Search
Submit an article RU
Kantian Journal

2022 Vol. 41. №4

Back to the list Download the article
ENG
Сохранить XML для: JATS (вып.)
RUS
Сохранить XML для: JATS (вып.)
Kornilaev L.Yu.

The Image of Fichte’s Philosophy in German Neo-Kantianism

Abstract

Neo-Kantianism is traditionally seen as a philosophy that was formed to develop and actualise Kant’s philosophy and Kantian transcendental methodology. However, Kant was the determining, but by no means the only, influence on the emergence of the neo-Kantian tradition. Neo-Kantianism was strongly influenced by the entire German post-Kantian philosophy, especially by Fichte and Hegel, although neo-Kantians have repeatedly tried to dissociate themselves from the great idealists. In many ways neo-Kantianism was cultivated by the Fichtean reading of Kant, which enabled succeeding philosophers, notably H.-G. Gadamer, to consider neo-Kantianism to be “hidden neo-Fichteanism”. The main goal of this study is a historical-philosophical reconstruction of the image of Fichtean philosophy formed within German neo-Kantianism. To achieve this aim I have analysed the key projects of the German neo-Kantians in which the influence of Fichte’s philosophy, in particular his interpretation of the Kantian doctrine of the primacy of practical reason, is most clearly manifested. I show that the theory of values of the Southwest neo-Kantians and the ethics of pure will of the Marburg neo-Kantians are associated with the Fichtean revision of Kant’s doctrine of the primacy of practical reason. The following, in my opinion, are the main features of the image of Fichte’s philosophy: it is close to neo-Kantians precisely because it strives to combine theoretical and practical reason; it is in ethics that Fiche’s ideas are most manifest in neo-Kantianism; neo-Kantian original theories contain the ideas of self-consciousness “in the spirit” of Fichte. The conclusion is drawn that the growth of the metaphysical component in neo-Kantian doctrines may be connected with the influence of Fichte’s philosophy.

Full text

json#{"TEXT":"","TYPE":"HTML"}

Reference

Beiser, F., 2018. Neo-Kantianism as Neo-Fichteanism. Fichte-Studien, 45, pp. 309-327.

Belov, V. N., 2014. Ethics in the System of Philosophical Criticism of Hermann Cohen. Ethical Thought, 14, pp. 174-199. (In Rus.)

Belov, V. N., 2016. Our Disagreements: On the Anniversary of the Leading Kant Scholar of Modern Russia. Kantian Journal, 2(56), pp. 10-15. (In Rus.)

Bykova, M. F., 2006. The Concept of the Subject in Fichte’s Philosophy, Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik 2006, pp. 151-179. (In Rus.)

Cohen, H., 1877. Kants Begründung der Ethik. Berlin: Harwitz und Gossman.

Cohen, H., 1904. System der Philosophie. Teil 2: Ethik des reinen Willens. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.

Dmitrieva, N. A., 2007. Russkoe neokantianstvo: ‘Marburg’ v Rossii. Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki [Russian Neo-Kantianism: Marburg in Russia. Historical and Philosophical Essays]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Rus.)

Dmitrieva, N. A., 2021. The Kantian Origins of Sergei Rubinstein’s Theory of Moral Improvement. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55(6), pp. 1126-1141.

Edel, G., 2002. Fichte — Marburger Neukantianismus (insbesondere Natorp) und die philosophische Methode. In: D. Pätzold and Ch. Krijnen, eds. 2002. Der Neukantianismus und das Erbe des deutschen Idealismus: Die philosophische Methode. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 35-47.

Edel, G., 2013. Zum Fichte-Bild im Marburger Neukantianismus. In: J. Stolzenberg and O.-P. Rudolph, eds. 2012. Wissen, Freiheit, Geschichte: Die Philosophie Fichtes im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Volume 3. Leiden: Brill, pp. 15-31.

Fichte, I. G., 2021. Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre. In: I. G. Fichte, 2021. Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre and Related Writings (1794—95). Edited and translated by D. Breazeale. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 196-378.

Fichte, I. G., 2021. Outline of the Distinctive Character of the Wissenschaftslehre with Respect to the Theoretical Faculty. In: I. G. Fichte, 2021. Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre and Related Writings (1794—95). Edited and translated by D. Breazeale. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 380-436.

Gadamer, H.-G., 1995. Subjektivität und Intersubjektivität, Subjekt und Person. In: H.-G. Gadamer, 1995. Gesammelte Werke. Volume 10: Hermeneutik im Rückblick. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 87-99.

Goubet, J.-F., 2012. Paul Natorps Fichte-Rezeption in der “Praktischen Philosophie” von 1925. In: J. Stolzenberg and O.-P. Rudolph, eds. 2012. Wissen, Freiheit, Geschichte: Die Philosophie Fichtes im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Volume 3. Leiden: Brill, pp. 3-14.

Heinz, M., 1997. Die Fichte-Rezeption in der südwestdeutschen Schule des Neukantianismus. Fichte-Studien, 13, pp. 109-129.

Kalinnikov, L. A., 2010. On the Need to Revaluation Neo-Kantianism in the Light of the Contemporary Interpretation of I. Kant’s System. In: I.N. Griftsova and N. A. Dmitrieva, eds. 2010. Nemetskoe i russkoe neokantianstvo: mezhdu teoriej poznaniya i kritikoi kul’tury [German and Russian Neo-Kantianism: Between the Theory of Knowledge and Criticism of Culture]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 56-66. (In Rus.)

Kant, I., 1996. Critique of Practical Reason. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical philosophy. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139-271.

Kant, I., 1999. Correspondence. Translated and edited by A. Zweig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lask, E., 1923. Fichtes Idealismus und die Geschichte In: E. Lask, 1923. Gesammelte Schriften. Volume 1. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 1-274.

Natorp, P., 1980. Allgemeine Logik. In: W. Flach and H. Holzhey, 1980. Erkenntnistheorie und Logik im Neukantianismus. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 226-269.

Noras, A., 2020. Geschichte des Neukantianismus. Bern: Peter Lang.

Rickert, H., 1899. Fichtes Atheismusstreit und die kantische Philosophie. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.

Semyonov, V. Ye., 2022. Constructive Thinking in the Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Kantian Journal, 41(3), pp. 76-101. (In Rus.)

Stolzenberg, J., 2002. Fichte im Neukantianismus. Probleme der Fichte-Rezeption bei Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Rickert, Hermann Cohen und Paul Natorp. In: R. Alexy, L. H. Meyer, S. L. Paulson, G. Sprenger, eds. 2002. Neukantianismus und Rechtsphilosophie. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 421-434.

Windelband, W., 1880. Die Geschichte der neueren Philosophie in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der allgemeinen Cultur und den besonderen Wissenschaften dargestellt. Bd. 2: Die Blüthezeit der deutschen Philosophie. Von Kant bis Hegel und Herbart. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

Windelband, W., 1915. Was ist Philosophie? (Über Begriff und Geschichte der Philosophie). In: W. Windelband, 1915. Präludien: Aufsätze und Reden zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte. Volume 1. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 1-54.

Witzleben, F., 2013. Fichtes Subjektbegriff im Neukantianismus In: J. Stolzenberg and O.-P. Rudolph, eds/ 2013. Wissen, Freiheit, Geschichte: Die Philosophie Fichtes im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Volume 3. Leiden: Brill, pp. 33-46.

Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2012. The Concept of Value in H. Rickert and its Interpretation in the Philosophy of S. I. Hessen. Kantian Journal, 1(39), pp. 40-44.