Ch.S. Peirce in 1902–1905 publications, in particular, “What is Pragmatism?” (in The Monist), while explaining the essentials of pragmatism, defines belief as a state of a self-satisfied habit, in contrast with doubt as the privation of habit, the state that tends to be a condition to erratic activity. Moreover, Ch.S. Peirce points out that the possibilities and limitations of probability description and assessment can be realized in future actions only, as they denote the sphere of practice in which it is (...) possible to develop self-control through self-preparation, employing belief and doubt, for subsequent reflection excluding the possibility of self-reproach. The pragmatistic tools for assessing and modeling future practical consequences have been integrated into modern theoretical approaches predicting crisis changes in social reality. Therefore, this paper is intended to evoke a discussion in the philosophical community on the idea of applying the pragmatistic tools of belief, and doubt, and assigning meaning to the scenarios characterized by uncertain chronological boundaries and deferred consequences, for instance, the scenarios of postconflict future suggested during the phases of the Russo-Ukrainian war. Peirce’s belief-doubt dichotomy is transformed into a dynamic modal scale of Belief – Prediction –Expectation – Supposition – Doubt (B(PES)D) and applied to evaluate the propositional adaptability of scenarios to the unpredictable duration of future challenges, as well as the individual and collective resilience resource necessary to obtain the expected practical results in the war-affected communities. Thus, the paper is focused on the pre-2022 social and economic scenarios for the of the occupied territories reintegration, with attention paid to the changes triggered by the full-scale Russian invasion, as well as propositional adaptation of scenarios to the changed definition of realities due to large-scale migration processes and security risks of genocide and loss of subjectivity, actualized during this phase of the war. The study has employed secondary analysis of survey and statistical data from open sources for the period of armed aggression, as well as the analysis of scientific publications, official documents, and reports, to define the propositional limitations of long-term modeling embedded in practical discourses, as well as the influence of the concept of justice on the assessment of the future model in crisis conditions, within the framework of the refined belief-doubt scale (B(PES)D). (shrink)

While philosophers have been studying the phenomenon of tolerance for quite a long time and fruitfully, cancel culture has aroused philosophical interest relatively recently. The article reveals the essential connection between the need to make exceptions to the tolerance guideline in order to achieve social justice and the appeal to the cancel culture as inherent in a modern democratic society, in which there are developed information and communication technologies and the corresponding power of influence of social networks. The ethical and (...) social positions of both those who support the cancel culture and those against whom it is directed are analyzed. The need for an involved study of the situation of oppressed social groups is specified in order to achieve an epistemological position sufficient for adequate ethical judgments regarding the parties to the conflict in the situation of cancellation. It is revealed that the partial success of identity politics is due to the fact that it begins to use the cancel culture to stigmatize opponents and apply the principle of toxicity to those who are not direct perpetrators of a gross violation of social justice. It is proven that the cancel culture can excessively exceed the limits of tolerance and in this case cause a counter-reaction with the demand to cancel those who abuse the cancel culture. It is argued that within the framework of its justified and adequate application, not only does cancel culture act as an effective tool for restoring social justice, it is also capable of generating socially beneficial collective ecstatic states and facilitating the creation of constructive, emotionally rich shared experiences. There is noted that the cancel culture as a joint proactive public position contributes to the development of civil society and needs its institutionalization for its further normalization. (shrink)

The aim of this essay is to philosophically reconstruct the latest challenges to universal ethics in light of the current experiences of a moral catastrophe resulting from full-scale Russian aggression in Ukraine. First, as an authoritative example of these challenges, the author considers the paradox of humanity—international recognition of human rights and, simultaneously, the practical anomie in the real protection of the rights of citizens of a national state when it is weakened (Arendt). Second, based on the analysis of everyday (...) war discourse, the basic structure of attitudes towards war is clarified. This is the position of either a participant in the events as a first person 'from the inside' of the war experience, or the 'external' position of an observer/expert as a third person. The outlined disposition provides a methodology for approaching the moral assessment of war events from either an internal, particular, or an external, universal, point of view. The position 'from the inside' of belonging to a national community in a war threatened with destruction reveals the concept of existential wars. Third, this methodological introduction provides an opportunity to determine the ethical disposition of challenges to universal ethics. Appealing to sociological polls that aimed to analyze the sentiments of people who consider it necessary to defend their country even at the cost of their own lives demonstrates the proximity of such sentiments to Aristotelian ethics. Accordingly, the essay highlights the principles of current debates between representatives of the communitarian direction in philosophy (Taylor, Kymlicka), who are considered followers of the classical ethics of the good, as opposed to neo-Kantianism, which is widespread in the works of liberally oriented researchers (Rawls). Special attention is given to the communitarian criticism of universal ethics, exemplified by the war emergency’s ethics (Walzer), which provides grounds for drawing ethical parallels with the current Russian-Ukrainian war. The essay concludes with a generalization of contemporary substantive challenges to universal ethics. (shrink)

