SOVIET UKRAINE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY IN THE ASSESSMENTS OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHERS OF THE TIME: IMAGE OF THE KYIV PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOL OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE 1960S – 1980S
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article continues to study the topic of the uprising of the image of the Kyiv philosophical school as a prominent leading Ukrainian participant in the world philosophical process of the Cold War period in the scientific and socio-political thought of the Western block, especially in the USA, Canada and Western Germany, in the second half of the twentieth century. The history of the formation of this image by scholars of the democratic world, mainly from the Ukrainian diaspora, can be conditionally divided into the following stages: 1. Scientific international interaction between the USSR and the Western bloc during the transition of the USSR from Khrushchew's "thaw" to neo-Stalinist "stagnation" (early 1960s – early 1970s); 2. Intensification of the ideological confrontation between the USSR and the Western bloc countries during transition of the USSR from said "stagnation" to Gorbachev's "perestroika" (early1970s – second half of the 1980s). In contrast to the first separate critical assessments by diaspora philosophers P. Fedenko, D. Soloviy and their colleagues of philosophy in the Ukrainian SSR in the 1950s and early 1960s, primarily articles of T. Shevcenko by the director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR D. Ostryanin (1952 – 1962), the image of the Kyiv philosophical school in the 1970s and 1980s was significantly emphasized abroad. The political aspect of this image, dominant in which became, primarily due to its popularization by the Canadian philosopher T. Zakydalsky, the figure of a prisoner of conscience V. Lisovyi, was supplemented in the same and subsequent decades by the scientific aspect. In the memoirs of the Soviet prisoner of conscience and political immigrant L. Plyushch and in the publications of scientists from the US M. H. Teeter and B. Vitvitsky the image of the said school was generally drawn on the basis of their study of the history of the mentioned institute and the directions of its work in the 1940s – 1970s. At the same time, philosophers of the Ukrainian diaspora K. Mytrovych, W. Oleksiuk, W. Shayan and some their colleagues critically assessed the Ukrainian historical and philosophical achievements of this institute in the 1950s and 1980s.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".