The Phenomenon of Timeless Relevance

"What's the secret of Skovoroda? Why is he remembered? Why do his quotes appear on merchandise? Even if someone knows nothing about him, they still recognize the phrase: ‘The world tried to catch me, but didn’t succeed.’ At the very least, everyone knows that line.

The fact is, at the level of quotes, his presence is strongly felt. We are in a curious situation: from the 18th century, essentially only two figures remain truly alive — Kotliarevsky and Skovoroda. And they continue to remain relevant.

At some point, we even asked ourselves in a worldly, secular way: how did they manage to stay so recognizable for so long? And when we write, read, or return to these figures, eventually, interest in Skovoroda arises.

Shevchenko mentions him, Tychyna dedicates a poem to him, and Stus often reflects on Skovoroda. One way or another, everyone immerses themselves in his life."

He Lived in an Empire, but Did Not Belong to It

"Skovoroda was born in 1722 and died in 1794 — a life entirely contained within the 18th century, the Age of Reason, and European Enlightenment.

And here’s what matters: throughout this time, Skovoroda remained an inconvenient figure — a nonconformist, someone who didn’t fit into either official frameworks or informal orders.

That’s why he resonates so strongly today — in his freedom, in his nonconformity, he is very much a contemporary of ours.

Today, his monument on Kontraktova Square stands in protective scaffolding — to guard it from possible attacks. And we know this is not an exaggeration — the experience of Skovorodynivka in 2022 proved it. A direct strike hit the museum there — the building was destroyed, though, thankfully, the exhibits were saved.

It’s a poignant detail: even today, Skovoroda becomes a symbolic target for Russia. They can’t even pronounce the name ‘Skovorodynivka’ correctly.

This adds another layer: Skovoroda lived at a time of empire, but he thought and created outside its imperial hierarchy — and today, we see this symbolic line continue."

“Not a Historical Reality, But an Ideological Fabrication”

"One more thing must be understood. Ukrainians never wore  «bast shoes» — in the popular sense. Even a poor Ukrainian had boots; it was a mark of a free person. So Skovoroda never wore.

But during the Soviet period, they wanted to emphasize ‘folk origins,’ to erase any signs of aristocracy or refinement among writers or thinkers. This applied to everyone — if someone had noble characteristics, they were diminished.

From that stems the image of Skovoroda in bast shoes — overly simplified and ‘folk-like.’ This isn’t a historical fact, but an ideological construction.

The same thing happened with his texts — and with interpretations. In the Russian context, Skovoroda was appropriated into their tradition, described as a ‘Russian and Ukrainian philosopher.’ This is a typical method of co-opting — when there's no native philosophical school, they construct one by claiming other nations’ figures.

But what matters to us is that in reality, Skovoroda is clearly a Ukrainian thinker. Every trajectory of his life is Ukrainian — from the Cossack regiments to the lands of Sloboda Ukraine."

Principled Individualism and the Return to Self

"Researchers like Viktor Petrov and Dmytro Chyzhevsky considered Skovoroda an early Romantic. And they're right — he has many traits we now associate with Romanticism. But in a philosophical sense, he is an individualist — a principled individualist.

That’s why you won’t find him embracing political movements or revolutionary slogans. In the 20th century, Pavlo Tychyna wrote the poem «Skovoroda», portraying him as a revolutionary democrat — because that was expected at the time. Writers from Shevchenko to philosophers had to fit such interpretations.

But this depiction doesn’t reflect Skovoroda. He didn’t engage with materialist philosophers, didn’t respond to the French Revolution, and didn’t call for rebellion.

His concept of freedom was different. It was born within. He spoke of religious, but individual inner freedom — the birth of the human being within the self.

He once described his identity in these words: «My mother is Little Russia, my aunt is Ukraine.». All of his life’s paths were tied to Ukrainian lands, and he always returned here.

This — the return home as an inner constant — is one of the essential traits of his image."

On the Birth of Inner Freedom

"Since childhood, Skovoroda had a gift for music: he sang in the choir, played the wooden flute. He cherished solitude — a trait that stayed with him all his life.

In his philosophy, he spoke of freedom — but not external freedom, rather inner freedom. One of the lines in the «Songs of Divine Love» cycle reads: «The spirit of freedom is born within us».

That’s key — freedom does not come from the outside; it must be born within.

Skovoroda interprets the Christian idea of being ‘born twice’ — first from your parents, and then from yourself. This act of choosing oneself — ‘through affinity’ — is what he calls the birth of freedom.

