On the question of philosophy in Ukraine In Zapysky Nizhynskoho instytutu narodnoyi osvity ta naukovo-doslidchoyi katedry istoriyi kultury y movy pry instytuti, vol. VIII, 1928, pp. 3-11

The author reviews Dmytro Chyzhevskyi's work “Philosophy in Ukraine” (1926) and reflects on the criteria by which a philosopher's affiliation with a particular national tradition can be determined.

Kolubovskyi criticizes Chyzhevskyi's approach, which defines a philosopher's nationality by place of birth and language. In his opinion, most of the thinkers whom Chyzhevskyi classifies as Ukrainian do not meet the language criterion, since almost all of them did not write in Ukrainian. Also, according to the author, Chyzhevskyi ignored 12 people mentioned in the article, whose work should have been analyzed for relevance to Ukrainian philosophy.

He proposes his own criteria: the content of philosophical ideas; the form they are given; their genesis; their influence on their environment.

The author then systematically reviews individual sections and provides brief reviews of each of them. In general, Kolubovskyi is dissatisfied with the classification system proposed by Chyzhevskyi, since, in his opinion, it leads to distortions in the understanding of who is a Ukrainian philosopher, as well as to inaccuracies in assigning thinkers to schools of thought — Hegelianism, Schellingianism, positivism, etc. In conclusion, Kolubovskyi notes that the historical scheme proposed by Chyzhevskyi needs clarification and revision. At the same time, he acknowledges the significance of the work and emphasizes that it undoubtedly deserves attention.

Kateryna Skrypnyk