2021 Vol. 40. №3

The house which Immanuel Kant bought in Königsberg in 1783 has not survived, having been pulled down in the late nineteenth century. Likewise, hardly any of the great philosopher’s personal belongings have survived. Many pieces of furniture and household utensils were auctioned off after his death. So the Kant museum had few original exhibits from the Königsberg thinker’s house, and almost all these artefacts were lost during the Second World War. Today, digital technologies make it possible to present a virtual picture of the various rooms, reconstruct the decorations and furniture characteristic of a Prussian urban dwelling in late eighteenth — early nineteenth centuries. With the help of 3D modelling and historical sources a realistic model of Kant’s house has been created, showing both the exterior and the interior. In addition to the paucity of sources, the task was complicated by technical problems due to the need to recreate several rooms at one location simultaneously. Reconstruction draws on several gen­uine objects from Kant’s house, now kept at museums in Germany. Also available are written and visual sources showing the exterior of the house and mentioning some furniture items located in the living room and elsewhere in the structure. Now 3D reconstructions have been made of the house’s exterior and the urban environment, the anterooms on the ground and first floors, the lecture hall, kitchen, study, drawing room, bedroom, library and dining room.

To reconstruct a critique of the ontological proof of the existence of God in Schelling’s philosophy I examine his interpretation of the ontological argument by Anselm of Canterbury and Descartes as well as Schelling’s assessment of the critique of the Kantian ontological proof of the existence of God. I propose a reconstruction of Schelling’s account of undoubted being which cannot be deduced from the concept of the totality of all that is possible and therefore must come before any thought. He interprets reason as having an ecstatic nature which posits precedent undoubted being. This enables Schelling to formulate his own version of the thesis on the unity of being and thought, whereby being comes first and thought is only second. Against this background I analyse Schelling’s interpretation of the Kantian account of the ideal of reason. Schelling, on the one hand, agrees with Kant that being is not a real predicate, hence real existence cannot be deduced from essence in the sense of “what.” But, on the other hand, in contrast to Kant, he believes that real existence of the individual absolute must be assumed, which would be the subject for all possible predicates and whose being is ecstatically posited by reason as being external to itself. I raise the question of the relevance of Schelling’s thought for modern ontology, above all in overcoming ontotheology. Proceeding from the works of J. F. Courtine and L. Tengelyi I single out two aspects of Schelling’s doctrine that are relevant to my subject: (1) the priority of existence over essence in God’s being and (2) the fundamental irreducibility of God to a necessarily existent being, i.e. God’s freedom. It is evident that, in his interpretation of Kant, Schelling somewhat simplifies his train of thought and leaves it unclear how Kant links the concepts of necessary being and the supremely perfect being. It is also evident that Schelling’s concepts of “contingency,” “contingent necessity,” “the whole experience” need further study.

The origins in Marxist-Leninist philosophy of the dogma about Kant as the German theorist of the French Revolution requires some analysis and I explain how a phrase of Marx later gave rise to the dogma. I first look at the sources that influenced K. Marx’s view of Kant and the French Revolution, above all С. F. Bachmann and H. Heine. I then examine the form in which Kant’s philosophy was compared with the French Revolution in the non-Bolshevik milieu before the 1917 Russian Revolution (P. Ya. Chaadayev, V. S. Mezhevich, the Dostoyevsky brothers, V. F. Ern, Archbishop Nikanor, P. A. Florensky). Then I look at how Marx’s phrase influenced Russian social democrats and specifically the Bolsheviks (G. V. Plekhanov, V. I. Lenin, V. M. Shulyatikov). I cite the example of the discussion triggered by a letter of Z. Ya. Beletsky concerning the third volume of The History of Philosophy (1943) to demonstrate the non-canonical status of Marx’s thesis on Kant and the French Revolution in the Soviet Union in the first half of the twentieth century. Finally, the first Soviet edition of Kant’s works in the 1960s canonised Marx’s phrase and gave the exact source. The reason why it took so long to give chapter and verse for the Marx quotation is that it occurs as early as 1842 in “The Philosophical Manifesto of the Historical School of Law” which belongs to the idealistic period of the early Marx.

Transcendental philosophy was not born like Athena out of Zeus’s head, mature and in full armour from the very beginning. That is why in both prefaces to the Critique of Pure Reason (1781 and 1787) Kant introduces the concept of transcendental philosophy as an “idea.” The idea understood architectonically develops slowly and only gradually acquires a definite form. As witnessed by the works of Kant himself and of his predecessors and followers, the idea of transcendental philosophy has undergone a series of changes and adjustments compared to the initial plan. In this context, my goal is not simply exegesis and historical investigation of transcendental philosophy, but also to look at it from a systematic and methodological perspective. I examine the concept of transcendental philosophy from the viewpoint of programmatic metaphilosophy. The first part discusses programmatics as a distinct subsection of metaphilosophy. I argue that Kant’s architectonic methodology and the methodology of Lakatos can be used to understand the inception, development and degradation of philosophical systems. In the second part I look at the project of transcendental philosophy and the stages of its development from the standpoint of architectonics. The third part shows that Lakatos’s methodology can provide a detailed insight into the elements of transcendental philosophy, a clear idea of its logic and identify the component parts that can be improved and developed. In spite of the different levels of detailing and epistemological prerequisites, the methodologies of Kant and Lakatos can be combined to achieve a metaphilosophically informed and progressive understanding of philosophical projects.

The interpretation of Kant’s philosophy by thinkers in pre-Soviet Belarus has been the subject of not a few publications. They described the reception of his seminal ideas, the analysis, polemic and occasionally sharp criticism of these ideas. It is helpful now to look at Kantian studies beginning from the 1920s to the present time. I will show that immediately after the October 1917 revolution and until the 1930s interest in Kant’s teaching was waning. When they turned to his ideas during that period Belarusian authors described and analysed them primarily in textbooks or when examining, or rather criticising, the views of Western philosophers, thereby rigidly adhering to Lenin’s assessments. During and after World War II the number of studies was also very insignificant. It was not until the beginning of Perestroika that an urgent need was felt for a new reading of Western philosophy, and interest in Kant’s heritage in the country increased sharply. A surge of interest was registered beginning from 2004 which was declared “Immanuel Kant Year” by UNESCO. From that time onward Belarus has hosted a number of international forums devoted to Kant, materials of conferences, articles and textbooks have been published, dissertations defended etc. The article reviews the main trends of these studies in the Soviet and post-Soviet periods.

The international conference “Kantian Rationality in Philosophy of Science” was held on 9–11 October 2020 at the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (IKBFU) in Kaliningrad. Fifteen participants from different countries discussed aspects of the Kantian understanding of science and the roles of reason in it: the unity, difference, and systematicity of the functions of reason in science, as they are revealed in Kant’s discussions of criteria of scientificity, the classification of sciences, or methods of theoretical and experimental research in specific sciences. The topics discussed fell into two broad categories: firstly, the relationship between metaphysics and science in the context of Kant’s time; secondly, the relevance of Kant’s ideas to modern sciences and the concepts of philosophy of science in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.