The article explores the reasons and the outcomes of the displacement of the concept of just war inherent in Catholic Christian ethics, which are correlated with the approaches of international security organizations based on the a priori possibility of agreement, dialogue and non-violent conflict resolution. Among the causes of negative consequences, the false opinion that the time of wars between states has passed and the interpretation of armed conflicts as exclusively internal regional disputes are singled out. These factors lead to (...) a delayed reaction of the international community to wars or to the absence of an effective reaction at all. An undesirable consequence is also the devaluation of the vocation of the military and deficiencies in the preparation of moral and psychological support for the performance of their duties. Criticism of the theory and practice of just peace in its Catholic version and in the algorithms of UN actions is proposed on the basis of the arguments of M. Potappel, who reveals the failure of this concept against the background of the Russian Federation's war in Ukraine from February 24, 2022. Critical remarks refer, in particular, to the orientation of this concept only to the protection and provision of individual human rights and the absence of legal and security mechanisms to protect the sovereignty of states and the right of nations to exist in the event of armed aggression from other states. An important theoretical problem is the overly optimistic anthropology of the theory of just peace, which relies on human morality and underestimates the propensity for evil and disagreement. Instead, attention is drawn to the fact that in the very Christian theology of Augustine, Aquinas, and in subsequent Catholic thought, the need to restore and protect justice by force is justified. It is concluded that the development of the just war concept is relevant, that its implicit goal is to achieve a just peace, and that it should be supplemented by developments in the field of jus post bellum. The study continues reasoning on the topic of achieving peace in Ukraine, in particular, in the context of questions about the possibility and limits of compromise, proposed by S. Yosypenko (Philosophical thought, 2024, no. 4). Attention is focused on the combination of conviction and responsibility in politics (M. Weber) and the role of foreign aid to Ukraine to ensure the prospects of a just peace, which involves the justified use of force and the elimination of war criminals as a party to the negotiations. (shrink)

The article examines war and peace as dimensions of the existence of the global world. They outline the situation of civilizational choice, which will either enable the productive development of planetary humanity or lead humanity to catastrophe. War is defined as a fatal strategy, which has always had an extraordinary character despite the prevalence of the phenomenon of war. The fatality of war is determined doubly. First, by the fact that in the end all participants in the war lose: there (...) are no winners in war, since participation in war destroys the potential for development. Second, by the fact that war generates human alienation and the destruction of normativity. This effect is revealed through the analysis of two processes of deformation of human existence: depopulation of man and devaluation of values. The basis for the answer to the question "how is modern war possible?" becomes the justification of the global crisis of normativity that is unfolding in global reality. Modern war has already acquired a global character, despite the fact that the theaters of military operations – in Ukraine and the Middle East – are still local. Its specificity is revealed through the challenge to three obvious facts of war, which are inherent in its customary understanding. The first obvious fact is the classical understanding of war as a political instrument (“the continuation of politics by violent means”). In contrast, it is argued that in certain historical periods, war can become an end in itself and become an established way of life for societies; we must be prepared for the fact that global humanity is now entering such a period. The second obvious fact is military actions themselves. However, the real basis of war is the growth of the role of violence in people's lives, which follows from the primacy of interests over values. The origin of war is the destruction and replacement of values ​​by interests. The third obvious fact is the consequences of war. These are not only undoubted destruction and death, but also the depopulation of man. Manic ideocratic regimes, retrograde strategies of globalism, and the state's struggle for its existence are highlighted as triggers of contemporary war. (shrink)

