NONE20260531043156557Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370105312026443Кант и гендерное угнетение: положение состоятельных женщин в XVIII веке, «косвенное властвование» и гендерная эмансипацияMadrid N.SánchezComplutense University of Madridhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4273-5948This paper critically addresses the unwitting gender oppression underpinning Kant’s anthropological and legal approach to domestic labour, highlighting the helpfulness of his analysis of reproductive tasks for casting light on some of the historical causes behind the current view of such labour. With this general aim in mind, I first address the multiple meanings of the term ‘social domination’ as it is used in Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Second, I focus on the figurative sense Kant assigns to this term in his account of the domestic order in the section ‘The Character of Sex’ from the same essay. Third, I highlight the social class biases that determine Kant’s examination of the role that women play in bourgeois families, where they are expected to outsource their caregiving and childrearing tasks thanks to the patrimony their husbands have accumulated. Finally, I draw some conclusions regarding the social agency that Kant considers available to women, suggesting that his account prioritises the privileged circumstances of wealthy women in eighteenth-century Prussia, neglects key challenges faced by more vulnerable groups in his time, and fails to support the extension of citizenship rights to the entire commonwealth.0531202674210.5922/0207-6918-2025-3-1https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15985/89621/Anderson, E., 2017. Private Government. How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about It). Princeton, N J: Princeton University Press.Brace, L., 2002. The Tragedy of the Freelance Hustler: Hegel, Gender and Civil Society. Contemporary Political Theory, 1, pp. 329-347.Brosch, A., 2024. Haus, Markt, Staat. Ökonomie in Kants praktischer Philosophie und Anthropologie. Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Davis, A., 1983. Women, Race & Class. New York: Vintage Books.Deyo, D., 2016. Jane Austen and the economic way of thinking. International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, 7(2), pp. 170-182.Foucault, M., 2008. Introduction to Kant’s Anthropology. Edited by R. Nigro, translated by R. Nigro and K. Briggs. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).Fraser, N., 2022. Cannibal Capitalism. How Our System Is Devouring Democracy, Care, and the Planet — and What We Can Do about It, New York & London: Verso.Fricker, M., 2007. Epistemic Injustice. Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Frierson, P., 2017. Kant’s Empirical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hay, Carol, 2013. Kantianism, Liberalism, and Feminism: Resisting Oppression. Cham: Palgrave-Macmillan.Heller, A., 1985. Can “True” and “False” Needs be Posited? In: A. Heller, 1985. The Power of Shame. London: Routledge, pp. 285-298.Hippel, T. G. von, 1792. Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Weiber. Berlin: Voß, 1792.Hippel, T. G. von, 1979. On Improving the Status of Women. Translated and edited by T. F. Sellner. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Honneth, A., 1995. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Translated by J. Anderson. Cambridge: Polity Press.Hume, R. D., 2013. Money in Jane Austen. The Review of English Studies, 64(264), pp. 289-310.Huseyinzadegan, D., 2018. For What Can the Kantian Feminist Hope? Constructive Complicity in Appropriations of the Canon. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 1-25.Kant, I., 1996a. Metaphysics of Morals. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Translated and edited by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 365-603.Kant, I., 1996b. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Translated and edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37-108.Kant, I., 1996c. On the Common Saying: That May Be Correct in Theory, but It Is of No Use in Practice. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Translated and edited by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 273-309.Kant, I., 1996d. An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Translated and edited by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15-22.Kant, I., 1996e. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. In: I. Kant, 1996. Religion and Rational Theology. Translated and edited by A.W. Wood and G. di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 54-215.Kant, I., 1997. Lectures on Ethics. Translated by P. Heath, edited by P. Heath and J. B. Schneewind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2006. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Edited and translated by R. Louden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2012a. Lecture of the Winter Semester 1775—1776 based on the transcriptions Friedländer 3.3 (Ms 400), Friedländer 2 (Ms 399) and Prieger. Translated by G. Felicitas Munzel. In: I. Kant, 2012. Lectures on Anthropology. Translated and edited by R. Clewis, R. Louden, G. Felicitas Munzel and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43-255.Kant, I., 2012b. Lecture of the Winter Semester 1781/82 [?] based on the transcriptions Menschenkunde, Petersburg. Translated by R.B. Louden. In: I. Kant, 2012. Lectures on Anthropology. Translated and edited by R. Clewis, R. Louden, G. Felicitas Munzel and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 289-333.Kant, I., 2012c. Lecture of the Winter semester 1784-1785 Based on the Transcription Mrongovius, Marienburg. Translated by R. Clewis. In: I. Kant, 2012. Lectures on Anthropology. Translated and edited by R. Clewis, R. Louden, G. Felicitas Munzel and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 339-509.Kant, I., 2016. Drafts for the ‘Metaphysics of Morals’. Translated by K.R. Westphal. In: I. Kant, 2016. Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy. Translated and edited by F. Rauscher and K. R. Westphal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 233-358.Khader, S. J., 2011. Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Laitinen, A., 2015. Social Pathologies, Reflexive Pathologies, and the Idea of Higher-Order Disorders. Studies in Social and Political Thought, 1, pp. 44-65.Laitinen, A. and Särkelä, A., 2019. Four conceptions of social pathology. European Journal of Social Theory, 22(1), pp. 80-102.Lenczewska, O., 2025. Karolina on Confining Women to Domestic Labor and Private Reason. In: R. Maliks & E. Widmer, eds. 2025. Kant’s Early Followers in Political Philosophy. London: Routledge, pp. 90-113.Lorini, G. and Louden, R., eds. 2018. Knowledge, Morals, and Practice in Kant’s Anthropology. Cham: Palgrave McMillan.Louden, R., 2000. Kant’s Impure Ethics: from Rational Beings to Human Beings. Oxford: Oxford U.P.Morini, C., 2020/21. Life is Mine. Feminism, Self-Determination, and Basic Income. Radical Philosophy, 2(9), pp. 75-80.Pascoe, J., 2015. Domestic Labour, Citizenship, and Exceptionalism: Rethinking Kant’s “Woman Problem”. Journal of Social Philosophy, 46(3), pp. 340-356.Pascoe, J., 2017. Working Women and Monstrous Mothers: Kant, Marx, and the Valuation of Domestic Labour. Kantian Review, 22(4), pp. 599-618.Pascoe, J., 2018. A Universal Estate: Kant and Marriage Equality. In: L. Krasnoff, N. Sánchez Madrid and P. Satne, eds. 2018. Kant’s Doctrine of Right in the 21st Century. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, pp. 220-240.Pascoe, J., 2022. Kant’s Theory of Labour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pascoe, J., 2024. A Kantian Theory of Employment, or How Domestic Right Structures Contemporary Work: A Reply to Williams. Con-textos Kantianos. International Journal of Philosophy, 20, pp. 17-25.Pateman, C. and Mills, C.W., 2007. Contract and Domination. Cambridge: Polity Press.Sabourin, C., 2021a. Theodor Gottlieb von Hippel on the Status of Women in the State. In: C. W. Dyck, ed. 2021. Women and Philosophy in Eighteenth-Century Germany, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 157-175.Sabourin, C., 2021b. Kant’s Enlightenment and Women’s Peculiar Immaturity. Kantian Review, 26(2), pp. 235-260.Sánchez Madrid, N., 2025a. Kant on Labor Relations: An Account of Economic Dependence from the Perspective of Social Philosophy. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 55(4), pp. 330-347.Sánchez Madrid, N., 2025b. Who Is the Caregiver in Kant’s Theory of Labour? Examining Social Domination in Classical German Philosophy. Kantian Review, First View, pp. 1-18.Sarti, R., 2023. Slaves, Servants and other Dependent People: Early Modern Classifications and Western Europe’s Self-Representation. In: J. Whittle and ‎T. Lambrecht, eds. 2023. Labour Laws in Preindustrial Europe. The Coercion and Regulation of Wage Labour. C. 1350-1850. New York: Boydell & Brewer, pp. 103-123.Sarvasy, W. and Longo, P., 2004. The Globalization of Care. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 6(3), pp. 392-415.šuma, L., 2022. On Man’s Right to Be Jealous, and Woman’s Duty to Induce Her Own Demise. Problemi International, 60(11-12), pp. 65-80.Varden, H., 2020. Sex, Love, and Gender. A Kantian Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Williams, G., 2024. Employment, status, hierarchy: on Jordan Pascoe, “Kant’s Theory of Labour”. Con-textos Kantianos. International Journal of Philosophy, 20, pp. 7-15.Zurn, C., 2011. Social Pathologies as Second-order Disorders. In: D. Petherbridge, ed. 2011. Axel Honneth: Critical Essays: with a Reply by Axel Honneth. London: Brill Academic, pp. 345-370.Философия химии Канта и космология Ницше: о материальной герменевтике алхимии и киновари. Часть IB.BabichFordham Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4499-0718By reading Kant on chemistry as a science, including his definition of science as such, this essay reviews Kant and the history of chemistry. Kant’s Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens is read in terms of contemporary axiomatic systems, via the astrophysicist Rudolf Kurth’s 1956 account, along with Nietzsche’s account of logic and causality. Nietzsche cites Kant’s theory in the context of a sustained discussion of Anaxagoras’ pre-Platonic cosmology. The paper includes reflections on alchemy, the history and historiography of chemistry, and recent contributions to the philosophy of chemistry. Since the foundations of chemistry are essentially non-mathematical, it cannot, following Kant, fully meet the criteria of a ‘science’. The same argument holds for alchemy (‘chymistry’ or spagyric), which is likewise not regarded as a science. Hermeneutic history and philosophy of science are useful, not only for developing an understanding of Kant’s conception of chemistry as a science, but also of his invocation of Stahl’s spagyric ‘art’, and his example of the mutable properties of a specific ore of mercury, Zinnober or cinnabar (HgS). A significant property of cinnabar (HgS) in this regard is that it changes colour, turning from red to black, depending on exposure to light. This can be interpreted as a metaphor illustrating problems of metamorphosis, and calling into question the widespread application of chemical principles. Together with his criticism of chemistry, Kant’s philosophical reflections open up possibilities for further research into concepts that first arose with alchemy.05312026438010.5922/0207-6918-2025-3-2https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15986/89622/Abel, G., 1984. Nietzsche: Die Dynamik der Willen zur Macht und die ewige Wiederkehr. Berlin: de Gruyter.Agassi, J., 1971. Kant’s Program. Synthese, 23(1), pp. 18-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00414142.Babich, B., 1994. Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Science: Reflecting Science on the Ground of Art and Life. Albany: State University of New York Press.Babich, B., 2008. Un problema con cuernos… el problema de la sciencia misma. La crítica de Nietzsche a la razón científica. Estudios Nietzsche. Nietzsche y la ciencia, 8, pp. 13-53.Babich, B., 2010a. Early Continental Philosophy of Science. In: K. Ansell-Pearson and A. D. Schrift, 2010. The History of Continental Philosophy, Volume 3: The New Century: Bergsonism, Phenomenology and Responses to Modern Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 264-286.Babich, B., 2010b. Nietzsches hermeneutischen, phänomenologische Wissenschaftsphilosophie, Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen zu Altphilologie und Physiologie. In: G. Abel, H. Heit and M. Brusotti, eds., Nietzsches Wissenschaftsphilosophie. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 291-314. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110259384.291.Babich, B., 2010c. Towards a Critical Philosophy of Science: Continental Beginnings and Bugbears, Whigs, and Waterbears. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 24(4), pp. 343-391. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2010.543349.Babich, B., 2014. On Schrödinger and Nietzsche: Eternal Return and the Moment. In: C. K. Chapple, ed. 2014. Antonio T. de Nicolas: Poet of Eternal Return. Ahmedabad: Sriyogi Publications & Ntyalanda International, pp. 157-206.Babich, B., 2015. Nietzsche’s Antichrist: The Birth of Modern Science out of the Spirit of Religion. In: M. Enders and H. Zaborowski, eds., Jahrbuch für Religionsphilosophie, 13 (2014). Freiburg i. Briesgau: Alber, pp. 134-154.Babich, B., 2016. Nietzsche’s Critique: Reading Kant’s Critical Philosophy. In: M. Conard, ed. 2016. Nietzsche and the Philosophers. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 169-192.Babich, B., 2019. Reading David Hume’s “Of the Standard of Taste”. Berlin: de Gruyter.Babich, B., 2020a. Material Hermeneutics and Heelan’s Philosophy of Technoscience. AI & Society, 38, pp. 2177-2188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00963-7.Babich, B., 2020b. Nietzsches Lebensontologie: Negative Ontologie. In: J. Urbich and J. Zimmer, eds. 2020. Handbuch Ontologie. Frankfurt am Main: Metzler, pp. 155-164.Babich, B., 2021a. On the ‘Very Idea of a Philosophy of Science’: Chemistry and Cosmology in Nietzsche and Kant. Axiomathes. Special Issue Epistemologia, 31, pp. 703-726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-021-09599-8.Babich, B., 2021b. Nietzsches Plastik. Ästhetische Phänomenologie im Spiegel des Lebens. Oxford & Berlin: Peter Lang.Babich, B., 2022a. Dionysian Redemption, Ariadne’s Death, Asses’s Ears — and Nietzsche’s Debts. New Nietzsche Studies, 11(3-4), pp. 99-132. https://doi.org/10.5840/newnietzsche2021/2022113/45Babich, B., 2022b. L’atmosphère, le parfum et la politique de l’utopie: Lucien, Nietzsche, et Illich. Diogène. Revue internationale des sciences humaines, 273-274(1), pp. 124-146. https://doi.org/10.3917/dio.273.0124.Babich, B., 2023. Nietzsche and AI: On ChatGPT and the Psychology of Illusion. Philosophical Salon: Los Angeles Review of Books, 19 June 2023. Available at: (Accessed 23.08.2025).Babich, B., 2025a. Gadamer and Nietzsche on the Question of Science: ‘The Victory of Scientific Method Over Science’. In: F. Bey, ed. 2025. Hans-Georg Gadamer. Cuestiones abiertas / Open Questions. Quito: filosófica, pp. 177-208. Available at: (Accessed 23.08.2025).Babich, B., 2025b. Truth, Lie and Nietzsche’s ‘Hinzugedichtetes’: Nietzsche and AI. In: H. Bajohr, ed. 2025. Thinking with AI. London: Open Humanities Press, pp. 147-181.Babich, B. and Cohen, R. S., 1999a. Nietzsche, Epistemology and Philosophy of Science: Nietzsche and the Sciences II. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Babich, B. and Cohen, R. S., 1999b. Nietzsche, Theories of Knowledge and Critical Theory: Nietzsche and the Sciences I. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Baumgartner, J., 2005. Kant und Nietzsche über das Erkenntnissubjekt. Zwei Übereinstimmungen und ein Gegensatz. In: B. Himmelmann, ed. 2005. Kant und Nietzsche in Widerstreit. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 69-77.Bensaude-Vincent, B., 2009. A Historical Perspective on Science and Its ‘Others’. Isis, 100(2), pp. 359-368. https://doi.org/10.1086/599547.Berg, H. van den, 2011. Kant’s Conception of Proper Science. Synthese, 183(1), pp. 7-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-009-9665-y.Boelderl, A. R., 1995. Alchimie, Postmoderne und der arme Hölderlin. Drei Studien zur philosophische Hermetik. Wien: Passagen.Brobjer, T. and Moore, G., eds. 2004. Nietzsche and Science. New York: Routledge.Brock, W. H., 2000. The Chemical Tree: A History of Chemistry. New York: W. W. Norton and Co.Buchdahl, G., 1992. Kant and the Dynamics of Reason. Oxford: Blackwell.Carrier, M., 2000. Kant’s Theory of Matter and his Views on Chemistry. In: E. Watkins, ed. 2000. Kant and the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 205-230.Cat, J. and Best, N. W., 2023. Atomic Number and Isotopy before Nuclear Structure: Multiple Standards and Evolving Collaboration of Chemistry and Physics. Foundations of Chemistry, 25, pp. 67-99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-022-09450-x.Chang, K. -M., 2015. Phlogiston and Chemical Principles: The Development and Formulation of Georg Ernst Stahl’s Principle of Inflammability. In: K. Hunger Parshall, M. T. Walton and B. T. Moran, eds. 2015. Bridging Traditions: Alchemy, Chemistry, and Paracelsian Practices in the Early Modern Era. State College: Penn State University Press, pp. 101-130.Clark, D. L., 2001. Kant’s Aliens: The “Anthropology” and Its Others. CR: The New Centennial Review, 1(2), pp. 201-289. https://doi.org/10.1353/ncr.2003.0052.Dahlstrom, D., 2019/2020. Babette Babich on the ‘Very Idea of the Philosophy of Science’. New Nietzsche Studies, 11 (1-2), pp. 113-119. https://doi.org/10.5840/newnietzsche2019/2020111/29Dahms, H. F., 2019. Ignoring Goethe’s Faust: A Critical-Theoretical Perspective on American Ideology. Fast Capitalism. 16(2), pp. 9-30. https://doi.org/10.32855/fcapital.201902.002.Dobbs, B. J. T., 1975. The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy: or, ‘The Hunting of the Greene Lyon.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Doyle, T., 2012. The Kantian Background to Nietzsche’s Views on Causality. Journal of Nietzsche Studies, 43(1), pp. 44-56. https://doi.org/10.5325/jnietstud.43.1.0044.Dressen, A., 2017. From Dante to Landino: Botticelli’s Calumny of Apelles and its Sources. Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 59(3), pp. 324-339. https://doi.org/10.11588/mkhi.2017.3.81776Eddy, M. D., Mauskopf, S. H. and Newman, W. R., 2014. An Introduction to Chemical Knowledge in the Early Modern World. Osiris, 29(1), pp. 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1086/678110.Eliade, M., 1978. The Forge and the Crucible: The Origins and Structures of Alchemy. Translated by S. Corrin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Faye, J., 2014. What Can Philosophy of Science Learn from Hermeneutics and What Can Hermeneutics Learn from Philosophy of Science. With an Excursus on Botticelli. In: B. Babich and D. Ginev, eds. 2014. The Multidimensionality of Hermeneutic Phenomenology. Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 267-281. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01707-5_15.Feloj, S., 2011. Metaphor and Boundary. Lebenswelt: Aesthetics and Philosophy of Experience, 1, pp. 31-46. https://doi.org/10.13130/2240-9599/1636.Ferrini, C., 2013. The Land of Truth of the Understanding and the Threatening Waters of Reason: Maritime Sources for a Kantian Metaphor. Esercizi Filosofici, 8(2), pp. 53-70. Available at: (Accessed 23.08.2025).Feyerabend, P., 1975. Against Method. London: Verso.Feyerabend, P., 1984. Wissenschaft als Kunst. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Franz, M. -L. van, 1979. Alchemical Active Imagination. Zürich: Spring Publications.Friedman, M., 1992. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Friedman, M., 2012. Newton and Kant: Quantity of Matter in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 50(3), pp. 482-503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2012.00126.x.Gaukroger, S., 2016. Kant and the Nature of Matter: Mechanics, Chemistry, and the Life Sciences. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 58, pp. 108-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2016.03.007.Gentili, C., 2013. Kant, Nietzsche und die ‘Philosophie des Als-Ob’. In: R. Reschke, ed. 2013. Wirklich. Wirklichkeit. Wirklichkeiten. Nietzsche über ‘wahre’ und ‘scheinbare’ Welten. Berlin: Akademia, pp. 103-116.Giglioni, G., 2014a. The Horror of Bruno’s Magic: Frances Yates Gives a Lecture at The Warburg Institute (1952). Bruniana & Campanelliana, 20(2), pp. 477-497.Giglioni, G., 2014b. Who Is Afraid of Frances Yates? ‘Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition’ (1964) Fifty Years Later. Bruniana & Campanelliana, 20(2), pp. 421-432.Gottschlich, M., 2015. The Necessity and Limits of Kant’s Transcendental Logic, With Reference to Nietzsche and Hegel. The Review of Metaphysics, 69(2), pp. 287-315.Harré, R., 2005. Chemical Kinds and Essences Revisited. Foundations of Chemistry, 7, pp. 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FOCH.0000042885.93975.69.Heelan, P. A., 2002. Afterword: The Hermeneutics of Natural Science. In: B. Babich, ed. 2002. Hermeneutic Philosophy of Science, Van Gogh’s Eyes, and God. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 445-459.Heit, H., 2005. Wozu Wissenschaft. Nietzsches Wissenschaftskritik als Radikalisierung Kants. In: B. Himmelmann, ed. 2005. Kant und Nietzsche in Widerstreit. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 47-56.Heit, H., 2010. ‘Ein Problem mit Hörnern’ Nietzsche als Wissenschaftsphilosoph. In: H. Heit, G. Abel and M. Brusotti, eds. 2010. Nietzsches Wissenschaftsphilosophie. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 3-24.Hoffmann, R., 2007. What Might Philosophy of Science Look like If Chemists Built It? Synthese, 155(3), pp. 321-336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9118-9.Kail, P. J. E., 2009. Nietzsche and Hume: Naturalism and Explanation. Journal of Nietzsche Studies, 37(1), pp. 5-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/20717956.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2004. Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Edited by M. Friedman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2012. Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens. In: Kant, I., 2012. Natural Science. Edited by E. Watkins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182-308.Keynes, J. M., 2010. Newton, The Man. In: J. M. Keynes, 2010. Essays in Biography. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 363-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-59074-2_35.Kurth, R., 1956. Kants ‘Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels’ von 1755 und die moderne Wissenschaft. Mitteilungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Bern, Neue Reihe, 13, pp. 58-80.Lemanski, J., 2016. Galilei, Torricelli, Stahl. Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Physik in der B-Vorrede zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Kant-Studien, 107(3), pp. 451-484. https://doi.org/10.1515/kant-2016-0034Linden, S. J., 2003. The Alchemy Reader: From Hermes Trismegistus to Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Mahootian, F., 2013. Paneth’s Epistemology of Chemical Elements in light of Kant’s Opus postumum. Foundations of Chemistry, 15, pp. 171-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-013-9182-4.Martels, Z. v., 2000. Augurello’s Chrysopoeia (1515) — A Turning Point in the Literary Tradition of Alchemical Texts. Early Science and Medicine, 5(2), pp. 178-195. https://doi.org/10.1163/157338200X00173.McIntyre, L., 2007. The Philosophy of Chemistry: Ten Years Later. Synthese, 155(3), pp. 291-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9114-0.McNulty, M. B., 2014. Kant on Chemistry and the Application of Mathematics in Natural Science. Kantian Review, 19(3), pp. 393-418. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136941541400017X.McNulty, M. B., 2016. Chemistry in Kant’s Opus Postumum. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 6(1), pp. 64-95. https://doi.org/10.1086/685561.Metzger, H., 1930. Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la doctrine chimique. Paris: F. Alcan.Mittasch, A., 1952. Friedrich Nietzsche als Naturphilosoph. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner.Müller-Lauter, W., 1999. Nietzsche: His Philosophy of Contradictions and the Contradictions of His Philosophy [1971]. Translated by D.J. Parent, Foreword by R. Schacht. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Newman, W. R. and Principe, L. M., 2002. Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Nietzsche, F., 1962. Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks. Translated, with an Introduction by M. Cowan. Washington: Regnery Publishing.Nietzsche, F., 1967. The Birth of Tragedy and the Case of Wagner. Translated by W. Kaufmann. New York: Random House, pp. 1-144.Nietzsche, F., 1980a. Die fröhliche Wissenschaft. In: F. Nietzsche, 1980. Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Einzelbänden. Edited by G. Colli and M. Montinari. Volume 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 343-652.Nietzsche, F., 1980b. Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik. In: F. Nietzsche, 1980. Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Einzelbänden. Edited by G. Colli and M. Montinari. Volume 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 9-156.Nietzsche, F., 1980c. Die Philosophie im tragischen Zeitalter der Griechen. In: F. Nietzsche, 1980. Sämtliche Werke. Edited by G. Colli and M. Montinari. Volume 1. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 799-872.Nietzsche, F., 1980d. Jenseits von Gut und Böse — Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft. In: F. Nietzsche, 1980. Sämtliche Werke. Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Einzelbänden. Edited by G. Colli and M. Montinari. Volume 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 9-244.Nietzsche, F., 1980e. Nachgelassene Fragmente. 19 = PI 20b. Sommer 1872 — Anfang 1873. In: F. Nietzsche, 1980. Sämtliche Werke. Edited by G. Colli and M. Montinari. Volume 7: Nachgelassene Fragmente 1869-1874. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 419-521.Nietzsche, F., 1980f. Nachgelassene Fragmente Anfang 1880 bis Sommer 1882. Teil 1. 3 = M II 1. Frühjahr 1880. Fragment 139 (3[78]). In: F. Nietzsche, 1980. Sämtliche Werke. Edited by G. Colli and M. Montinari. Volume 9: Nachgelassene Fragmente 1880-1882. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 9-229.Nietzsche, F., 1980g. Sokrates und die griechische Tragoedie. In: F. Nietzsche, 1980. Sämtliche Werke. Edited by G. Colli and M. Montinari. Volume 1. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 603-640.Nietzsche, F., 1995. Vorlesungsaufzeichnungen (WS 1871-72, WS 1874-75). In: F. Nietzsche, 1995. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. Abteilung II, Band 4. Edited by F. Bornmann and M. Carpitella. Berlin: de Gruyter.Nye, M. J., 1994. From Chemical Philosophy to Theoretical Chemistry: Dynamics of Matter and Dynamics of Disciplines, 1800-1950. Berkeley: University of California Press.Paneth, F. A., 1962. The Epistemological Status of the Chemical Concept of Element (I). The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 13(49), pp. 1-14.Pecere, P., 2021. ‘Stahl Was Often Closer to the Truth’: Kant’s Second Thoughts on Animism, Monadology, and Hylozoism. HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 11(2), pp. 660-678. https://doi.org/10.1086/715879.Penrose, R., 2017. Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Principe, L. M., 1998. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Principe, L. M., 2008. Transmuting Chymistry into Chemistry: Eighteenth-Century Chrysopoeia and Its Repudiation. In: J. R. Bertomeu-Sánchez, D. T. Burns, B. Van Tiggelen, eds. 2008. Neighbours and Territories: The Evolving Identity of Chemistry. The 6th International Conference on the History of Chemistry: Proceedings. Louvain-la-Neuve: Mémosciences, pp. 21-34.Principe, L. M., 2014. The End of Alchemy? The Repudiation and Persistence of Chrysopoeia at the Académie Royale des Sciences in the Eighteenth Century. Osiris, 29(1), pp. 96-116. https://doi.org/10.1086/678099.Rayman, J., 2014. Nietzsche on Causation. The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 28(3), pp. 327-334. https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.28.3.0327.Reill, P. H., 2005. Vitalizing Nature in the Enlightenment. Berkeley: University of California Press.Rousseau, J. -J., 1999. Institutions chimiques. Texte revu par B. Bernardi et B. Bensaude-Vincent. Paris: Fayard.Ruthenberg, K., 2009. Paneth, Kant, and the Philosophy of Chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 11(2), pp. 79-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10698-009-9064-yScerri, E., 2005. Some Aspects of the Metaphysics of Chemistry and the Nature of the Elements. Hyle. An International Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry, 11(2), pp. 127-145. Available at: (Accessed 23.08.2025).Scerri, E. and McIntyre L., eds. 2015. Philosophy of Chemistry: Growth of a New Discipline. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9364-3.Schmid, H., 2019. Sur les extraterrestres: Théorie du ciel. Paris: Editions Manucius.Schürmann, R., 2003. Broken Hegemonies. Translated by R. Lilly. Bloomington: Indiana.Small, R., 2001. Nietzsche in Context. Aldershot: Ashgate.Smets, A., 2008. The Controversy Between Leibniz and Stahl on the Theory of Chemistry. In: J. R. Bertomeu-Sánchez, D. T. Burns and B. Van Tiggelen, eds. 2008. Neighbours and Territories: The Evolving Identity of Chemistry. Louvain-la-Neuve: Mémosciences, pp. 291-306.Smith, P.H., 1994. The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Soddy, F., 1924. The Origins of the Conception of Isotopes. The Scientific Monthly, 17(4), pp. 305-317.Stahl, G. E., 1747. Fundamenta chymiae, volume 3. Nürnberg: Wolfgang Moritz Endter, Erben & Julius Arnold Engelbrecht, Witwe.Thielke, P., 2003. Hume, Kant, and the Sea of Illusion. Hume Studies, 29(1), pp. 63-88. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hms.2011.0150.Valentine, B., 1678. His Triumphant Chariot of Antimony with Annotations of Theodore Kirkringus, M. D. With: The True Book of the learned Synesius, a Greek Abbot taken out the Emperor’s Library, concerning the Philosopher’s Stone. London: Printed for Dorman Newman at the Kings Arms in the Poultry.Van Brakel, J., 2006. Kant’s Legacy for the Philosophy of Chemistry. In: E. Scerri, D. Baird and L. McIntyre, eds. 2006. Philosophy of Chemistry. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 69-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3261-7_4.Wille, H., 2005. Kant über Außerirdische. Münster: Monsenstein & Vannerdat.Windgätter, C., 2005. ‘Jetzt ergötze und erhole ich mich an der kältesten Vernunft-Kritik’. Kants transzendentale Frage und ihre Verwendung durch Nietzsche. In: B. Himmelmann, ed. 2005. Kant und Nietzsche in Widerstreit. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 78-90.Yates, F. A., 1964. Giordano Bruno and Hermetic Tradition. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Yates, F. A., 1983. The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Zittel, C., 1995. Selbstaufhebungsfiguren bei Nietzsche. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Zwart, H., 2019. Fabricated Truths and the Pathos of Proximity: What Would Be a Nietzschean Philosophy of Contemporary Technoscience? Foundations of Science, 24, pp. 457-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-019-09599-3.