Search
Submit an article RU
Kantian Journal

2023 Vol. 42. №4

Back to the list Download the article
ENG
Сохранить XML для: JATS (вып.)
RUS
Сохранить XML для: JATS (вып.)
Rozhin D. O.

Between Kant and Trendelenburg: On the Genealogy of Kudryavtsev-Platonov’s Theory of Cognition

DOI
10.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-3
Pages
35-68
Trendelenburg Kudryavtsev-Platonov Kant space time categories motion intuition being thinking

Abstract

Viktor D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov is one of the most prominent representatives of Russian religious-academic philosophy of the second half of the nineteenth century whose theory of cognition bears an imprint of the Kantian theoretical philosophy. Kudryavtsev was not only thoroughly familiar with the Königsberg thinker’s work, but offered a critically reinterpreted version of Kant’s teaching on space, time and categories of understanding. But was the Russian philosopher original in his reading and critique of Kant? In his later works Kudryavtsev often cites the works of Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg whose works turn out to be very close to the Russian philosopher. Could it be that Kudryavtsev read Kant through Trendelenburg’s optics? To answer this question consistently I give outlines of Trendelenburg’s and Kudryavtsev’s theories of cognition and compare their views on the basis of the sources. I then draw on archive materials to characterise Kudryavtsev’s acquaintance with the works of Kant and Trendelenburg. It turns out that Kudryavtsev was well-versed in Kant’s philosophical ideas already in the early years of his teaching activities — but not from primary sources, but largely through German historical-philosophical renderings. I establish similarities between the teachings of Trendelenburg and Kudryavtsev on space, time and the categories of understanding and their critique of the relevant Kantian teaching. Finally, Kudryavtsev’s early manuscripts attest to his acquaintance with Trendelenburg’s ideas. I conclude that Trendelenburg influenced Kudryavtsev’s own theory of cognition, a fact that should be borne in mind when reading the Russian philosopher’s epistemological works.

Reference

Abramov, A. I., 1994. Kant in Russian Spiritual-Academic Philosophy. In: Z. A. Kamensky and V. A. Zhuchkov, eds. 1994. Kant i filosofia v Rossii [Kant and Philosophy in Russia]. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 81-113. (In Rus.)

Beiser, F., 2013. Late German Idealism: Trendelenburg and Lotze. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Belov, V. N., Tetyuev, L. I., 2017. Book Review: Trendelenburg A. Elements of Aristotle’s Logic. Kantian Journal, 2(36), pp. 96-99. https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2017-2-8. (In Rus.)

Bird, G., 2006. The Neglected Alternative: Trendelenburg, Fischer, and Kant. In: G. Bird. ed., 2006. A Companion to Kant. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 486-499.

Demin, M. R., 2010. The Right to Kant: To the Dispute between Adolf Trendelenburg and Kuno Fischer. In: I. N. Grifcova and N. A. Dmitrieva, eds. 2010. Neokantianstvo nemeckoe i russkoe: mezhdu teoriej poznaniya i kritikoj kul’tury [German and Russian Neo-Kantianism: Between the Epistemology and the Criticism of Culture]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 66-84. (In Rus.)

Demin, M. R., 2017. “Outline of Logic”: Between School Discipline and University Science. Introductory Article. In: [F.] A. Trendelenburg. Elementy logiki Ari­stotelya [Outline of Logic]. Edited by M. R. Demin and N. A. Dmitrieva. Moscow: Kanon+, pp. 7-87. (In Rus.)

Dlugach, T. B., 2002, Problema bytiya v nemeckoj filosofii i sovremennost’ [The Problem of Being in German Philosophy and Modernity]. Moscow: RAS Institute of Philosophy. (In Rus.)

Dlugach, T. B., 2022. The Problem of Being: Kant and Heidegger. Kantian Journal, 41(3), pp. 42-75. https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2022-3-2.

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.)

Kabanova, M. L., 2006. Religioznaya metafizika V. D. Kudryavtceva-Platonova [Religious metaphysics by V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov]. Abstract of Dissertation. Blagoveshchensk: s. n. (In Rus.)

Kant, I., 2002. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science. In: H. Allison and P. Heath, eds., 2002. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-169.

Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kanterian, E., 2013. The Ideality of Space and Time: Trendelenburg versus Kant, Fischer and Bird. Kant­ian Review, 18(2), pp. 263-288. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415413000022.

Köhnke, K. C., 1991. The Rise of Neo-Kantianism: German Academic Philosophy between Idealism and Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Konovalova, E. N., 2010. Immanuel Kant and the Development of the Idea of Subjectivity in Russian Ecclesiastical-Academic Philosophy. Vestnik of Astrakhan State Technical University. 2(50), pp. 58-64. (In Rus.)

Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1854—1874. Analitika chuvstvennogo poznaniya. Analitika rassudochnogo poznaniya. Analitika umstvennogo poznaniya. Kurs lekcij 1854, 1856, 1874 gg. [The Analysis of Sensual Cognition. The Analysis of Rational Cognition. The Analysis of Mental Cognition. A Course of Lectures in 1854, 1856, 1874]. In: Russian State Library, Manuscript Department. F. 824, B. 4, № 3. (In Rus.)

Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1858. Iz istorii Novoj filosofii. Lekcii 1858 g. [From the History of the New Philosophy. Lectures of 1858]. In: Russian State Library, Manuscript Department. F. 823, B. 4, № 7. (In Rus.)

Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1905. Method of Philosophy. In: V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1905. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Volume 1, part 1. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 195-241. (In Rus.)

Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914a. On the Basic Principles of Philosophical Cognition. In: V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Vol­umes. Volume 1, part 2. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 1-66. (In Rus.)

Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914b. Metaphysical Analysis of Empirical Cognition. In: V. D. Kudryav­tsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Vol. 1, part 2. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 67-209. (In Rus.)

Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914c. Space and Time. In: V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Volume 1, part 2. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 210-310. (In Rus.)

Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914d. Metaphysical Analysis of Rational Cognition. In: V.D. Kudryav­tsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Volume 1, part 3. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 1-174. (In Rus.)

Reinhold, E., 1830. Handbuch der allgemeinen Geschichte der Philosophie für alle wissenschaftlich Gebildete. Volume 3, Part II/2. Gotha: In der Hennings’schen Buchhandlung.

Rozhin, D. O., 2021a. Critical Perception of V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov of the Doctrine on the Categories and Fundamentals of I. Kant’s Pure Reason. Philosophical Thought, 5, pp. 1-18. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2021.5.35346. (In Rus.)

Rozhin, D. O., 2021b. Reception and Criticism of I. Kant’s Theory of Space and Time in the Philo­sophy of V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov. Philosophical Thought, 6, pp. 42-53. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2021.6.35381. (In Rus.)

Rozhin, D. O., 2021c. Reception of Kant’s Epistemological Ideas in Fyodor Golubinsky’s Metaphysics. Kantian Journal, 40(1), pp. 97-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2021-1-3.

Soboleva, M. E., 2017. Analytical Kant Studies, Transcendental Idealism, and the Thing in Itself. Kantian Journal, 36(4), pp. 88-99. https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2017-4-6. (In Rus.)

Specht, A., 2014. F. A. Trendelenburg and the Neglected Alternative. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 22(3), pp. 514-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2014.928260.

Trendelenburg, F. A., 1840. Logische Untersuchungen. Volume 1. Berlin: bei Gustav Bethge.

Trendelenburg, F. A., 1862a. Logische Untersuchungen. Second Edition. Volume 1. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.

Trendelenburg, F. A., 1862b. Logische Untersuchungen. Second Edition. Volume 2. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.

Trendelenburg, F. A., 1867. Ueber eine Lücke in Kants Beweis von der ausschliessenden Subjectivität des Raumes und der Zeit. In: F. A. Trendelenburg, 1867. Historische Beiträge zur Philosophie. Volume 3. Berlin: G. Bethge, pp. 215-276.

Trendelenburg, F. A., 1870. Logische Untersuchungen. Third Edition. Volume 1. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.

Trendelenburg, [F.] A., 2017. Elementy logiki Aristotelya [Outline of Logic]. Translated by B. A. Fogt and A. G. Vashestov, edited by M. R. Demin and N. A. Dmitrieva. Moscow: Kanon+. (In Rus.)

Troitsky, E., ed. 1890. Sistematicheskij katalog knig biblioteki Moskovskoj duhovnoj akademii [Systematic Catalog of Books in the Library of the Moscow Theological Academy]. Volume 3, part 6. Moscow: Tip. M. G. Volchaninova. (In Rus.)

Tsvyk, I. V., 1995. Religiozno-filosofskaya sistema V. D. Kudryavtseva-Platonova [The Religious and Philosophical System of V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov]. Abstract of Dissertation. Moscow: s. n. (In Rus.)

Vvedensky, Aleksey I., 1905. On the Nature, Content and Significance of the Philosophy of V. D. Kudryav­tsev-Platonov. In: Kudryavtsev-Platonov V. D. Sochineniya v 3 tomakh [Works in 3 Volumes]. Volume 1, part 1. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 57-125 (In Rus.)

Zenkovsky, V. V., 2001. Istoriya russkoj filosofii [The History of Russian Philosophy]. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt, Raritet. (In Rus.)