NONE20260606181833728Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370106062026442Проблема единства опыта: трансцендентальный ракурсA. A.MedovaReshetnev Siberian State University of Science and TechnologyKrasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V. P. Astafyevhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0637-6741This article is devoted to the problem of the possibility of experience in transcendental idealism. In its classical formulation by Kant, the problem pertains to the correlation between a priori structures of reason and reality. I approach the question of the conditions of the possibility of experience in an alternative way, i.e. as a question about the conditions of its unity, while remaining within the framework of transcendental idealism. The purport of this investigation is to demonstrate how the problem of the unity of experience permeates the problem of the transcendental conditions of its possibility. Proceeding from Kant’s correspondence, the Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, and some modern conceptions of consciousness, I reconstruct the transcendental model of experience in terms of the conditions of its coherence. This model includes the systematic unity of the properties of objects, which is the flip side of the rational unity of cognizing reason. Important conditions of the unity of experiential data are their connectedness due to the homogeneity of time and space (non-empirical intuition), and the organizing work of the a priori forms of sensing, which creates the sequence and coordination of phenomena. The activity of transcendental schemes is described as a more complex, synthetic condition of the unity of experience; as modified forms of spatio-temporal representation, they mediate categories and phenomena, being “homogeneous” with both. At the top of the activity of reason is the most problematic level of the unity of experience, on which intuitions are ordered in accordance with a priori categories. The following conditions of the homogeneity of experience are assessed as being original and going beyond the epistemological problematics: 1) the homogeneity of the consciousness of external things and self-consciousness, and 2) the unity of experience created by the end-goals of the pure application of reason. In conclusion, I examine Kant’s hypothesis that the transcendental affinity of phenomena creates the homogeneity of mental acts, and that objective reality is the key and most telling prerequisite of the homogeneity of experience.0606202673510.5922/0207-6918-2025-2-1https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15923/87408/Agafonov, A. Yu., 2003. Osnovy smyslovoj teorii soznaniya [The Fundamentals of the Semantic Theory of Consciousness]. Saint Petersburg: Rech’. (In Rus.)Allais, L., 2015. Manifest Reality: Kant’s Idealism and his Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Aristotle, 1933. The Metaphysics. Books I-IX. With an English Translation by H. Tredennik. London: William Heinemann LTD; New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.Boer K. de, 2010. Pure Reason’s Enlightenment: Transcendental Reflection in Kant’s first Critique. Kant Yearbook, 2, pр. 53-73. https://doi.org/10.1515/kantyb-2010-020103Brook, A., 1994. Kant and the Mind. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Brook A. and Wuerth J., 2023. Kant’s View of the Mind and Consciousness of Self. In: E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman, eds. 2023. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 Edition). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/kant-mind/ [Accessed 11 December 2024].Catren, G., 2018. A Plea for Narcissus: On the Transcendental Reflexion ^ Refraction Mediation Tandem. In: F. Gironi, ed. 2018. The Legacy of Kant in Sellars and Meillassoux. Analytic and Continental Kantianism. New York: Routledge, pp. 155-170.Cohen, J., 2018. A Speculating the Real: On Quentin Meillassoux’s Philosophical Realism. In: F. Gironi, ed., 2018. The Legacy of Kant in Sellars and Meillassoux. Analytic and Continental Kantianism. New York: Routledge, pр. 171-178.Einstein, A., 1936. Physics and Reality. The Journal of the Franklin Institute, 221, pp. 349-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-0032(36)91047-5Hanna, R., 2001. Kant and the Foundations of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Husserl, E., 1989. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: Second Book, Studies in the Phenomenology of Constitution. Translated by R. Rojcewicz and A. Schuwer. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 1999. Correspondence. Translated and edited by A. Zweig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2001. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science, with Kant’s letter to Marcus Herz, February 27, 1772. The P. Carus translation extensively revised by J. W. Ellington. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett.Katrechko, S. N., 2022. Kantian Cognitive Model of the Mind. In: S. N. Katrechko, ed. 2022. Transcendental Turn in modern Philosophy — 7. Epistemology, Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings of the International Workshop. Moscow, April 21-23, 2022. Moscow: RGGU, pp. 15-19. (In Rus.)Mamardashvili, M. K., 1992. Phenomenology — A Concomitant Feature of All Philosophy. In: M. K. Mamardashvili, 1992. Kak ya ponimaiu filosofiyu [How I Understand Philosophy]. Moscow: Progress-Kul’tura, pp. 100-106. (In Rus.)Manoussakis, J. P., 2019. Sacred Addictions: On the Phenomenology of Religious Experience. Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 33(1), рр. 41-55.Mazijk, C. van, 2020. Perception and Reality in Kant, Husserl, and McDowell. New York: Routledge.Medova, А. А., 2018. On the Question of the Transcendental Correlation of Mind and Reality: An Ontological Perspective. In: S. N. Katrechko, ed. 2018. Transcendental Turn in modern Philosophy — 3. Nature (Specificity) of Transcendental Philosophy. Proceedings of the International Workshop. Moscow, April 21—23, 2018. Moscow: Fond CGI; SHAU-Press, pp. 52-54. (In Rus.)Meillassoux, Q., 2008. After Finitude. An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. London; New York: Continuum.Paton, H. J., 1936. Kant’s Metaphysic of Experience. A Commentary on the First Half of the Kritik der reinen Vernunft, in Two Volumes. Volume 2. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Soboleva, M. E., 2017. Analytical Kant Studies, Transcendental Idealism, and the Thing in Itself. Kantian Journal, 36(4), pp. 88-99.Strawson, P. F., 1966. The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London & New York: Routledge.Van Cleve, J., 1999. Problems from Kant. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Ypi, L., 2021. The Architectonic of Reason: Purposiveness and Systematic Unity in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Whitehead, A. N., 1961. Adventures of Ideas. New York: The Free Press.«Система трансцендентального идеализма» Ф. В. Й. Шеллинга: кантовский трансцендентальный идеал в исторической перспективе «одиссеи духа»A. V.PerepletkinHSE Universityhttps://orcid.org/0009-0002-2699-9927In this article I propose a reconstruction of the link between the concept of the system of philosophy as “the history of self-consciousness” put forward by Schelling in the treatise The System of Transcendental Idealism (1800), and one of the key elements of the Kantian critical philosophy, the teaching on the transcendental ideal. Differentiating three meanings of the term “history” in The System, I concentrate on the broadest of these meanings which describes the system as a whole and is expressed by the topos “odyssey of the spirit”. Based on Petr Rezvykh’s hypothesis on the formative significance of this teaching for the early period of Schelling’s work I interpret Schelling’s dialectics of the ideal and the real, the subjective and objective in self-consciousness as a reworking of Kant’s antithesis of the transcendental assertion and transcendental negation. I argue that Schelling’s main method seeks to turn the Kantian critical order of presentation (from the conditioned to conditions) into a systematic one (from the unconditional to the conditioned). I show that the concept of intellectual intuition developed in The System is based on Kant’s distinction of two aspects of the transcendental ideal (the matter of determination and the ground of