Самопринадлежность и категорический императивK. E.MorozovInstitute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of Scienceshttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3677-801XThis article examines the attempts of many libertarian philosophers to justify the self-ownership principle using the second formulation of the categorical imperative. It begins by reconstructing the self-ownership principle, according to which each person has a natural property right over her body and person. There are many versions of this principle, each recognizing a different set of such property rights; but what all formulations have in common is their radical anti-paternalism and, consequently, the permissibility of self-destructive behaviour. The paper then reconstructs and analyses two Kantian arguments for self-ownership. According to the first, persons have intrinsic value and should therefore never be used as mere means for someone else’s ends, which forbids ownership of other people. According to the second, persons must own their own bodies and persons in order to realise the personal and moral autonomy needed to uphold the moral law. Next, the article describes two ways in which self-ownership can be reconciled with different theories of personal identity: internalist and externalist. Internalism holds that the body is either identical with the person or part of the person. Externalism holds that the body is external to the person, which is a nonphysical mental substance. For Kantian libertarians, these two approaches present a dilemma. If they accept internalism, then self-ownership is incompatible with the categorical imperative because it involves self-instrumentalization. Since all persons are of equal value, instrumentalizing oneself is just as impermissible as instrumentalizing other persons. However, if Kantian libertarians accept externalism, then self-ownership simply does not follow from the categorical imperative because violating property rights to external re­sources is not itself an instrumentalization of their owner. Thus, the categorical imperative and self-ownership are incompatible.053120268110910.5922/0207-6918-2025-3-3https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15986/89623/Anderson, E. S., 1993. Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Arneson, R. J., 1999. Human Flourishing versus Desire Satisfaction. Social Philosophy & Policy, 16(1), pp. 113-142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500002272Artemyeva, O. V., 2024. Human Dignity in the Moral Dimension. In: A. A. Guseynov and N. B. Afanasov, eds. 2024. Filosofiya i praktika [Philosophy and Practice]. Moscow & St. Petersburg: Center for Humanities Initiatives, pp. 244-263. (In Rus.)Attas, D., 2000. Freedom and Self-Ownership. Social Theory and Practice, 26(1), pp. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract20002615Audi, R. N., 2004. The Good in the Right: A Theory of Intuition and Intrinsic Value. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Bader, R. M., 2015. Kantian Axiology and the Dualism of Practical Reason. In: I. Hirose and J. Olson, eds. 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Value Theory. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 175-202. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199959303.013.0011Bardon, A., 2000. From Nozick to Welfare Rights: Self-Ownership, Property, and Moral Desert. Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society, 14(4), pp. 481-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913810008443570.29Block, W. E., 2003. Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon, and Epstein. Journal of Libertarian Studies, 17(2), pp. 39-86.Bojanowski, J., 2017. Why Kant Is Not a Moral Intuitionist. In: E. E. Schmidt and R. dos Santos, eds. 2017. Realism and Anti-Realism in Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110574517-008Brenkert, G. G., 1998. Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Autonomy. The Journal of Ethics, 2, pp. 27-55. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009786331882Brennan, J., 2020. Against the Moral Powers Test of Basic Liberty. European Journal of Philosophy, 28(2), pp. 492-505. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12497Brink, D. O., 2019. Normative Perfectionism and the Kantian Tradition. Philosophers’ Imprint, 19(45), pp. 1-28. Available at: [Accessed 20 July 2025].Bryan, B., 2019. Duty-Sensitive Self-Ownership. Social Philosophy & Policy, 36(2), pp. 264-283. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052519000487Carter, I., 2019. Self-Ownership and the Importance of the Human Body. Social Philosophy & Policy, 36(2), pp. 94-115. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052519000384Chaly, V. A., 2014. Kant’s Philosophical Ideas in Robert Nozick’s Political Theory. Kantian Journal, 2, pp. 46-52. https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2014-2-4 (In Rus.)Cholbi, M. J., 2002. Suicide Intervention and Non-Ideal Kantian Theory. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 19(3), pp. 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.t01-1-00221Cholbi, M. J., 2013. Kantian Paternalism and Suicide Intervention. In: C. Coons and M. Weber, eds. 2013. Paternalism: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 115-133. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139179003.007Christman, J., 1994. The Myth of Property: Toward an Egalitarian Theory of Ownership. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/ 9780195085945.001.0001Christmas, B., 2021. Answering the Conventionalist Challenge to Natural Rights Theory. Res Publica, 27(3), pp. 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-020-09476-yCohen, G. A., 1995. Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511521270Cudd, A. E., 2019. Connected Self-Ownership and Our Obligations to Others. Social Philosophy & Policy, 36(2), pp. 154-173. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052519000402Ellerman, D., 2010. Inalienable Rights: A Litmus Test for Liberal Theories of Justice. Law and Philosophy, 29, pp. 571-599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-010-9076-8Exdell, J., 1977. Distributive Justice: Nozick on Property Rights. Ethics, 87(2), pp. 142-149. https://doi.org/10.1086/292025Feser, E., 2000. Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft. The Independent Review, 5(2), pp. 219-235.Feser, E., 2005. Self-Ownership and Personal Identity. Social Philosophy & Policy, 22(2), pp. 100-125. https://doi.org10.1017/s0265052505052052Frederick, D., 2014. Voluntary Slavery. Las Torres de Lucca: Revista Internacional de Filosofía Política, 3(4), pp. 115-137.Gadzhikurbanov, A.G., 2023. The Idea of Humanity in Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Eticheskaya mysl’ / Ethical Thought, 23(2), pp. 5-19. https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-4870-2023-23-2-5-19 (In Rus.)Grunebaum, J. O., 2000. Autonomous Ownership. In: P. Vallentyne and H. Steiner, eds. 2000. Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. New York: Palgrave, pp. 48-73.Kahn, S. J. M., 2022. Kant and the Duty to Promote One’s Own Happiness. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 65(3), pp. 327-338. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174x.2018.1446047Kahn, S. J. M., 2023. Kant and the Trolley. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 57(3), pp. 487-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-021-09838-6Kant, I., 1991. The Metaphysics of Morals. Edited and translated by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2002. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Edited and translated by A. W. Wood. New Haven: Yale University Press.Kant, I., 2016. Natural Right Course Lecture Notes by Feyerabend. Translated by K. R. Westphal. In: F. Rauscher, ed. 2016. Kant: Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 81-180. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139046237.006Kershnar, S., 2003. A Liberal Argument for Slavery. Journal of Social Philosophy, 34(4), pp. 510-536. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9833.00198Kitcher, P., 2022. Naturalising Kant. Kantian Journal, 41(1), pp. 118-146. https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2022-1-5Korsgaard, C. M., 1989. Personal Identity and the Unity of Agency: A Kantian Response to Parfit. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 18(2), pp. 103-131.Korsgaard, C. M., 1993. The Reasons We Can Share: An Attack on the Distinction Between Agent-Relative and Agent-Neutral Values. Social Philosophy & Policy, 10(1), pp. 24-51. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052500004003Korsgaard, C. M., 1996. The Sources of Normativity. Edited by O. O’Neill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554476Korsgaard, C. M., 1998. Motivation, Metaphysics, and the Value of the Self: A Reply to Ginsborg, Guyer, and Schneewind. Ethics, 109(1), pp. 49-66. https://doi.org/10.1086/233873Korsgaard, C. M., 2013. Personhood, Animals, and the Law. Think, 12(34), pp. 