An aim of this article was to analyze and interpret multifaceted semantic of motives for lying in the novel Women’s Lies by Lyudmila Ulitskaya mainly on the basis of the text’s content as well as related to it preceded annotations, essayistic and journalistic utterances of an actress. We declare that the “laboratory analyze” of women’s lies in its various scenes makes a leading opinion and basic motive of the novel. At the beginning of the conclusion we are concentrating on the author`s definition of lie, so we can later refer to mythological-historical-literary roots. In the context of above mentioned facts, it is interesting that Ulitskaya divides lie on masculine and feminine. Ulitskaya, in her typical way, referring to cultural-religious archetypes and symbols, indicates the roots of masculine lie pertaining even to the Old Testament, as contrary to “pleasant feminine lie”. In this regard, the mythological characters of Odysseus and Penelope are also recognized as representatives. After all, in the content of the analyzed piece are only presented various examples of female lies, and, in our opinion, exposed as an element of the third plane, which unites natural sciences and literature.

An attempt has been made to present “continuity” which, despite artists’ denials, is a prerequisite for the creation of novelty. Subsequent movements and styles (trends today) in architecture have tried to deny the ideas and forms of their predecessors. Avant-garde art distances itself from any continuation. The original does not exist even in the modern world, let alone in post-modernity. The world is filled with shapes, colours and images of the past, unable to liberate itself from it. The artists are left with a false impression of their genius and originality. Looking at the buildings built today, one can discern the unbuilt architecture of the early twentieth century. This is by no means the accusation of lack of originality, but rather the realisation of a harsh fact that it is impossible to create complete novelty. It might have been easier for our predecessors without access to the Internet and the World Library of Imagination.

In the paper, I present the views of Alina Motycka, a Polish philosopher of science who died in 2018. I place Motycka’s scholar activity in a historical context, relative to two traditions of the philosophy of science—its historical version signed by Thomas Kuhn, and the tradition of logical reconstruction of science which in the second half of the twentieth century was revived by the thought of Karl Popper. I believe that this historical situation forms the context in which Motycka shaped her view of the philosophy of science and, because of such a particular context, she has participated in it with her own problematizations. So, what constitutes the originality of her way? Two issues come to the fore here. The first is the reconstruction of the fundamental problem of the philosophy of science, which, according to Motycka, is the question of confronting two scientific theories, of which the earlier (T1) is replaced by a later and competitive one (T2). Motycka shows the inability of the epistemology of the second half of the 20th century to adequately capture this relationship. The reason for this is the lack of intellectual means to problematize the situation T1–T2. The second area of the author's interest is the issue of creativity in science. She was inspired by the theories of Carl G. Jung. In this context, it is of interest to use the philosophy of science of terms such as archetype and myth.

This article explores the significance of James Hillman's archetypal psychology for the autothematic reflection and the fiction of Olga Tokarczuk. An analysis of her 2020 collection of essays Czuły narrator ( The Tender Narrator), and the psychological dimension of two novels, Ostatnie historie ( Final Stories) and Bieguni ( Flights) published in 2004 and 2007 respectively, shows that she abandoned her former intellectual master Carl Gustav Jung for Jungian revisionists, most notably James Hillman. His ideas helped her to clarify her own philosophical approach, and, for her critics, they offer a useful interpretative key to the works in which she moved beyond the bounds of orthodox Jungianism.

The article analyzes the works of two novelists from Sniatyn (Ivano‐Frankivsk) Vasyl Stefanyk and Vasyl Tkachuk for special (similar and distinctive) features in their national vision of the image of the land, which for Ukrainians as an ethnic group that has shaped its agrarian culture for centuries, remains the greatest value, holiness, a symbol of spiritual stability. Therefore, this image in Ukrainian culture is very deep, has archetypal features, because the land for the Ukrainian people was not only evidence of prosperity and wealth, but also a moral imperative and this is widely reflected in folklore and the cultural heritage of Ukrainians, including literature. In the Carpathian and Transcarpathian mountain regions, the peasant’s attitude to the land was aggravated by the fact that there were few small plots ‘won’ from the mountains and adapted for cultivation. That is why the life of peasants is marked by a special complexity during a long historical period and of social changes. So, the first emigration of Ukrainians began who since the end of the 18th century sought happiness in the fertile lands of the Canadian prairies. V. Stefanyk and V. Tkachuk grew up and formed as writers in one region, for both the life of the Carpathian peasants, which they portrayed with a deep psychology, became the main theme of their works. There are many parallels in their short stories, but the most complete for both artists is the image of the earth, which has become the subject of our comparative studies.

Thinking of the earth as feminine derives from the oldest ideas as to the four rudimentary elements. Bipolarity, which is present in the take on the earth as an archetypical element, one giving life and finally absorbing it back, has not lost its relevance to this day. It is therefore myths, followed by philosophical considerations valuing the distinction between divine and human qualities, which have always been in conflict and cooperation, and these have marked the path Nikolai Berdyaev, the Russian religious thinker, takes. The problem of the nature of man’s gender is the fundamental issue of his philosophical anthropology. The stance represented by the author of The Meaning of the Creative Act is based on the conviction that the structure of the world constitutes two opposing elements, two opposing forces: good and evil, with good being linked to the male and evil to the female. The male to him is anthropological and personal, the female – cosmic and collective. One of Berdyaev’s most important beliefs is that the earth should be treated in a mystical sense as a principle female in matter and body. The driving force behind the world is the clash of both principles, the contact and interaction between the solar male and the terrestrial female. Through the prism of the cosmic battle of the genders, Berdyaev explains Freud’s concept of the Oedipus complex, giving it a mystical- ‑symbolic dimension.