determination). In conclusion, using the example of the beginning of the ‘first epoch’ of the theoretical part of The System which explores the sensation and its link with the thing-in-itself, I explain how the dialectic of the boundary modeled by Schelling grounds the historicity of self-consciousness and raise the question of the possibility of grounding various strategies of understanding historicity of consciousness on the basis of Schelling’s premises.06062026366010.5922/0207-6918-2025-2-2https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15925/87410/Baumgartner, H. M., 1993. Der spekulative Ansatz in Schellings System des transzendentalen Idealismus. In: W. Jaeschke, ed. 1993. Transzendentalphilosophie und Spekulation. Der Streit um die gestalt einer Ersten Philosophie (1799—1807). Hamburg: Meiner, pp. 127-143.Bernstein, J., 2004. Philosophy of History as the History of Philosophy in Schelling’s System of Transcendental Idealism. Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy, 8(2), pp. 233-254.Bowie, A., 1993. Schelling and Modern European Philosophy: An Introduction. London: Routledge.Estes, Y., 2010. Intellectual Intuition: Reconsidering Сontinuity in Kant, Fichte, and Schelling. In: D. Breazeale and T. Rockmore, eds. 2010. Fichte, German Idealism, and Early Romanticism. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 165-178.Gulyga, A. V., 1981. Kant and Schelling’s “System of Transcendental Idealism”. Kantian Journal, 1(6), pp. 78-86. (In Rus.)Gulyga, A. V., 1987. Schelling’s Philosophical Legacy. In: F. W. J. Schelling, 1987. Sochineniya v 2 tomakh [Works in 2 Volumes]. Volume 1. Moscow: Mysl’, pp. 3-38. (In Rus.)Hegel, G. W. F., 1977. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by A.V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Jähnig, D., 1966. Schelling. Die Kunst in der Philosophie. Band 1. Pfullingen: Neske.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Linkov, E. S., 1973. Dialektika sub’ekta i ob’ekta v filosofii Schellinga [The Dialectic of Subject and Object in Schelling’s Philosophy]. Leningrad: LGU (In Rus.)Marx, W., 1984. The Philosophy of F. W. J. Schelling. History, System, and Freedom. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Patkul, A. B., 2021. Schelling’s Criticism of Ontological Argument and Interpretation of Kant’s Doctrine of the Ideal of Reason. Kantian Journal, 40(3), pp. 28-62.Rezvykh, P. V., 2003. The Late Schelling and Kant. History of Philosophy Yearbook, 17, pp. 280-303. (In Rus.)Rezvykh, P. V., 2005. The Earlier Schelling and Kant: The Search for the Unconditional. History of Philosophy Yearbook, 19, pp. 250-278. (In Rus.)Rezvykh, P. V., 2009. Genetization of the Transcendental Ideal in F. W. J. Schelling’s “System of Transcendental Idealism”. In: M. A. Solopova and M. F. Bykova, eds. 2009. Sushchnost’ i slovo: sbornik nauchnykh statei k yubileyu professora N. V. Motroshilovoi [Essence and Word. Collection of Scientific Articles for the Anniversary of Professor N.V. Motroshilova]. Moscow: Fenomenologiya — Germenevtika, pp. 377-401. (In Rus.)Schelling, F. W. J., 1980. Vom Ich als Princip der Philosophie. In: F. W. J. Schelling, 1980. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe. Reihe I: Werke. Band 2, Teilband 1. Edited by H. Buchner und J. Jantzen. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, pp. 67-176.Schelling, F. W. J., 1980. The Unconditional in Human Knowledge. Four Early Essays, 1794-1796. Translation and Commentary by F. Marti. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.Schelling, F. W. J., 1988. Allgemeine Übersicht der neuesten philosophischen Literatur. In: F. W. J. Schelling, 1988. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe. Reihe I: Werke. Band 4. Edited by H. M. Baumgartner, W. Jacobs and W. Schieche. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, pp. 57-190.Schelling, F. W. J., 1994. On the History of Modern Philosophy. Translated by A. Bowie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Schelling, F. W. J., 2001. System of Transcendental Idealism (1800). Translated by P. Heath. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Schelling, F. W. J., 2005. System des transzendentalen Idealismus. In: F. W. J. Schelling, 2005. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe. Reihe I: Werke. Band 9, Teilband 1. Edited by H. Korten and P. Ziche, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, pp. 23-334.Schelling, F. W. J., 2021. Philosophie und Religion. In: F. W. J. Schelling, 2021. Historisch-kritische Ausgabe. Reihe I: Werke. Band 14. Edited by P. Leistner and A. Schulbach. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, pp. 273-325.Spinoza, B., 2002. The Letters. In: B. Spinoza, 2002. Complete Works. Translated by S. Shirley. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, pp. 755-959.Zachhuber, J., 2019. F. W. J. Schelling and the Rise of Historical Theology. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 80(1-2), pp. 23-38.Критика Г. Г. Шпетом «истории» у И. КантаA. NKrouglovhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1152-1309In his 1916 book, History as a Problem of Logic, Gustav Shpet undertakes the task of reconstructing the whole Kantian conception of history, previously scattered in various articles and minor works of the critical period. He builds the reconstruction around Kant’s Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective, with a focus on the a priori ‘thread’ in history and not empirical history. Shpet’s general assessment of Kant’s contribution to the development of historical science is sharply negative: Kantianism is hostile to historicity, and it hinders the development of history as a science. An undeniable merit of Shpet’s investigation is that he demonstrates the historical context of Kant’s views — to which end he brings in the works of Christian Wolff, Christian August Crusius, Georg Friedrich Meier, Johann Gottfried Herder, and other European thinkers — analysing, as well, the Kantian concept of mankind (Menschheit). But Shpet does not clearly distinguish Kant’s conception of history as an historical process (Geschichte), and historical science. Further, he pays insufficient attention to Kant’s ethical treatises in clarifying his views on history and its goals.06062026617510.5922/0207-6918-2025-2-3https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15925/87411/Chaly, V.A., 2021. Kantʼs Menschheit and Its Interpretations. Con-Textos Kantianos — International Journal of Philosophy, 14, pp. 327-343. https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.5776039Drews, P., 1990. Herder und die Slawen. Materialien zur Wirkungsgeschichte bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. München: Sagner.Ern, V.F., 1912. Critique of Kantʼs Concept of Truth. In: Filosofskij sbornik: Lʼvu Mihajlovichu Lopatinu k 30-letiyu nauchno-pedagogicheskoj deyatel’nosti ot Mosk. psihol. o-va, 1881—1911 [Philosophical Collection: To Lev Mikhailovich Lopatin on the 30th Anniversary of His Scientific and Pedagogical Activity from the Moscow Psychological Society, 1881—1911]. Moscow: I.N. Kushnerev, pp. 49-61 (In Rus.)Foucault, M., 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.Foucault, M., 1994. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.Gulyga, A.V., 1963. Gerder [Herder]. Moscow: Socekgiz. (In Rus.)Herder, J.G., 2024. Ideas for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind. Edited and translated by G.M. Moore. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.Hinske, N., 1998. Zwischen Aufklärung und Vernunftkritik: Studien zum Kantschen Logikcorpus. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Hübner, K., 1985. Die Wahrheit des Mythos. München: Beck.Hübner, K., 2002. Kritik der wissenschaftlichen Vernunft. Fourth Edition. Freiburg im Breisgau, München: Alber.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2004. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics that Will be Able to Come forward as Science. In: I. Kant, 2004. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Translated by G. Hatfield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 29-170.Kant, I., 2006. Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective. In: I. Kant, 2006. Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. Edited and with an introduction by P. Kleingeld; translated by D.L. Colclasure. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp. 3-16.Kant, I., 2023. Fizicheskaya geografiya. 