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1477175613000018Krouglov, A. N., 2025. Kant and Hegel: Natural Law or Philosophy of Right? Filosofskii zhurnal / Philosophy Journal, 18(3), pp. 40-56. https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2025-18-3-40-56 (In Rus.)Kukathas, C., 2019. Libertarianism Without Self-Ownership. Social Philosophy & Policy, 36(2), pp. 71-93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052519000505Kuznicki, J., 2016. Kantianism. In: A. R. Powell and G. Babcock, eds. 2016. Arguments for Liberty. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, pp. 87-122.Lippert-Rasmussen, K., 2008. Against Self-Ownership: There Are No Fact-Insensitive Ownership Rights Over One’s Body. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 36(1), pp. 86-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2008.00125.xLoginov, E. V., Mertsalov, A. V., Salin, A. S., Chugainova, Ju.I. and Iunusov, A. T., 2018. Prolegomena to Personal Identity Problem. Date Palm Compote, 13, pp. 6-40. https://doi.org/10.24411/2587-9308-2018-00001 (In Rus.)Mack, E., 1995. The Self-Ownership Proviso: A New and Improved Lockean Proviso. Social Philosophy & Policy, 12(1), pp. 186-218. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500004611Mack, E., 2006. Non-Absolute Rights and Libertarian Taxation. Social Philosophy & Policy, 23(2), pp. 109-141. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052506060195Mack, E., 2010. The Natural Right of Property. Social Philosophy & Policy, 27(1), pp. 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052509990033Mack, E., 2016. Natural Rights. In: A. R. Powell and G. Babcock, eds. 2016. Arguments for Liberty. Washington, DC: Cato Institute, pp. 49-85.Morozov, K. E., 2024a. Is Income Redistribution a Violation of the Categorical Imperative? Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity, 9(3), pp. 90-98. https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2024-9-3-90-98 (In Rus.)Morozov, K. E., 2024b. Is Consensual Non-Monogamy Ethical? Problems of Ethics, 13, pp. 32-51. (In Rus.)Morozov, K. E., 2025. Self-Ownership and Bodily Integrity. The Human Being, 36(2), pp. 73-89. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0236200725020048 (In Rus.)Munzer, S. R., 1994. An Uneasy Case Against Property Rights in Body Parts. Social Philosophy & Policy, 11(2), pp. 259-286. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052500004519Nagel, T., 1975. Libertarianism Without Foundations. The Yale Law Journal, 85(1), pp. 136-149. https://doi.org/10.2307/795521Nagel, T. and Murphy, L., 2004. The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195150163.001.0001Narveson, J., 2013. Libertarianism. In: H. LaFollette and I. Persson, eds. 2013. The Blackwell Guide to Ethical Theory. Hoboken: Blackwell, pp. 373-393.Nozick, R., 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Olson, E. T., 1997. The Human Animal: Personal Identity Without Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0195134230.001.0001Olsthoorn, J., 2019. Self-Ownership and Despotism: Locke on Property in the Person, Divine Dominium of Human Life, and Rights-Forfeiture. Social Philosophy & Policy, 36(2), pp. 242-263. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052519000438Otsuka, M., 2003. Libertarianism Without Inequality. Oxford: Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199243956.001.0001Otteson, J. R., 2009. Kantian Individualism and Political Libertarianism. The Independent Review, 13(3), pp. 389-409.Povecherova, A. V., 2024. The Concept of Moral Sense in Kant’s Ethics. Kantian Journal, 43(4), pp. 70-98. https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2024-4-3Prokofyev, A. V., 2008. Kant, Deception, Use of Force… Logos, 5(68), pp. 60-90. (In Rus.)Quong, J., 2011. Left-Libertarianism: Rawlsian Not Luck Egalitarian. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 19(1), pp. 64-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2010.00376.xRadin, M. J., 2001. Contested Commodities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Rawls, J., 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Rothbard, M. N., 2016. The Ethics of Liberty. Auburn: Mises Institute.Russell, D. C., 2010. Embodiment and Self-Ownership. Social Philosophy & Policy, 27(1), pp. 135-167. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0265052509990069Sandel, M. J., 2012. What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux.Satz, D., 2010. Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311594.001.0001Saunders, J., Slater, J. and Sticker, M., 2024. Kant and Overdemandingness I: The Demandingness of Imperfect Duties. Philosophy Compass, 19(6), pp. 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12998Schönecker, D., 2013. Kant’s Moral Intuitionism: The Fact of Reason and Moral Predispositions. Kant Studies Online, 1, pp. 1-38.Smith, G. H., 2016. Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Justice. Libertarianism.org. Available at: (Accessed 15.07.2025).Spafford, J., 2022. Self‐Ownership and the Duty to Assist. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 39(5), pp. 857-869. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12595Steiner, H., 1994. An Essay on Rights. Oxford: Blackwell.Sunstein, C. R. and Thaler, R. H., 2003. Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), pp. 1159-1202. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600573Suprenant, C. W., 2018. Kant’s Liberalism. In: B. van der Vossen, J. Brennan and D. Schmidtz, eds. 2018. The Routledge Handbook of Libertarianism. New York: Routledge, pp. 68-76.Swinburne, R., 2013. Mind, Brain, and Free Will. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662562.001.0001Taylor R. S., 2004. A Kantian Defense of Self‐Ownership. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(1), pp. 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00191.xTaylor, R. S., 2005. Self-Ownership and the Limits of Libertarianism. Social Theory and Practice, 31(4), pp. 465-482. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract200531423Teuber, A., 1983. Kant’s Respect for Persons. Political Theory, 11(3), pp. 369-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591783011003004.28Vallentyne, P., Steiner, H., Otsuka, M., 2005. Why Left-Libertarianism Is Not Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2), pp. 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2005.00030.xVallier, K., 2012. Against Utilitarianism and Self-Ownership Defenses of Libertarianism. Bleeding Heart Libertarians. Available at: (Accessed 15.07.2025).Van der Vossen, B., 2015. Imposing Duties and Original Appropriation. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(1), pp. 64-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12029Van der Vossen, B., 2022. Property Rights. In: M. Zwolinski and B. Ferguson, eds. 2022. The Routledge Companion to Libertarianism. New York: Routledge, pp. 120-134. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367814243-11Van Parijs, P., 1997. Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? Oxford: Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198293577.001.0001Varden, H., 2016. Rawls vs. Nozick vs. Kant on Domestic Economic Justice. In: A. Faggion, A. Pinzani and N. S. Madrid, eds. 2016. Kant and Social Policies. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 93-123. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42658-7_5Wendt, F., 2022. The Project Pursuit Argument for Self-Ownership and Private Property. Social Theory and Practice, 48(3), pp. 583-605. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract2022531165Wheeler III, S. C., 1980. Natural Property Rights as Body Rights. Noûs, 14(2), pp. 171-193. https://doi.org/10.2307/2214859Widerquist, K., 2013. Independence, Propertylessness, and Basic Income: A Theory of Freedom as the Power to Say No. New York: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137313096Williams, H., 2013. Kant and Libertarianism. In: M. Timmons and S. Baiasu, eds. 2013. Kant on Practical Justification: Interpretive Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395686.003.0012Wood, A. W., 2006. Kant’s Practical Philosophy. In: K. Ameriks, ed. 2006. The Cambridge Companion to German Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-75. https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL0521651786.004Zwolinski, M., 2008. The Separateness of Persons and Liberal Theory. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 42(2), pp. 147-165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-008-9107-yПочему Шпет и Гуссерль беседовали о Канте? (По материалам архива)T. G.ShchedrinaMoscow Pedagogical State University (MPGU)Institute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of SciencesI. O.ShchedrinaHSE UniversityWhile working on the archive materials of Gustav Gustavovich Shpet, one of the authors of this article came across notebooks in black covers in which, over the years, he had made entries (ranging from self-observations to tentative formulations of his thoughts which became part in one form or another of works that were later published or prepared for publication. One such notebook was the “1913 Diary”, which contains hurried jottings belonging to the period when Shpet was in direct communication with Edmund Husserl, Lev Shestov, Natalia Guchkova and others. Understanding the meaning of these hasty notes requires hermeneutic reconstruction, including chronological comparison of the “1913 Diary” with other archive materials (dating from Shpet and his interlocutors) as well as the works of Shpet and Husserl published at that time. The article presents the results of the hermeneutic reconstruction of one entry which deals with the theme of the conversation about Kant and phenomenology that took place between Shpet and Husserl on 30 (7) June 1913. The authors sequentially uncover the possible thematic layers of their intellectual conversation, dwelling on such topics as “the Kantian dilemma”, “the reflection theory”, “psychologism”, “pure ego”, “reality” and “experience”. Each problem involves, in one way or another, their assessment of Kant’s philosophical journey (especially in the theory of cognition). The modern context is provided by the philosophy and methodology of science, since the “conversation” between Shpet and Husserl throws new light on such key problems in the theory of knowledge as “human-sizedness”, “historicity” and continuity.0531202611012910.5922/0207-6918-2025-3-4https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15986/89624/Heidegger, M., 2001. Phenomenological Interpretations of Aristotle: Initiation into Phenomenological Research. Translated by R. Rojcewicz. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Husserl, E., 1913. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung, 1(1), pp. 1-323.Husserl, E., 1965. Philosophy as Rigorous Science. In: Q. Lauer, ed. 1965. Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 71-147.Husserl, E., 1983. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. First Book: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology. Translated by F. Kersten. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Husserl, E., 2001a. Logical Investigations. Volume 1. Edited by D. Moran, translated by J. N. Findlay. London: Routledge.Husserl, E., 2001b. Logical Investigations. Volumes 2. Edited by D. Moran, translated by J. N. Findlay. London: Routledge.Ingarden, R., 2012. Einführung in die Phänomenologie Edmund Husserls: Osloer Vorlesungen (1967). In: R. Ingarden, 2012. Gesammelte Werke. Volume 4. Edited by G. Haefliger. Berlin: De Gruyter.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Mikhailov, I. A., 2024. Kantian and Anti-Kantian Philosophy of Language. Kantian Journal, 43(3), pp. 47-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2024-3-4Motroshilova, N. V., 2006. Gustav Shpet’s Work “Appearance and Sense” as a Milestone in the Development of Russian Phenomenology. History of Philosophy Yearbook 2006, pp. 294-305. Moscow: Nauka. (In Rus.)Nieraad, J., 1970. Abbildtheorie. In: J. Ritter, ed. 1970. Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Volume 1: A -C. Basel: Schwabe & Co. Sp. 1-3.Pruzhinin, B. I., Artemenko, N. A., Belousov, M. A., Vasiliev, V. V., Kurilovich, I. S., Mikhailov, I. A., Molchanov, V. I., Patkul, A. B., Reznichenko, A. I., Savin, A. E., Chernavin, G. I., Shestova, E. A. and Shchedrina, T. G., 2024. Phenomenology Today: Historical Problems and Contemporary Trends. Returning to the 1988 Discussion (Round Table Materials). Voprosy filosofii, 10, pp. 5-39. (In Rus.)Pruzhinin, B. I., Artemenko, N. A., Belousov, M. A., Vasyukov, V. L., Konacheva, S. A., Kurilovich, I. S., Mikhailov, I. A., Molchanov, V. I., Patkul, A. B., Savin, A. E., Shestova, E. A. and Shchedrina, T. G., 2025. Edmund Husserl’s “Logical Investigations”. On the Occasion of the First Complete Translation into Russian (Round Table Materials). Voprosy filosofii, 7, pp. 5-36. (In Rus.)Pruzhinin, B. I. and Shchedrina, T. G., 2025. Human-Sizedness in Modern Science. Voprosy filosofii, 11, pp. 33-43. (In Rus.)Shchedrina, T. G., ed. 2005. Gustav Shpet: zhizn’ v pis’makh. Epistoljarnoe nasledie [Gustav Shpet: Life in Letters. Epistolary Heritage]. Мoscow: ROSSPEN. (In Rus.)Shchedrina, T. G. and Shchedrina, I. O., 2022. Immanuel Kant in the Historical Philosophy of Gustav Shpet. Kantian Journal, 41(3), pp. 124-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2022-3-5Shpet, G., 1991. Appearance and Sense. Phenomenology as the Fundamental Science and Its Problems. Translated by T. Nemeth. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Shpet, G., 2019. Consciousness and Its Owner. In: G. Shpet, 2019. Hermeneutics and Its Problems. With Selected Essays in Phenomenology. Edited and translated by T. Nemeth. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland AG, pp. 153-205.Shpet, G. G, 2005. Appearance and Sense. In: G. G. Shpet, 2005. Mysl’ i Slovo. Izbrannye trudy [Thought and Word. Selected Works]. Edited and commented by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 35-188. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2016. Istorija kak problema logiki: Kriticheskie i metodologicheskie issledovanija. Chast’ vtoraja. Arkhivnye materialy [History as a Problem of Logic: Critical and Methodological Studies. Part two. Archival Materials]. Edited and commented by T. G. Shchedrina; archival work by T. G. Shchedrina and I. O. Shchedrina. Moscow & St. Petersburg: Universitetskaja kniga. (In Rus.)Вопрос о нормативности в «Философии права» Эмиля ЛаскаV. N.KodaRussian State University for the Humanitieshttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7543-8387Before Emil Lask wrote The Logic of Philosophy (1911) he outlined the main theses of his future philosophical project in The Philosophy of Right (1905): critique of the “two worlds theory”, the problem of pre-reflective cognition, the emphasis on the role of “pre-scientific” pre-theoretical reality. But how, according to Lask, does the transition from “pre-legal” to “legal” reality take place? The Philosophy of Right criticises the “two worlds theory”, interpreted in the spirit of Platonism, as a mixing of value and reality in the natural law and historism. Lask claims that such a shift can be avoided in the critical philosophy of law. Instead of choosing between absolutisation of extra-historical legal norm and absolutisation of historical factuality the critical philosophy of law works with the real world as a “semi-finished product” (Halbfabrikat) which corresponds to the meanings of culture. In the “semi-finished product” the realm of right is partly “scientific” and partly “pre-scientific”, which makes the question of transition from the “pre-legal” to “legal” reality particularly important. The transition is revealed through the creation of legal concepts, in which their pre-scientific formation (vorwissenschaftliche Begriffsbildungen) and the teleological principle, which is responsible for the selection of the pre-legal empirical substrate of right that can become legal, play a significant role. The Philo­sophy of Right and The Logic of Philosophy are seen as keys to understanding each other. Therefore the “two-storied building” metaphor used in The Logic of Philosophy to explain the two levels of cognition can be applied to the concept of right. I arrive at the conclusion that the philosophical-legal practice of norm formation, according to Lask, involves “two necessities”: the necessity of recognising the pre-scientific element in right and the necessity of converting it into a “scientific” one. Thus, normativity in the philosophy of right, according to Lask, is not introduced from “above-outside”, but is formed in a “semi-finished product” of the right itself.0531202613014910.5922/0207-6918-2025-3-5https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15987/89625/Buschmann, A., 2002. Rechtswerte und Rechtswissenschaft. Zur Rechtsphilosophie von Emil Lask (1875—1915). In: H. de Wall and M. Germann, eds. 2002. Bürgerliche Freiheit und Christliche Verantwortung. Festschrift für Christoph Link zum siebzigsten Geburtstag. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 587-612.Carrino, A., 2016. The Rebirth of Legal Philosophy within the Frame of Neo-Kantianism. In: E. Pattaro and C. Roversi eds., 2016. A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Volume 12, Tome 1. Dordrecht: Springer, рр. 13—49. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1479-3_1.Dmitrieva, N. A., 2012. Heidegger and Neo-Kantianism. Social Sciences and Humanities. Domestic and Foreign Literature. Series 3: Philosophy, 1, pp. 166-178. (In Rus).Falev, E. V., 2015. Evolyuciya metoda v filosofii Martina Haideggera [The Evolution of Method in the Philosophy of Martin Heidegger]. Dissertation. Lomonosov Moscow State University. (In Rus).Funke, A., 2022. Neukantianismus und Rechtswissenschaft. Berichte aus dem Inneren einer schwierigen Ehe. In: G. Morrone and R. Redaelli, eds. 2022. Neo-Kantianism and Cultural Sciences. Volume 1. Napoli: FedOA Press, рр. 301-318.Glatz, U. B., 2001. Emil Lask: Philosophie im Verhältnis zu Weltanschauung, Leben und Erkenntnis. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Haferkamp, H. -P., 2007. Neukantianismus und Rechtsnaturalismus. In: M. Senn and D. Puskás, eds. 2007. Rechtswissenschaft als Kulturwissenschaft? Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, pp. 105-120.Henrich, D., 1989. Kant’s Notion of a Deduction and the Methodological Background of the First Critique. In: E. Förster, ed. 1989. Kant’s Transcendental Deductions: The Three Critiques and the Opus postumum. Redwood City: Stanford University Press, pp. 27-46.Hobe, K., 1971. Zwischen Rickert und Heidegger. Versuch über eine Perspektive des Denkens von Emil Lask. Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 78, pp. 360—376.Hobe, K., 1973. Emil Lasks Rechtsphilosophie. Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 59(2), pp. 221-235.Kelsen, H., 2007. Selbstdarstellung (1927). In: H. Kelsen, 2007. Werke. Veröffentlichte Schriften 1905—1910 und Selbstzeugnisse, Volume 1. Edited by M. Jestaedt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, рр. 19-29.Kelsen, H., 2008. Die objektive Erscheinungsform des Rechtssatzes In: H. Kelsen, 2008. Werke. Veröffentlichte Schriften 1911, Volume 2. Edited by M. Jestaedt. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. рр. 189-432.Kornilaev, L.Yu., 2017. Logika filosofii E. Laska [The Logic of Philosophy by E. Lask]. Dissertation. Lomonosov Moscow State University. (In Rus).Kornilaev, L.Yu., 2021. Emil Lask’s Philosophy of Right. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 61, pp. 97—104. https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/61/11 (In Rus).Krijnen, C., 2023. Neukantianismus und neukantianische Rechtsphilosophie. In: M. Pawlik, C. -F. Stuckenberg and W. Wohlers, eds. 2023. Strafrecht und Neukantianismus. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, рр. 1-36.Krouglov, A. N., 2023. On Kant’s Concept of Critique and Critical Method. Philosophy. The Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 7(2), pp. 225-260. https://doi.org/10.17323/2587-8719-2023-2-225-260 (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).Lask, E., 1923а. Die Logik der Philosophie und die Kategorienlehre. In: E. Lask, 1923. Gesammelte Schriften, Volume 2. Edited by E. Herrigel. Tübingen: J. K. B. Mohr, рр. 1-282.Lask, E., 1923b. Rechtsphilosophie. In: E. Lask, 1923. Gesammelte Schriften, Volume 1. Edited by E. Herrigel. Tübingen: J. K. B. Mohr, рр. 275-332.Lask, E., 2022. Die wissenschaftliche Korrespondenz. Edited by A. Funke, R. Redaelli and J. Zhao. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Matsevich, I., 2012. The Empirical Reality of Right. Preface to the Translation. Topos, 3, pp. 72-78. (In Rus.)Melnikova, E. V., 2025. Teoriya ponimaniya u rannego Hajdeggera: transcendental’no-fenomenologicheskaya perspektiva [Theory of Understanding in the Early Heidegger: Transcendental-Phenomenological Perspective]. Dissertation. Higher School of Economics. (In Rus).Mikhailov I. A., 1999. Rannij Hajdegger: Mezhdu fenomenologiej i filosofiej zhizni [Early Heidegger: Between Phenomenology and Philosophy of Life]. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, Intellectual Book House (In Rus).Plato, 2008. Timaeus. In: Plato, 2008. Timaeus and Critias. Translated by R. Waterfield; with an introduction and notes by A. Gregory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-99.Siegers, J., 1964. Das Recht bei Emil Lask: Untersuchungen zur Rechtstheorie des Neukantianismus. Bonn: H. Bouvier.Spinelli, A., 2010. Vita, teoria e valore nel pensiero di Emil Lask (Leben, Theorie und Wert in Emil Lasks Denken). Dissertation. Tübingen: Fakultät für Philosophie und Geschichte der Universität Tübingen.Vaihinger, H., 1881. Commentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft zum hundertjährigen Jubiläum derselben, Volume 1. Stuttgart: Spemann.Wolf, M., 2019. Gerechtigkeit als Dekonstruktion. Zur kulturellen Form von Recht und Demokratie nach Jacques Derrida. Konstanz: Konstanz University Press.Zhao, J., 2020. Die Rechtsphilosophie Gustav Radbruchs unter dem Einfluss von Emil Lask. Eine Studie zur neukantianischen Begründung des Rechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Энтузиазм и история в кантовской перспективе. Обзор VII Международной летней школы по изучению наследия КантаM. V.AfanasyevImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1325-1813V. A.ProskuriakovImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityhttps://orcid.org/0009-0008-9802-2940The Seventh Immanuel Kant International Summer School devoted to the themes of enthusiasm and history in Kantian philosophy was held in Kaliningrad from 28 July to 5 August 2025. Organised by the Academia Kantiana at the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, the Petersburg Dialogue and the Sochi Dialogue Forums, it was addressed to budding scholars, i.e. undergraduate and post-graduate students and young doctors. The lectures of the School’s scientific supervisor, Vadim A. Chaly, and the discussions that followed covered topics ranging from methodological foundations of the work with Kant’s legacy to the context in which Kant formed his philosophy of history. This is also linked with the historical role of the emotions. These stem both from the characteristics of Kant’s concept of enthusiasm and from the applicability of this concept to the interpretation of some recent varieties of technological enthusiasm. Reviewed below are nineteen papers presented at the conference of young scholars.0531202615016410.5922/0207-6918-2025-3-6https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/15988/89626/Chakrabarty, D., 2000. Provincializing Europe. Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.Fukuyama, F., 1989. The End of History? The National Interest, 16, pp. 3-18.Herder, J. G., 2024. Ideas for the Philosophy of the History of Mankind. Translated and edited by G. M. Moore. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Rupp P. and Köhler O., 1951. Historia — Geschichte. Saeculum, 2(4), pp. 627-638.Stolzenberg, J., 2025. Kant on Enthusiasm. Kantian Journal, 44(1), pp. 40-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2025-1-2