Current issue

In his book Appearance and Sense Gustav Shpet, comparing Immanuel Kant’s transcendental logic with the traditional probleтs of the philosophy of language, thought it appropriate and conceptually effective to turn to the medieval scholastic debate on universals. Later, in the Hermeneutics and Its Problems, he goes back to this discussion and notes that it was the framework in which the thirteenth-century tradition of “terminist” logic was formed. Shpet attributed the fruitfulness of this approach to his concept of the inner form of the word. Terminist logic is based on the definition and analysis of such terms as significatio, suppositio, expositio, exponibilia, and Shpet, in examining them, demonstrates the consonance of his concept with terminist logic. Proceeding from thirteenth-century logical studies, he proposes his own approach to resolving the contradictions found in Kant’s critical philosophy. Shpet believed that transcendental idealism failed to resolve the problem of the relation between intuition and concept (even though Kantian “schematism” was a search for such resolution). This inherent Kantian problem is for Shpet a take-off point to which he kept returning throughout his career. I will pay particular attention to such works as Appearance and Sense, in which Shpet broadens the problematics of Husserl’s phenomenology, and The Inner Form of the Word, in which he reinterprets Humboldt’s philosophy of language. In both cases Shpet shows that neither Husserl nor Humboldt managed to overcome the Kantian contradiction. So the reference to Kant is a starting point from which Shpet proceeds to put forward and consolidate his hypotheses. It is in thirteenth-century terminist logic that Shpet will see an original way of overcoming the Kantian contradiction and direct us toward interpreting the problems of the philosophy of language.

The article examines the interpretation of the teaching of Wilhelm von Humboldt on language by Gustav Shpet together with Shpet’s perception of the influence of Kant’s philosophy on Humboldt. Special emphasis is laid on terminological analysis, the underlying thesis of this analysis being that words, terms and concepts are not the same thing: one and the same word or word combination can denote different terms, and the concept is a term in each particular doctrine. The object of critical analysis is the function of Humboldt’s term “inner form of language” and the way this term was transformed, according to Shpet, into “the concept of inner form” over time by various thinkers — Plato, Plotinus, Goethe, Humboldt and others. The difference is analysed between the terms which Humboldt, Shpet and Kant denoted by the same word “concept”. Shpet’s position on the issue of Kant’s influence on Humboldt is analysed, notably in terms of the “schematism of the pure concepts of understanding”. Steinthal’s opinion on this issue allows us to raise the hermeneutic question of what kind of Kant a particular researcher is dealing with at a particular time — from the beginning of the nineteenth century until our days. The author notes the peremptory character of some of Shpet’s claims as well as his description of Kant’s influence on Humboldt as suggestion. The author also considers Shpet’s critique of subjectivism, which robs subjectivism of creativity and confines it to the capacity to convey what has been understood and to err. Finally, Shpet’s methodology (the question of identity and difference) and the role of terminology in his own works is considered. The positing of identity as the starting point of method accords with Shpet’s conviction that terms have meaning and explanatory power. Contrary to Shpet, it is difference that is the initial experience and the key term in phenomenological and post-phenomenological philosophy.

This paper examines two models of language philosophy. The first is the Kantian philosophy which sees language as an instrument of conveying mental content. I have selected Immanuel Kant and Edmund Husserl from amongst its numerous representatives. In this tradition, a language expression, i.e. an expression that has meaning, is determined by the objectively ideal character of the meanings (“rules”) given through the subject’s intellectual acts. The main task is to fix with a maximum degree of accuracy what is “seen” in consciousness. This model inevitably considers words to be “markers” or “labels” which have no intrinsic power. The problem with this approach is, first, that it is impossible to determine the criteria by which this or that word should be considered adequate. Second, this approach leads to the creation of ever new philosophical languages which simultaneously challenge the tradition and yet claim to be a renewed version of it. It is shown that the fairly systematic critique of the Kant­ian approach by Johann Georg Hamann and Johann Gottfried Herder falls short of proposing an alternative philosophical system because, having a religious foundation, it does not offer a complete grounding of knowledge. In the wide range of anti-Kantian positions on the nature of language Gustav Shpet’s concept of language is singled out. It pursues the same task of creating a universal system of knowledge as Husserl’s phenomenology, but it proceeds from fundamentally different notions of philosophical knowledge. Unlike Husserl, whose thought is marked by revolutionary radicalism, for Shpet ideal knowledge is “positive”, “concrete”, “full” and “dynamic”. He considers philosophising to be dialectical and inherently dialogic. The result of philosophy meeting these ideals is the concept that our knowledge is centred on language and our experience has a sign-verbal character.

The Kantian legacy has had a key impact on the landscape of theoretical philosophy in the first half of the twentieth century. Philosophers both in Germany and in Russia saw Immanuel Kant’s ideas as seminal for their philosophical research. The main schools of that era were formed in discussions of the problems and the solutions which were proposed by Kant. The methodological legacy of the critical philosophy effectively became the main benchmark of the thinking of a whole generation of intellectuals. Research into the unity of “form” in the structure of human cognition was also in many ways mediated by the Kantian tradition. To prove this thesis I first look at the philosophy of Gustav Shpet who creatively interpreted the German tradition and proposed an original project of his own, and then I examine the theory of Ernst Cassirer, an outstanding representative of Neo-Kantianism who in the later period of his work proposed considering the phenomena of the humanities to be symbolic forms closest to the spontaneity of the biological. The common feature of the approaches of the two philosophers is their attempt to preserve the integrity of cognition which is destroyed by mathematisation of the common denominator (ultimate categorisation) and hierarchisation of the phenomena of human life. The alternative is the metaphor of mutational change, through which the concept of “form” acquires a new meaning. In conclusion I show that the analysis of the projects of Shpet and Cassirer has heuristic value for the historical-philosophical understanding of the fate of the Kantian philosophy and for modern philosophical culture.

The archive of Gustav Shpet contains scattered preparatory materials for his works. Some of these handwritten rough drafts are devoted to Immanuel Kant. These jottings enable us to take a new look at possible trajectories of philosophical anthropology. The main goal of this article is to show, on the one hand, the modern relevance of Kant’s reflections on the essence of the human being and, on the other hand, the productiveness of their critical reinterpretation by Shpet. In effect, Kant’s reflections give us an insight into the sources of the current anthropological crisis when “the free man”, capable of creating himself, has finally detached himself from his nature (i.e. accomplished what Kant believed to be the foundation of anthropology). Shpet’s critique enables us to outline the contours of a positive way out of today’s critical situation. To implement this task, the authors carry out a historical-philosophical analysis of Shpet’s treatment of the question of philosophical anthropology. This is a new approach both for Shpet scholarship and for the Russian philosophical tradition, an approach that opens up a new path to overcome the crisis and, what is more, a path that is ecologically significant. This gives us all the more reason to try to find the critical points of anthropologism (easy enough if we turn to Shpet’s article “The Anthropologism of Lavrov in Light of the History of Philosophy”). It also encourages us to reinterpret in an anthropological context Shpet’s reflections on the human being and humanness (see the article “Wisdom or Reason?”). The Supplement contains the first ever publication of a historical document, a letter Shpet received from the German embassy in 1924, inviting him to Königsberg for the celebration of the 200th anniversary of Kant’s birth and a programm of the event with the names of speakers and the topics of their presentations.