1 chastʼ [Physical Geography. Part 1]. Translated by S. B. Kolbaneva and A. P. Portnyagin; edited by A. V. Levchenkov, L.V . Zubina, L. A. Gimbickaya and A. V. Sivkova. Kaliningrad: FGBUK “Muzej-zapovednik ‘Muzej Mirovogo okeana’”. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A. N. 2025. Kant and Hegel: Natural Law or Philosophy of Law? Filosofskii zhurnal | Philosophy Journal, 18(3), pp. 40-56. https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2025-18-3-40-56 (In Rus.)Menzer, P., 1911. Kants Lehre von der Entwicklung in Natur und Geschichte. Berlin: Georg Reimer.Mikeshina, L. A., 2018. Gustav Shpet as a Methodologist of Historical Knowledge. Humanities research in the Russian Far East, 3, pp. 128-137. https://dx.doi.org/10.24866/1997-2857/2018-3/128-137 (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2014. Istoriya kak problema logiki. Kriticheskie i metodologicheskie issledovaniya [History as a Problem of Logic. Critical and Methodological Studies]. Edited by T.G. Shchedrina. Moscow & Saint Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga.Solovʼev, E. Yu., 2005. Kategoricheskij imperativ nravstvennosti i prava [The Categorical Imperative of Morality and Law]. Moscow: Progress-Tradiciya. (In Rus.)Wolff, Ch., 1740. Philosophia rationalis sive logica, methodo scientifica pertractata et ad usum scientiarum atque vitae aptata. Praemittitur discursus praeliminaris de philosophia in genere. Editio tertia emendatior. Frankfurt: Renger.Коперниканский переворот 2.0: Мейясу vs КантA. S.EmelyanovKursk State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-1455-3437This article examines the essence of the Copernican turn accomplished by the modern French philosopher Quentin Meillassoux, a representative of speculative realism, in his work After Finitude. I use as a starting point the classical definition of the Copernican turn given by Kant in the second introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason. I then compare this definition with the “new” interpretation offered by the French philosopher. According to Meillassoux, Kant and the following philosophical tradition (Neo-Kantianism and phenomenology) misinterpreted the true role of the Copernican discovery in the new European science in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and turned the objective world into a correlate of consciousness. I subject this assessment of Kant’s philosophy to critical analysis. I compare two points of view — that of Kant and of Meillassoux — on the essence of the Copernican turn and demonstrate the limited character of the latter in comparison with the former. I come to the conclusion that Meillassoux’s critique of the substance of the Copernican turn, as well as his labelling of it as “Ptolemaism” is not only unjustified, but is in many ways in stark contradiction with the real content of the new European science. Proceeding from the Critique of Pure Reason I examine the main postulates of Meillassoux’s anti-correlationist programme, in particular, the problematic character of diachronic judgments as well as decentring and desubjectivation of thinking. In conclusion I note that although Meillassoux’s pro­ject in a number of ways repeats the main intentions of post-structuralism, the call of the speculative philosophy “back to Hume and pre-critical metaphysics” is in a way an answer to the crisis in which post-critical philosophy finds itself today.060620267610010.5922/0207-6918-2025-2-4https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15925/87413/Bruno, G. А., 2017. The Empirical Realism and the Great Outdoors: A Critique of Meillassoux. In: M. -E. Morin, 2017. Continental Realism and its Discontents. New Perspectives in Ontology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 21-37.Cohen, J., 2017. Speculating the Real: On Quentin Meillassoux’s Philosophical Realism. In: F. Gironi, ed., 2017. The Legasy of Kant in Sellars and Meillassoux. Analytic and Continental Kantianism. New York: Routledge, pp. 171-179.Dalton, D. M., 2016. On the Possibility of Speculative Ethical Absolutes after Kant. Angelaki, 21(4), pp. 