The article thematizes the war as a threat to the value-normative order of modern society, shows the destructive consequences of Russian aggression against Ukraine in the sphere of moral and ethical values. In view of the Russian-Ukrainian war and the crisis of moral and ethical values the text updates the universalistic ethics of responsibility, shows its genesis and modern manifestations, the necessity and urgent need for its application in the modern world of war and crisis. Revealing the dialectic of communicative (...) and strategic actions, the author also clarifies the concept of responsibility: to act responsibly also means to act strategically and rationally, to be aware of the limits of negotiations. Accordingly, the limits of discourse ethics as a component of the communicative paradigm are shown. Based on the primacy of morality over ethos, the author explores the problems of the relationship between ethos and morality, particularism and universalism, progressivism and traditionalism. The work also examines the issue of moral regression of Russian society to the customs and traditions of the ethos instilled by the lifeworld of local culture; the apparent, eclectic nature of the moral attributes of Russian society, its ideological essence, aimed at preserving the power of the ruling elite, is revealed. (shrink)

On November 29, 2024, the H. S. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, in cooperation with the editorial board of the journal Filosofska Dumka (Philosophical Thought), held an online roundtable dedicated to the pressing issue of the war’s impact on the moral and ethical world of individuals and society. This scholarly event continues the tradition of philosophical reflection on war, carried out by researchers from the Institute and invited experts from other academic institutions in (...) Ukraine. The following topics were proposed for discussion:– the universalism of ethics and the particularity of ethoses in wartime contexts; paradigms of the ethics of war and the ethics of peace;– the ethics of the soldier and the ethics of a citizen of a country at war;– religious morality and war: confessional challenges and differences;– the acceptability of negotiations and the limits of compromise during war;– moral boundaries of resistance and pacifism in the discourse of war and peace.The participants’ presentations and subsequent discussions may serve as valuable guidelines for developing new scholarly themes raised by Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine. The roundtable featured contributions from A. Yermolenko (moderator), S. Balinchenko, Ye. Bystritsky, M. Boychenko, O. Buchma, T. Hardashuk, V. Zhulai, Yu. Ishchenko, S. Yosypenko, O. Kyrychok, S. Loznytsia, Ya. Liubyvyi, Ye. Muliarchuk, V. Nechyporenko, S. Proleiev, M. Rohozha, and V. Fadieiev. Some of the presentations, with the consent of the authors, were expanded into full-length articles and included in this issue of the journal. (shrink)

The article continues the analysis proposed by R. Brague on the “consequences of the experience of war for philosophers” and “the influence of such experience on their way of thinking.” The author suggests distinguishing between different experiences of war based on the nature of conflicts and the ways of participating in them. Furthermore, the article argues that philosophical thought can be influenced not only by firsthand experiences of war — whether as a soldier or a civilian affected by combat — (...) but also by the discovery, through war, of unexpected aspects of human life or history that challenge certain philosophical theories, modes of philosophizing, or philosophy as a whole. The article examines the reactions of 20th century French philosophers to war, particularly those who sought to summarize the experience of specific conflicts and conceptualize war as a reality that challenged them. Special attention is given to the differing perceptions of World War I and World War II by successive generations of philosophers, as illustrated by Alain’s book Mars: Or, The Truth about War (1921) and M. Merleau-Ponty’s article “The War Has Taken Place” (1945). The study also includes a comparative analysis of how World War II shaped the intellectual trajectories of M. Merleau-Ponty and R. Aron. The author argues that J. Baudrillard’s book The Gulf War Did Not Take Place (1991) continues the tradition of “postwar” texts by French philosophers, summarizing the consequences of the Cold War and conceptualizing the nature of new forms of warfare. Building on these analyses, the author demonstrates that one of the consequences of the transformation of warfare following the end of the Cold War has been the gradual disappearance of what M. Walzer termed the “moral reality of war,” a characteristic feature of 20th century conflicts. However, with the resurgence of full-scale and prolonged interstate war due to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, this moral reality is being revived — posing a challenge, at the very least, those philosophers who have gained lived experience of this war. (shrink)