NONE20260528212105109Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370105282026444И. И. Шпальдинг и революция умонастроения И. КантаL. E.KryshtopPatrice Lumumba Рeoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1012-5953Kant scholars traditionally trace the origin of Kant’s doctrine of revolution in the disposition to the Pietist teaching on a new birth whose main tenets are most fully set forth in the programmatic works of its founder, Philipp Jakob Spener. However, in spite of some similarities between these teachings there are important differences between them. Chief of them is Kant’s characteristic reduction of the usefulness of religion to its impact on the moral sphere and the search for the possibility of a moral interpretation of all the main Chrisitan dogmas, an approach to religion for which there are no grounds in Pietism. Furthermore, it is impossible, proceeding from the Pietist teaching on a new birth, to explain the transformation of the concept of Gesinnung (disposition), which we find in Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason. There is enough evidence pointing to another influence on Kant in this issue, and that is the philosophical-theological views of Johann Joachim Spalding on conversion and the related radical change of heart, most clearly observed in Thoughts on the Value of Feelings in Christianity (1761). An outstanding representative of neology, Spalding stresses the moral significance of religion and seeks opportunities for a moral interpretation of the foundations of the Christian faith, an approach that is much closer to Kant’s. Furthermore in this work the concept of Gesinnung is used in the meaning similar to that which would later appear in Kant’s Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason. Spalding’s book was well-known to Kant, such that it may well have influenced the transformation of the concept of Gesinnung observed in Kant’s philosophy.0528202673010.5922/0207-6918-2025-4-1https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/16052/93150/Aichinger, KF, 1771. Christianity on Reason, or Reflections on the Famous Book on the Value of Feelings in Christianity. Regensburg: JL Montag.Anonymous, 1772. Conversations on the Value of Feelings in Christianity. First Conversation. Bützow & Wismar: A.F. Rösen.Beutel, A., 2003. Joachim Spalding. Popular Theology and Church Reform in the Age of Enlightenment. In: P. Walter and MH Jung, eds. 2003. Theologians of the 17th and 18th Centuries: Confessional Age, Pietism, Enlightenment. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 226-243.Beutel, A., 2005a. Introduction. In: JJ Spalding, 2005a. Thoughts on the Value of Feelings in Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. XXV-XXXVIII.Beutel, A., 2005b. Foreword. In: JJ Spalding, 2005b. Thoughts on the Value of Feelings in Christianity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. V-VI.Beutel, A., 2006a. Enlightenment of the Mind. Observations on Spalding's Pentecost Sermon “Faith in Jesus as the Means to Salvation”. In: A. Beutel, V. Leppin and U. Sträter, eds. 2006a. Christianity in Transition. New Studies on Church and Religion in the Age of Enlightenment. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, pp. 119-128.Beutel, A., 2006b. Enlightenment in Germany. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Beutel, A., 2009. Church History in the Age of Enlightenment. A Compendium. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Beutel, A., 2014. Johann Joachim Spalding. Master Theologian in the Age of Enlightenment. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Bohatec, J., 1938. Kant's Philosophy of Religion in "Religion within the Limits of Mere Reason". With special consideration of its theological-dogmatic sources. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.Hinske, N., 1994. The tacit conversation. Principles of anthropology and philosophy of history in Mendelssohn and Kant. In: M. Albrecht, E.J. Engel and N. Hinske, eds. 1994. Moses Mendelssohn and the spheres of his activity. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 135-156.Kobe, Z., 2018. Reason Reborn: Pietistic Motifs in Kant's Moral Philosophy. Problemi International, 2(2), p. 57-88.Kryshtop, LE, 2020. Moral' i religiya v filosofii nemetskogo Prosveshcheniya: ot Khr. Tomaziya do I. Kanta [Morality and Religion in the Philosophy of the German Enlightenment: From Ch. Thomasius to Immanuel Kant]. Moscow: Kanon Plus. (in Rus.)Lynar, R.F., 1769. Friendly Conversations on the Effects of Grace. Halle: Orphanage.Macor, LA, 2012. The Dependence of Man on God: On Finitude as Creature in Johann Joachim Spalding. In: J. Sirovatka, ed. 2012. Finitude and Transcendence: Perspectives on a Fundamental Relationship. Hamburg: Felix Meiner, pp. 124–131.Macor, LA, 2013a. The Destiny of Man (1748–1800). A Conceptual History. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog.Macor, LA, 2013b. The legacy of Enlightenment theology in Kant: Preliminary considerations on the influence of Johann Joachim Spalding. In: N. Fischer, J. Sirovátka, D. Vopřada, ed. 2013b. Kant and the biblical religion of revelation. Prague: Karolinum Publishing House, pp. 107-121.Oemler, CW, 1775. Our thoughts on the usefulness of the preaching ministry in the countryside and its promotion on the occasion of the new religious reforms. Leipzig & Schleiz: J.G. Mauken.Raatz, G., 2014. Enlightenment as self-interpretation. A genetic-systematic reconstruction of Johann Joachim Spalding's "Destiny of Man" (1748). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Resewitz, F. G., 1765. [Book Review:] Gedanken über den Werth der Gefühle in dem Christenthum. Neue, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. Leipzig bey M. G. Weidemanns Erben und Reich 1764. Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek, 1(1), pp. 3-14.Resewitz, F. G., 1770. [Book Review:] Gedanken über den Werth der Gefühle in dem Christenthum. Dritte Auflage mit neuen Vermehrungen. Leipzig bey M. G. Weidemanns Erben und Reich, 1769. Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek, 12(1), pp. 163-171.Schleef, J., 1770. Gedanken über den Werth der Gefühle in dem Christenthum. Bützow & Wismar: Berger.Schleef, J., 1771. Beurtheilung der Gedanken über den Werth der Gefühle in dem Christenthum. Bützow & Wismar: Berger.Schleef, J., 1772. Fernere Beurtheilung der Gedanken über den Werth der Gefühle in dem Christenthum. Bützow: Berger.Schmidt, M., 1951a. Speners Wiedergeburtslehre. Theologische Literaturzeitung, 76, pp. 17-30.Schmidt, M., 1951b. Speners Pia Desideria. Versuch einer theologischen Interpretation. Theologia Viatorum, 3, pp. 70-112.Schmidt, M., 1969a. Speners Wiedergeburtslehre. In: M. Schmidt, 1969. Wiedergeburt und neuer Mensch. Gesammelte Studien zur Geschichte des Pietismus. Witten: Luther-Verlag, pp. 169-194.Schmidt, M., 1969b. Speners Pia Desideria. Versuch einer theologischen Interpretation. In: M. Schmidt, 1969. Wiedergeburt und neuer Mensch. Gesammelte Studien zur Geschichte des Pietismus. Witten: Luther-Verlag, pp. 129-168.Schmidt, M., 1970. Philipp Jakob Spener und die Bibel. In: K. Aland, ed. 1970. Pietismus und Bibel. Witten: Luther-Verlag, pp. 9-58.Schollmeier, J., 1967. Johann Joachim Spalding. Ein Beitrag zur Theologie der Aufklärung. Gütersloh: G. Mohn.Spalding, J. J., 1773. Gedanken über den Werth der Gefühle in dem Christenthum. Leipzig: Weidmann.Spener, P. J., 1686. Der innerliche und geistliche Friede oder der Friede Gottes so wol desselben mit uns als unserer mit und in Gott samt dessen Beförderungsmitteln und hindernüssen. Franckfurt: J. D. Zunner.Spener, P. J., 1694. Der hochwichtige Artikel von der Wiedergeburt, dero Ursachen, Mittel, Art, Pflichten, Würden, Kennzeichen und übrigen dahin gehörigen Materien. Frankfurt: J. D. Zunner.Spener, P. J., 1706. Pia Desideria oder herzliches Verlangen nach Gottgeflliger Besserung der wahren evangelichen Kirchen. Franckfurt am Main: J. D. Zunner.Tippmann, C., 2011. Die Bestimmung des Menschen bei Johann Joachim Spalding. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.Trescho, S. F., 1764. Beurtheilung der Schrift: vom Werth der Gefühle im Christenthum. Frankfurt am Main: Gebhard.Ulrich, J. H. F., 1778. Ueber den Religionszustand in den preußischen Staaten seit der Regierung Friedrichs des Großen. In einer Reihe von Briefen. Volume 1. Leipzig: Weygandsche Buchhandlung.Wallmann, J., 2010. Rebirth and Renewal in Philipp Jakob Spener. In: J. Wallmann, 2010. Pietism and Orthodoxy. Collected Essays. Volume 3. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 40-67.Трансцендентальный синтетизм В. Т. Круга и его рецепция В. Д. Кудрявцевым-ПлатоновымD. O.RozhinImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4877-2598The Russian philosopher Victor D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov was introduced to Kant’s ideas through the works of his older contemporaries, one of whom was Wilhelm Traugott Krug, the author of the concept of transcendental synthetism. However, the degree and character of the influence of his philosophical ideas on Kudryavtsev-Platonov’s epistemology remain unexplored to this day. To fill this gap I have examine the main features of transcendental synthetism and the basic tenets of Krug’s theory of cognition as well as their specific relation to Kant’s transcendentalism. I then describe the character of Kudryavtsev-Platonov’s acquaintance with the works of Krug and compare the views of these two philosophers. I demonstrate that Krug’s theoretical philosophy is a mix of Kantian transcendentalism and common sense convictions. I establish that Kudryavtsev-Platonov became acquainted with Krug’s Fundamental Philosophy and The System of Theoretical Philosophy quite early on. He was an opponent of the philosophy of common sense although, like Krug, he derived the being of the real and ideal world from the fact of self-consciousness. Unlike Krug, Kudryavtsev-Platonov ascribes to a priori forms of cognition not only subjective but also objective meaning. I conclude that Kudryavtsev-Platonov’s transcendental monism is genetically connected with Krug’s transcendental synthetism, i.e. its modification with a metaphysical slant. Krug’s ideas show themselves in a peculiar way in the Russian philosopher’s epistemological ideas: in the methodology of deriving the main principles of philosophy, in the structure of cognition and in the place the latter assigns to it in the system of philosophical knowledge.05282026316410.5922/0207-6918-2025-4-2https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/16053/93152/Breazeale, D. and Walsh, J., 2022. Karl Leonhard Reinhold. In: E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman. eds., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2022 Edition). Available at: (Accessed 31.03.2025).Erdmann, J. E., 1848. Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen Darstellung der Geschichte der neuern Philosophie. Volume 3, Part 1. Leipzig: F. Ch. W. Vogel.Fortlage, C., 1852. Genetische Geschichte der Philosophie seit Kant. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Hegel, G. W. F., 1986. Wie der gemeine Menschenverstand die Philosophie nehme, dargestellt an den Werken des Herrn Krug. In: G. W. F. Hegel, 1986. Werke. Vol. 2. Edited by E. Moldenhauer and K. M. Michel. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 188-207.Hegel, G. W. F., 2000. How the Ordinary Human Understanding Takes Philosophy (as Displayed in the Works of Mr. Krug). Translation and Notes by H. S. Harris. In: G. di Giovanni. ed., 2000. Between Kant and Hegel: Texts in the Development of Post-Kantian Idealism. Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 292-310.Heis, J., 2018. The Logicians of Kant’s School. In: S. Lapointe, ed. 2018. Logic from Kant to Russell: Laying the Foundations for Analytic Philosophy. New York & London: Routledge, pp. 28-55.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kemper, A., 1988. Gesunder Menschenverstand und transzendentaler Synthetismus: W.T. Krug, Philosoph zwischen Aufklärung und Idealismus. Münster: Lit.Köhnke, K. C., 1991. The Rise of Neo-Kantianism: German Academic Philosophy between Idealism and Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Krouglov, A. N., 2009. Filosofiya Kanta v Rossii v konce XVIII — pervoj polovine XIX vekov [Kant’s Philosophy in Russia at the End of the 18th and the First Half of the 19th Centuries]. Moscow: Kanon+. (In Rus.)Krug, W. T., 1803. Fundamentalphilosophie. Züllichau & Freystadt: Darnmannsche Buchhandlung.Krug, W. T., 1806. System der theoretischen Philosophie. Volume 1. Denklehre oder Logik. Königsberg: bei Goebbels und Unzer.Krug, W. T., 1828. Handbuch der Philosophie und der philosophischen Literatur: in 2 Volumes. Volume 1, Third Edition. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Krug, W. T., 1830. System der theoretischen Philosophie. Volume 2, 3rd ed. Metaphysik oder Erkenntnisslehre. Königsberg: bei A. W. Unzer.Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1854. Lekcii po metafizike 1854 [Lectures on Metaphysics 1854]. In: Russian State Library, Manuscript Department. Coll. 823, Box 4, № 4. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1854—1874. Analitika chuvstvennogo poznaniya. Analitika rassudochnogopoznaniya. Analitika umstvennogo poznaniya. Kurs lekcij 1854, 1856, 1874 gg. [The Analysis of Sensual Cognition. The Analysis of Rational Cognition. The Analysis of Mental Cognition. A Course of Lectures in 1854, 1856, 1874]. In: Russian State Library, Manuscript Department. Coll. 824, Box 4, № 3. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914a. On the Basic Principles of Philosophical Cognition. In: V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Volume 1, Part 2. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 1-66. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914b. Metaphysical Analysis of Empirical Cognition. In: V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Volume 1, Part 2. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 67-209. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914с. Metaphysical Analysis of Rational Cognition. In: V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Volume 1, Part 3. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 1-174. (In Rus.)Prantl, C., 1883. Krug, Wilhelm Traugott. In: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Volume 17. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, pp. 220-220.Reinhold, E., 1830. Handbuch der allgemeinen Geschichte der Philosophie für alle wissenschaftlich Gebildete. Volume 2, Part 2. Gotha: In der Hennings’schen Buchhandlung.Reinhold, K. L., 1790. Beyträge zur Berichtigung bisheriger Missverständnisse der Philosophen. Volume 1. Das Fundament der Elementarphilosophie betreffend. Jena: J. M. Mauke.Rozhin, D. O., 2023. Between Kant and Trendelenburg: On the Genealogy of Kudryavtsev-Platonov’s Theory of Cognition. Kantian Journal, 42(4), pp. 35-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-3.Rozhin, D. O., 2024a. Traces of Kantian Apriorism in the Views of F. A. Golubinsky and V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov. RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 28(2), 344-357. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2024-28-2-344-357. (In Rus.)Rozhin, D. O., 2024b. The Function of Kantian Theoretical Philosophy in the Rational Explanation of the Cognition of God by v. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofi ia. Religiovedenie, 115, pp. 119-133. https://doi.org/10.15382/sturI2024115.119-133 (In Rus.)Rozhin, D., 2025a. Kant’s Copernican Turn in Kudryavtsev-Platonov’s System of Transcendental Monism. Cogency, 16(2), pp. 72-88. Available at: (Accessed 31.03.2025).Rozhin, D. O., 2025b. The Teaching of Philosophical Disciplines by V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov at the Moscow Theological Academy. History of Philosophy, 30(1), pp. 29-39. https://doi.org/10.21146/2074-5869-2025-30-1-29-39. (In Rus.)Schoeps, H.J., 1959. Erdmann, Eduard. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie. Volume 4. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, p. 569.Ueberweg, F., 1857. System der Logik und Geschichte der logischen Lehren. Bonn: A. Marcus.Zhuchkov, V. A., 2001. Wolf’s Metaphysics and Its Place in Modern History. In: Hristian Vol’f i filosofiya v Rossii [Christian Wolff and Philosophy in Russia]. Saint-Petersburg: RHGI, pp. 8-106. (In Rus.)