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/09.69725X2016.1229447.Golumbia, D., 2016. “Correlationism”: The Dogma That Never Was. Boundary 2, 43(2), pp. 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1215/01903659-3469889.Hegel, G. W. F., 2010. The Science of Logic. Edited by G. di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Husserl, E., 2006. Kopernikanische Umwendung der Kopernikanischen Umwendung. In: J. Dünne and S. Günzel, eds. 2006. Raumtheorie. Grundlagentexte aus Philosophie und Kulturwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 153-165.Kant, I., 1992. The Vienna Logic. In: I. Kant, 1992. Lectures on Logic. Edited by J. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 249-378.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2012. Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens. In: I. Kant, 2012. Natural Science. Edited by E. Watkins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182-308.Katrechko, S. L., 2022. Kant’s Copernican Revolution as an Altered Method of Thinking [in Metaphysics]: Its Structure and Status in the System of Transcendental Philosophy. Studies in Transcendental Philosophy, 3(1-2). https://doi.org/10.18254/S271326680020991-0. (In Rus.)Khamis, D., 2013. Correlationist Sterility. Logos, 92(2), pp. 113-127. (In Rus.)Lyubutin, K. N., 1980. Kant’s Philosophy: The Problem of the Transcendental Subject. Kantian Journal, 5, pp. 3-18.Maimon, S., 2010. Essay on Transcendental Philosophy. Translated by N. Midgley, H. Somers-Hall, A. Welchman and M. Reglitz, introduction by N. Midgley, note by A. Welchman. London & New York: Continuum.Malabou, C., 2014. Can We Relinquish the Transcendental? The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 28(3), pp. 242-255.Meillassoux, Q., 2008. After Finitude. An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency. Translated by R. Brassier. London: Continuum.O’Shea, J. S., 2017. After Kant, Sellars, and Meillassoux: Back to Empirical Realism? In: F. Gironi, ed. 2017. Legacy of Kant in Sellars and Meillassoux: Analytic and Continental Kantianism. New York: Routledge, pp. 21-40.Robin, E. Y., 2021. Kant Walls Meillassoux: Finitude and Correlationism. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 38(2), pp. 197-211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-021-00244-8.Schäferling, K., 2022. Meillassoux’s Reinterpretation of Kant’s Transcendental Dialectic. Open Philosophy, 5(1), pp. 702-717. https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2022-0224.Schopenhauer, A., 2010. Critique of the Kantian Philosophy. In: A. Schopenhauer, 2010. The World as Will and Representation, Volume 1. Translated and edited by J. Norman, A. Welchman and Ch. Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 441-565.Stoliarova, O. E., 2019. Kant’s Copernican Revolution as an Object of Philosophical Retrospection. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 56(4), pp. 219-236. https://doi.org/10.5840/eps201956477. (In Rus.)Torubarova, T. V., 2012. Science as mathesis universalis. European Social Science Journal, 1, pp. 22-26.Toscano, A., 2010. Against Speculation, or, A Critique of the Critique of Critique: A Remark on Quentin Meillassoux’s After Finitude (After Colletti). In: L. Bryant, N. Srnicek and G. Harman, eds. 2010. The Speculative Turn: Continental Materialism and Realism. Melbourne: re.press, pp. 84-91.Tritten, T., 2016. Against Kant: Toward an Inverted Transcendentalism or a Philosophy of the Doctrinal. Angelaki, 21(4), pp.143-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2016.1229444.Wiltsche, H. A., 2017. Science, Realism and Correlationism. A Phenomenological Critique of Meillassoux Argument from Ancestrality. European Journal of Philosophy, 25(3), pp. 808-832. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12159.Zahavi, D., 2016. The End of What? Phenomenology vs. Speculative Realism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 24(3), pp. 289-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2016.1175101.