Is Hermann Cohen a Neo-Kantian?
- DOI
- 10.5922/0207-6918-2015-3-3
- Pages
- 38-45
Abstract
The article focuses on overcoming the superficial approach to Neo-Kantianism: Neo-Kantianism is widely interpreted as a one-sided understanding of Kant’s works, their corruption, and, thus, a dead-end branch of the transcendental philosophy of the great Königsberg thinker. The author also discusses some of the fundamental aspects of divergence between Hermann Cohen’s philosophical system and German Neo-Kantianism. It is argued that Cohen created an original philosophical system; therefore, it is unproductive to speculate whether the Marburg philosopher was a proponent of Kant, Hegel, or Fichte. It seems appropriate to call Hermann Cohen a “Cohenian” and consider his ideas relating to the interaction between theoretical and practical reason and the construction of a rigid and elaborate system con-sisting of verified elements from the perspective of his own system of philosophy, which is complete in its key aspects. This article demonstrates the efforts of the Marburg philosopher to justify both the unity of and the necessary distinctions between theoretical and practical reasons in the system of transcen¬dental philosophy. When considering the monistic nature of Hermann Cohen’s philosophical sys¬tem, the author gives a more detailed definition of this characteristic: it is not monism but a sys¬tematic unity of culture. It is proven that monism is not detected in Cohen’s system, nor is it a mo¬nistic philosophical monolith in relation to other variants of transcendental philosophy.
Reference
1. Dvorkin I. Filosofija dialoga v poiskach puti [The philosophy of dialogue in the search for the path] // Filosofskije dialogi’2013. Vipusk 7. Kiev, S. 112—171 [Philosophical dialogues'2013. Issue 7. Kiev, p. 112—171].
2. Kalinnikov L. A. O neobchodimosti pereozenki neokantianstva v svete sovremen¬noj interpretazii sistemi I. Kanta [The need for re-evaluation of Neo-Kantianism in the light of modern interpretation of Kant] // Neokantianstvo nemezkoje i russkoje: meshdu teoriej poznanija i kritikoj kulturi / pod red. I. N. Grifzovoj, N. A. Dmitrievoj. M., 2010. S. 56—66. [Neo-Kantianism German and Russian: between the theory of knowledge and criticism of culture / ed. IN Griftsova, NA Dmitrieva. Moskow 2010. P. 56—66].
3. Kant I. Kritika prakticheskogo razuma [Critique of Practical Reason] // I. Kant. Soch. v 4-ch tomach na nem. i rus. jazikach. Podgotovleni k izdaniju N. Motroshilovoj i
B. Tushlingom. T. III. Podgotovleni k izdaniju E. Solovjevim i A. Sudakovim, B. Tushlin-gom i U. Fogelem. M., 1997. [Works in 4 volumes on Germany and Russian languages. Pre-pared for publication N. Motroshilova and B. Tushling. T. III. Prepared for publication by E. Solovyov and A. Sudakov, U. Vogel and B. Tushling. Moskow, 1997].
4. Sokuler Z. A. German Kogen i filosofija dialoga. M., 2008. [Herman Cohen and phi-losophy of dialogue]. Moskow, 2008.
5. Kogen G. 2012, Teorija opita Kanta [Theory of experience of Kant], Per. s nem. V. N. Be¬lova, Moscow.
6. Natorp P. 2006, Kant I marburgskaja škola [Kant and Marburger school], Izbrannije raboti [Selected works], Moskow, p. 119—145.
7. Poma A. 2012, Kriticheskaja filosofija Germana Kogena [The critical philosophy of Her-mann Cohen], Per. s it. O. A. Popova, Moscow.
8. Savalskiji V. A. 1909, Osnovi filosofii prava v nauchnom idealizme. Marburgskaja škola filosofii. Kogen, Natorp, Shtamler i dr. [Basis of philosophy of right in scientifically idealism. Marburger school of philosophy. Cohen, Natorp, Stammler et al.]. Moskow. Т. 1.
9. Adelmann D. “Reinige dein Denken”. Über den jüdischen Hintergrund der Phi-losophie von Hermann Cohen. Würzburg, 2010.
10. Cohen H. Kants Begründung der Ethik. 3 Aufl. Hildesheim, 2001.
11. Cohen H. Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums. Zweite Aufl. Köln, 1959.
12. Rosenzweig F. Einleitung // Hermann Cohen. Jüdische Schriften. Erster Band. Berlin, 1924.