this year Department of Philosophy celebrates its 100th anniversary from the date of its foundation, although the cycle of philosophical disciplines was taught even before the emergence of a separate structural subdivision. For 100 years of its existence, the department had a variety of names (of social sciences – 1918-1931, of Marxism-Leninism – 1931-1932, of dialectical materialism – 1932-1935, of socio-economic disciplines – 1935-1939, of Marxism-Leninism – 1939-1947, of Marxism-Leninism , philosophy and political economy – 1947-1967; of history of the CPSU and philosophy – 1967-1975; from September 1, 1975 – of philosophy), but throughout this time, the department had teachers who had a high scientific and methodological level, qualified the cycle of philosophical disciplines, contributed to the formation of highlyerudite, with a deep sense of patriotism, highly moral professionals. Today the Department of Philosophy has formed a powerful human potential, and the Department has become one of the leading scientific and educational centers in Ukraine. In the heart of scientific activity at the department there is a cientific school "Domestic cultural and historical experience in the process of formation of civil society", which since 1998 has been leading the doctor of philosophical sciences, professor, honored worker of Ukrainian education, academician of the Ukrainian Academy of Political Sciences P. A. Kravchenko. During the modern period of the history of the department (2004-2018), its teachers prepared and published 700 scientific works of a total volume of more than 360 printed sheets, which testify to the high scientific and methodological level of the teachers of the department.

У статті розкриті погляди одного з найбільш відомих українських мислителів, письменників і громадських діячів кінця ХІХ – початку ХХ століть Володимира Галактіоновича Короленка на проблему націоналізму. Проаналізовано погляди мислителя щодо співіснування націоналізму, патріотизму та шовінізму, захисту батьківщини, а також трансформація їх у сучасному українському суспільстві. ; The views of one of the most prominent Ukrainian thinkers, writers and public figures of the late XIX – early XX century Volodymyr Galaktionovych Korolenko on the problems of nationalism, the coexistence of nationalism, patriotism and chauvinism, protection of the homeland are reflected into the article. The author indicates, that while speaking in defense of the oppressed Ukrainian people, V.G. Korolenko stressed not only upon nationality of a person, but his ideological position as well for nationalism should not prevent each of us to see their own and others' drawbacks and merits. Thinker also urged to realize that love for native country should be almost the most important value, and it must be protected by all means, otherwise anarchy can cover the society. Analyzing the concept «nationalism», «patriotism» and «chauvinism», which often can be heard in Ukraine, V.G. Korolenko calls to reject national dissension and remnants of chauvinism and build a society based on the principles of national and cultural interaction and mutual respect, humanity and ability to recognize own mental deficiencies, turning them into advantages. Ukrainian national idea for V.G. Korolenko was undoubtedly the highest spiritual authority and main engine of social and political movements. He realized that all political competitions, all aspects of social life, all activities of intellectuals should be based on national idea, the demands of which is the idea of struggle for national independence. Obviously, a great heritage of an outstanding thinker, journalist, human rights activist and public figure V.G. Korolenko should remain as a source of national unity of the Ukrainian people, who defend their right for independence in confrontation with external and internal enemies of our country.

The views of one of the most prominent Ukrainian thinkers, writers and public figures of the late XIX – early XX century Volodymyr Galaktionovych Korolenko on the problems of nationalism, the coexistence of nationalism, patriotism and chauvinism, protection of the homeland are reflected into the article. The author indicates, that while speaking in defense of the oppressed Ukrainian people, V.G. Korolenko stressed not only upon nationality of a person, but his ideological position as well for nationalism should not prevent each of us to see their own and others' drawbacks and merits. Thinker also urged to realize that love for native country should be almost the most important value, and it must be protected by all means, otherwise anarchy can cover the society. Analyzing the concept «nationalism», «patriotism» and «chauvinism», which often can be heard in Ukraine, V.G. Korolenko calls to reject national dissension and remnants of chauvinism and build a society based on the principles of national and cultural interaction and mutual respect, humanity and ability to recognize own mental deficiencies, turning them into advantages. Ukrainian national idea for V.G. Korolenko was undoubtedly the highest spiritual authority and main engine of social and political movements. He realized that all political competitions, all aspects of social life, all activities of intellectuals should be based on national idea, the demands of which is the idea of struggle for national independence. Obviously, a great heritage of an outstanding thinker, journalist, human rights activist and public figure V.G. Korolenko should remain as a source of national unity of the Ukrainian people, who defend their right for independence in confrontation with external and internal enemies of our country. ; У статті розкриті погляди одного з найбільш відомих українських мислителів, письменників і громадських діячів кінця ХІХ – початку ХХ століть Володимира Галактіоновича Короленка на проблему націоналізму. Проаналізовано погляди мислителя щодо співіснування націоналізму, патріотизму та шовінізму, захисту батьківщини, а також трансформація їх у сучасному українському суспільстві.