Идеи Фихте в философских учениях русских неокантианцевL. Yu.KornilaevLomonosov Moscow State UniversityImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (IKBFU)https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4520-3218Fichte’s doctrine played a significant role in the emergence of Neo-Kantian philosophical projects both in Germany and in Russia. This paper proceeds from the works of Boris Vysheslavtsev, Boris Yakovenko and Henry Lanz and tries to reconstruct the influences exerted by Fichte’s ideas on the philosophical ideas of Russian Neo-Kantians. The historical-philosophical works of Russian Neo-Kantians constitute an integral body which provides an interpretative context of Fichte’s philosophy and forms an inalienable and significant part of Fichte studies in Russia. The main tendency of these works is an attempt to bring Fichte’s doctrine closer to Russian philosophy, to represent his philosophical system in its entirety without dividing it into autonomous periods, drawing attention to the ethical character of his philosophy and stressing the German philosopher’s contribution to the study of the problem of the irrational. The works of Russian Neo-Kantians are characterised by particular attention to Fichte’s ideal-realist ideas, his logicistic approach to absolute being, the attempt to overcome the contradiction between absolute unity and the concrete manifold. Fichte’s idea of the primacy of practical reason, which shaped the image of Fichtean philosophy in Gertman Neo-Kantianism, was taken up and developed in an original way by Russian Neo-Kantians. Vysheslavtsev made a consistent attempt to derive law, the state and economics from the ethical content of epistemology, “the science of knowledge”; Yakovenko suggested interpreting “the science of knowledge” as a teaching on life and freedom, as the philosophical grounding of the Christian idea; Lanz wrote about Fichte’s philosophy in the same vein as “the revolt of morality against theory”, as a philosophy of freedom.0606202610112610.5922/0207-6918-2025-2-5https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15927/87415/Abaschnik, V.A., 2013. Patriot oder Nationalist? Rezeption von Fichtes Reden an die deutsche Nation in Russland und der Ukraine. Fichte-Studien, 38(1), pp. 231-247. https://doi.org/10.1163/18795811_03801015Dmitrieva, N. A., 2007. Russkoe neokantianstvo: “Marburg” v Rossii. Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki [Russian Neo-Kantianism: “Marburg” in Russia. Historical and Philosophical Essays]. Moscow: Rossiiskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN).Dmitrieva, N. A. and Popova, O. A., 2008. Lanz Henrich Ernestovich. In: Moskovskaya entsiklopediya [Moscow Encyclopedia], 2008. Volume 1, Book 2. Moscow: Fond “Moskovskie entsiklopedii”, p. 383.Ermichev, A. A., 2000. On the Neo-Kantian B. V. Yakovenko and His Place in Russian Philosophy. Introductory article. In: B. V. Yakovenko, 2000. Moshch’ filosofii [Power of Philosophy]. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 5-42. (In Rus.)Ermichev, A. A., 2004. Boris Valentinovich Yakovenko — Russian Researcher of J. G. Fichte’s Philosophy. In: B. V. Yakovenko, 2004. Zhizn’ i filosofiya Ioganna Gotliba Fikhte [The Life and Philosophy of Johann Gottlieb Fichte]. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 5-34. (In Rus.)Ermichev, A. A., 2012. Life and Philosophy of Boris Valentinovich Yakovenko. In: A. A. Ermichev, ed. 2012. Boris Valentinovich Yakovenko. Moscow: Rossiiskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN), pp. 71-122. (In Rus.)Fichte, J. G., 1982. Introduction to the Science of Knowledge. In: J. G. Fichte, 1982. Science of Knowledge. Edited and translated by P. Heath and J. Lachs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-28.Fichte, J. G., 2005. The Science of Knowing: J. G. Fichte’s 1804 Lectures on the Wissenschaftslehre. Translated by W.E. Wright. Albany, N. Y.: State University of New York Press.Fichte, J. G., 2021. Foundation of the entire Wissenschaftslehre. In: J. 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.Ivanenko, A. A., 2013. Das Problem der veränderten Lehre in der russischen Fichte-Forschung. Fichte-Studien, 38(1), pp. 249-256. https://doi.org/10.5840/fichte20133815Kornilaev, L. Yu., 2022. The Image of Fichte’s Philosophy in German Neo-Kantianism. Kantian Journal, 41(4), pp. 76-93.Krotkow, W., 2013. Fichtes Einfluss auf die Konzeption des absoluten Realismus von S. L. Frank (philosophisch-politischer Blick). Fichte-Studien, 38(1), pp. 271-275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18795811_03801019Lanz, H., 1912. Das Problem der Gegenständlichkeit in der modernen Logik. Berlin: Reuter & Reichard, 1912.Lanz, H., 1913. Fichte und der transzendentale Wahrheitsbegriff. