PHILOSOPHICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE STUDY OF THE PHENOMENON OF FORGETTING
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2025.95.35-50
Abstract
The article discusses approaches to the study of the phenomenon of forgetting. The topic of memory studies was very popular in Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union as a need to rethink the past.
It is revealed that the study of the phenomenon of forgetting is possible only in the context of the study of the phenomenon of memory, so the central method of studying the phenomenon of forgetting is hermeneutic. It is shown that the greatest contribution to the study of the phenomenon of forgetting was made by philosophers Plato, Augustine of Aurelius, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, and Paul Ricoeur. It has been found that the phenomenon of memory and forgetting is also studied in sociology, political science, history, cultural studies, psychology, literary studies, and neuroscience. Memory researchers may very often have to choose whether to support the official ideological position of the state and society or to act against the official memory policy in the country and face repression from the state and society.
It has been found that memory studies is an interdisciplinary science, which complicates the formation of a single categorical apparatus and methodological approach. However, the interdisciplinary approach allows combining different fields of science to solve complex issues and explain science to people with a different worldview. Methodological contradictions should be resolved with the help of philosophy. The Ukrainian philosopher Khamitov Nazip showed that the development of methodological principles is traditionally carried out by philosophers. It is revealed that Ukrainian scholars have already made efforts to systematize the field, in particular by Ukrainian professor Alla Kyrydon.
It is substantiated that memory studies require a transdisciplinary methodological approach. This approach involves not only the interaction of various fields of science, but also non-scientific knowledge. The Ukrainian philosopher Liudmyla Shashkova points out that the transdisciplinary approach involves focusing on the problems and needs of non-scientific knowledge. Transdisciplinary groups are formed, in which the composition and methods may change depending on the potential research opportunities.
Keywords
Full Text:
>PDF (Українська)
References
Some Issues of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory. Official Web Portal of the Parliament of Ukraine. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/684-2014-п#Text
Main Research Themes – The Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The Institute of Political Studies of the Polish Academy of Sciences. URL: https://politic.edu.pl/research/main-research-themes/
Bank of Memories. Bank of Memories. URL: https://bankofmemories.org/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJmNOdleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHsVmr4dIo5nksqeLFrkm0XmiaVyYl2MjFvLpiHMxLli7heufaX3kAK-j5Mzq_aem_W9lNmkL904II-FZ-64qliQ
Public Organization "Memories of Ukraine". URL: https://memoriesofua.com/uk/about
Kyrydon, A. (2016). Heterotopias of Memory: Theoretical and Methodological Problems of Memory Studies. Kyiv: Nika-Center, 320 p.
Volianiuk, O. (2024). Functions of Memory and Identity Policies in Wartime. In: Politics and Law under Martial Law: Seeking Solutions, Kyiv, 37–39.
Volianiuk, O. (2013). Spaces of Forgetting: Political Criteria and Theoretical-Methodological Remarks. Hileya: Scientific Bulletin, Vol. 75, No. 55, 129–131.
Henkes, B. (2022). National Socialism, Colonialism and Antifascist Memory Politics in Postwar Dutch–South African Exchanges. South African Historical Journal, 1–24. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/02582473.2022.2055131
Shashkova, L. (2021). Political Turn in the Philosophy of Science. Politology Bulletin, Issue 87, 14–23. URL: https://doi.org/10.17721/2415-881x.2021.87.14-23
Berntsen, D. (1996). Involuntary Autobiographical Memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 10, No. 5, 435–454. URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0720(199610)10:5%3C435::aid-acp408%3E3.0.co;2-l
Swaab, D. (2023). We Are Our Brains / Transl. from English by O. Kotsiuba. Kharkiv: Book Club “Family Leisure Club”, 496 p.
Memory, History, Forgetting / ed. by K. B. (Translator), D. P. (Translator). University of Chicago Press, 2006, 624 p.
Khamitov, N., Shashkova L. & Krylova S. (2024). Dictionary of Contemporary Terms in Philosophy of Science and Philosophy of Culture. Kyiv: VADEKS, 290 p.
Shashkova, L. (2024). Scientific Communication in Complex Social Contexts: Approaches of Social Philosophy of Science and Social Epistemology. Proceedings of the National Aviation University. Series Philosophy. Cultural Studies, Vol. 39, No. 1, 23–28. URL: https://doi.org/10.18372/2412-2157.39.18442
Hayles, N. Katherine. (2013). How We Became Posthuman / Transl. from English by Ye. Marychev. Kyiv: Nika-Center, 426 p.
Olick, J. K. & Robbins, J. (1998). Social Memory Studies: From “Collective Memory” to the Historical Sociology of Mnemonic Practices. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24, No. 1, 105–140. URL: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.105
Homepage of CIRET. URL: https://ciret-transdisciplinarity.org/index.php
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The editorial board does not always share the position of the authors. The authors are responsible for the accuracy of the material presented.
All rights reserved.
© Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 2026