Freedom is an internal space that no one can conquer. Until that space — that inner fortress — is drawn and defended, no conversations about external change or revolution are meaningful.

«A person begins from within».

“The Wandering University"

"Kant, incidentally, never traveled. He stayed in his Königsberg. Skovoroda was the opposite — he traveled constantly. Rousseau also traveled, but mostly fleeing from enemies or moving between patrons.

These are different ways of philosophizing. For Skovoroda, it was a flute or pipe, and quiet meditation — especially in his later years, when he was almost always on foot.

He went from village to village, home to home, with students and anyone who wished to listen. He never asked anything for himself. This wasn’t escape, but a lifestyle — a way of thinking, teaching, and conversing.

This was his university. A wandering university, where he was professor, classroom, and curriculum all in one."

Skovoroda’s Influence on Vasyl Karazin

"By the way, the place where Skovoroda died — Pan-Ivanivka (now Skovorodynivka) — was a frequent stop for him. A boy named Karazin was living in that estate — the foster son of the family. And he was so inspired by Skovoroda, listened to him so intently, that it became a life-changing moment.

A few years later, Karazin began to think about creating a university. He organized fundraising, sought approval from the emperor — and ultimately founded Kharkiv University.

That’s a real example of Skovoroda’s influence. He didn't compel or instruct people — he simply awakened something in them that moved them forward.

It’s as if he said, «Understand what you truly want — and then do it». And Karazin did."

Ignorance of the Imperial Context

"Imperial poets — Trediakovsky, Sumarokov, Lomonosov — wrote odes to the Empress for every occasion, celebrated military victories of the Russian army.

Skovoroda ignored all of it. The imperial context doesn’t exist for him as a meaningful space. Yes, things may have been happening around him, echoes reaching his ears — but he didn’t live in that world.

He lived in his own inner world, a world of symbols, of faith, of personal search. He was not aligned with any hierarchy. He was not a man of the imperial project.

And that is a deliberate stance — to remain outside imperial meanings, to belong to none of it."

The Heart as the Seat of Reason

"People often say Ukrainian philosophy is a ‘philosophy of the heart’ — cordocentrism. And while Skovoroda speaks of the heart, he doesn't mean emotions. He interprets the heart as the seat of reason. It's reason, but of a different type — oriented toward inner truth rather than Enlightenment rationalism.

He often works with dichotomies: divine versus human nature, inner versus outer life. And he constantly shows that one cannot exist without the other.

He sometimes criticizes European Enlightenment thinking — specifically because it is outward-facing and concerned with practical matters.

He had a motto: «Reason doesn’t come from books; books come from reason». That’s his philosophical style."

Non-Dogmatic Spirituality

"You could call Skovoroda a religious philosopher. But his religiosity wasn’t ecclesiastical or dogmatic. He constantly emphasized: meaning must be created within.

He rejected literal readings of Scripture. The Bible isn’t an instruction manual; it is full of symbols that must be revealed within a person.

It’s about an individual path to God. To know yourself is to discover God within. This is a heretical formulation for the official Church.

That’s why his relationship with the Russian Church was complicated. He never fit into its vertical structure or its worldview.

His freedom was inner, spiritual — and required no institution."

The “Heavenly Republic”

"Why didn’t Skovoroda create revolutionary movements? Why didn’t he call for nation-building or rebellion?

Because he envisioned a different kind of community. He called it the ‘heavenly republic’ — a republic of the spirit.

It is made up of people who have undergone the same inward transformation — becoming reborn spiritually, discovering themselves, becoming internally free. Such a community can revive statehood when the time is right.

Ukraine has lost its statehood many times — but the community never disappeared. This inner republic preserved and passed on identity."

The “Life-Text”

"Through his wanderings, Skovoroda created a life-text. This isn’t a metaphor — it’s a form of creative expression.

His life was a poem, no less philosophical than his treatises. He lived so that each step was a gesture with meaning.

He rejected career paths, he walked as a wanderer, he preached, taught, conversed. All of this combined was his personal university — one he both created and lived.

His life was a philosophical gesture — a mode of thought, a living lesson."

Influence on the Future

"Skovoroda didn’t influence politics — he shaped imagination.

Shevchenko saw him as a towering figure. So did the members of the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood. Karazin, inspired by him, founded a university.

This wasn’t a mass movement, not a party. It was influence on those who shape the future.

He touched something in people that could move generations.”