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 26(1), Neue Folge, 19(1), pp. 1-25.Lanz, H., 1914a. Being and Knowledge in Fichte’s Philosophy. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii [Issues of Philosophy and Psychology], 122, pp. 227-282. (In Rus.)Lanz, H., 1914b. Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii [Issues of Philosophy and Psychology], 122, pp. 65-119. (In Rus.)Lanz, H., 1914c. In Memory of Fichte. Russkaya mysl’ [Russian Thought], 6, pp. 42-51. (In Rus.)Lanz, H., 1914d. Freedom and Consciousness: (On the Centenary of the Death of J. G. Fichte). Logos, 1(1), pp. 1-23. (In Rus.)Lanz, H., 1926. The Irrationality of Reasoning. The Philosophical Review, 35(4), pp. 340-359.Lanz, H., 1941. In Quest of Morals. Stanford: Stanford University Press; London: Oxford University Press.Lazarev, V. V., 2000. On the Ethical Comprehension of Fichte’s Philosophy in Russia in the Late 19th and early 20th Centuries. In: V. F. Pustarnakov, 2000. Filosofiya Fikhte v Rossii [Fichte’s Philosophy in Russia]. Saint-Petesburg: RKhGI Press, pp. 258-336. (In Rus.)Lazarev, V. V., 2006. Eticheskaya mysl’ v Germanii i Rossii. Osmyslenie fikhteanstva russkimi filosofami kontsa XIX — nachala XX v. [Ethical Thought in Germany and Russia. Comprehension of Fichteanism by Russian Philosophers of the Late 19th and early 20th Centuries]. Moscow: IF RAN. (In Rus.)Lomonosov, A. G., 2012. Actualization of J. G. Fichte’s Transcendental Idealism in the Work of B. V. Yakovenko. In: A. A. Ermichev, 2012. Boris Valentinovich Yakovenko. Moscow: Rossiiskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN), pp. 260-287. (In Rus.)Stolzenberg, J., 2010. Right and Moral. Paul Natorp and Boris Vysheslavtsev’s Interpretation of Kant and Fichte. In: I. N. Griftsova and N. A. Dmitrieva, eds. 2010. Neokantianstvo nemetskoe i russkoe: mezhdu teoriei poznaniya i kritikoi kul’tury [German and Russian Neo-Kantianism: Between Theory of Cognition and Critique of Culture]. Moscow: Rossiiskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN), pp. 317-327. (In Rus.)Stolzenberg, J., 2024. Recht und Moral. Kant und Fichte im Neukantianismus: Paul Natorp und Boris Wischeslavzeff. Fichte-Studien, 53(2), pp. 395-408. https://doi.org/10.1163/18795811-05302008Vysheslavtsev, B. P., 1908. Fichte’s Justification of Socialism. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 95, pp. 571-587. (In Rus.)Vysheslavtsev, B. P., 1914. Etika Fikhte. Osnovy prava i nravstvennosti v sisteme transtsendental’noi filosofii [Fichte’s Ethics. Foundations of Law and Morality in the System of Transcendental Philosophy]. Moscow: Pechatnya A. Snegirevoi. (In Rus.)Yakovenko, B. V., 2000a. The Path of Philosophical Cognition. In: B. V. Yakovenko, 2000. Moshch’ filosofii [Power of Philosophy]. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 244-263. (In Rus.)Yakovenko, B. V., 2000b. Essence of Pluralism. In: B. V. Yakovenko, 2000. Moshch’ filosofii [Power of Philosophy]. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 282-292. (In Rus.)Yakovenko, B. V., 2004a. Science of Knowledge (An Attempt of Historical and Systematic Study). In: B. V. Yakovenko, 2004. Zhizn’ i filosofiya Ioganna Gotliba Fikhte [Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s Life and Philosophy]. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 207-350. (In Rus.)Yakovenko, B. V., 2004b. The Basic Idea of J. G. Fichte’s Theoretical Philosophy. In: B. V. Yakovenko, 2004. Zhizn’ i filosofiya Ioganna Gotliba Fikhte [Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s Life and Philosophy]. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 182-206. (In Rus.)Zhuchkov, V. A., 2000. Fichte as an Indicator of Contradictions in Russian Philosophy of the Late 19th and early 20th Centuries. In: V. F. Pustarnakov, 2000. Filosofiya Fikhte v Rossii [Fichte’s Philosophy in Russia]. Saint- Petersburg: RKhGI Press, pp. 212-237. (In Rus.)