Тезис Канта «Бытие не есть реальный предикат» в толковании ХайдеггераE. S.MarchukovaThe focus of this article is an interpretation of the key Kantian thesis, “being is not a real predicate”, advanced by Heidegger in his lecture course, The Basic Problems of Phenomenology (1927) wherein it is presented as one of the four fundamental theses on ‘being’ in the history of philosophy. The article describes the historical-philosophical context for Kant’s critique of the ontological proof of the existence of God. This critique is based on three interconnected components: logical, epistemological, and ontological. Next, it describes the specificities of the Kantian conceptual apparatus, with a detailed analysis of concepts key to understanding Kant’s thesis — ‘reality’, ‘real predicate’, and ‘being’ — and explains the relation of these concepts to the Kantian categories. I submit that Heidegger is interested not so much in the content of the Kantian critique of the ontological argument as in Kant’s interpretation of the concepts of ‘being’ and ‘existence’, which are central to the development of a fundamental ontology. Heidegger reduces the opaqueness of these concepts to the problem of the definition of the concept of ‘perception’; and, challenging Kant’s identification of existence with ‘perception’, argues that existence cannot be identical either to the act of perception, or to the perceived object, nor to its ‘perceivedness’ (Wahrgenommenheit). Heidegger accuses Kant of a lack of clarity, and of a positive definition of the concept of ‘existence’ — which, however, does not undermine the relevance of Kant’s thesis as a starting point for his own fundamental ontology. I demonstrate that, in spite of its shortcomings, Heidegger sees the Kantian thesis as a solid foundation upon which to pursue further the project of building ontology as phenomenology. This, however, calls for a more solid grounding and clarification of the horizon within which the question of ‘being’ is raised.05282026659110.5922/0207-6918-2025-4-3https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/16053/93154/Chernyakov, A. G., 2001. Ontologiya vremeni. Bytie i vremya v filosofii Aristotelya. Gusserlya, Hajdeggera [Ontology of Time. Being and Time in Philosophy of Aristotle, Husserl and Heidegger]. St. Petersburg: Higher Religious and Philosophical School. (In Rus.)Chernyakov, A. G., 2016. Ob utrate ochevidnosti: na puti k novoj ontologii [About the Loss of Obviousness: on the Way to a New Ontology]. St. Petersburg: Higher Religious and Philosophical School. (In Rus.)Dobrokhotov, A. L., 1986. Kategoriya bytiya v klassicheskoi zapadnoevropeiskoi filosofii [The Category of Being in Classical Western European Philosophy]. Moscow: MSU Publishing House. (In Rus.)Heidegger, M., 1962a. Being and Time. Translated by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell.Heidegger, M., 1962b. Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. Translated by J. S. Churchill. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Heidegger, M., 1967a. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Heidegger, M., 1967b. What is a Thing? Translated by W. B. Barton, Jr. and V. Deutsch. South Bend: Gateway Editions.Heidegger, M., 1982. The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Translated by A. Hofstadter. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Heidegger, M., 1984. Die Frage nach dem Ding. Zu Kants Lehre von den transzendentalen Grundsätzen. In: M. Heidegger. Gesamtausgabe. Band 41. Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann.Heidegger, M., 1989. Die Grundprobleme der Phänomenologie. In: M. Heidegger. Gesamtausgabe. Band 24. 2. Aufl. Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann.Heidegger, M., 1995. Phänomenologische Interpretation von Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. In: M. Heidegger. Gesamtausgabe. Band 25. Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann.Heidegger, M., 1997. Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by P. Emad and K. Maly. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Heidegger, M., 1998. Kant’s Thesis about Being. In: M. Heidegger, 1998. Pathmarks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337-364.Kant, I., 1992. The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical Philosophy, 1755—1770. Translated by D. Walford. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.St. Anselm, 1938. Proslogion. In: S. Anselmi Opera Omnia. Volume 1. Edinburgi: Apud Thomam Nelson et Filios, pp. 89-140.St. Anselm, 1979. Proslogium. In: St. Anselm, 1979. Proslogium; Monologium; an Apendix in Behalf of the Fool by Gaunilon; and Cur Deus Homo. Translated by S. N. Deane. Reprint Edition. La Salle, Ill.: The Open Court Publishing Company, pp. 1-34.Thomas Aquinas, 1873. In Libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi. In: Thomas Aquinas, 1873. Opera Omnia. Volume 7. Parisiis: Apud Ludovicum Vives.Thomas Aquinas, 1875. Summa theologica. Volume 1. Londini: Davidem Nutt.Thomas Aquinas, 1883а. De veritate. In: Thomas Aquinas, 1883a. Quaestiones disputatae accedit liber de ente et essentia. Volume 3. Parisiis: Barrie-Ducis.Thomas Aquinas, 1883b. De ente et essentia. In: Thomas Aquinas, 1883b. Quaestiones disputatae accedit liber de ente et essentia. Volume 4. Parisiis: Barrie-Ducis.Thomas Aquinas, 1905. Summa contra gentiles seu de veritate catholicae fidei. Augustae Taurinorum: Typographia Pontificia eq. Petri Marietti.Thomas Aquinas, 2004. On Being and Essence. Translated by Joseph Bobik. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Опыт современности в кантианской перспективеA. G.KornienkoSt. Petersburg State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0009-0001-7555-671In this article, I attempt to reconstruct Kant’s enlightenment project, viewed as a complex phenomenon which combines various programmatic principles of all three Critiques, and which offers a special perspective on the perception of modernity. I have chosen, as the lens for my analysis, the interpretation of Michel Foucault, who presents Kant’s project as a phased transition from philosophical critique to political pragmatics. Following the path charted by Foucault, I analyse a number of ideas developed by Kant within the framework of his critical philosophy, which laid the theoretical foundations for subsequent implementations of his enlightenment project in daily political practices. The first part of my study examines the concept of epistemic autonomy as a prerequisite of legitimate governance, first of oneself, and then of others. The second part analyses the experience of ‘heroisation of the present’, which determines people’s attitudes toward their historical epoch. The third part explores the concept of ‘common sense’ as the basis of the political mechanism that makes agreement possible among citizens with respect to social issues. I arrive at conclusions which present the perception of modernity, in the context of Kant’s enlightenment project, as the experience of existence within a special historical space that is open not only to critique but also to action and dialogue, and in which the three Kantian Critiques appear as mutually complementary aspects of a single critique of the present moment in modern discourse.052820269211710.5922/0207-6918-2025-4-4https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/16053/93155/Arendt, H., 1992. Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Benjamin, A., 2012. Towards an Affective Structure of Subjectivity. Notes on Kant’s “An Answer to the Question: What is the Enlightenment?” Parallax, 18(4), pp. 26-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2012.714550.Chance, B. A., 2015. Kant and the Discipline of Reason. European Journal of Philosophy, 23(1), pp. 87-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12064.Cohen, A., 2021. Kant on Epistemic Autonomy. In: C. Serck-Hanssen and B. Himmelmann, eds. 2021. The Court of Reason: Proceedings of the 13th International Kant Congress. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 687-696. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110701357-064.Deligiorgi, K., 2002. Universality, Publicity, and Communication: Kant’s Conception of Reason. European Journal of Philosophy, 10(2), pp. 143-159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0378.00153.Dmitrieva, N. A., Zilber, A. S., Chaly, V. A., Kiselev, A.S. and Bonadyseva, P.R., 2019. Kant’s Ethics in the Context of the Enlightenment. Report of the 12th Kant Readings Conference (Kaliningrad, 21-25 April 2019). Kantian Journal, 38(4), pp. 101-118. http://dx.doi:10.5922/0207-6918-2019-4-5.Dyakov, A. V., 2010. Mishel Fuko i ego vremya [Michel Foucault and His Time]. St Petersburg: Aleteya. (In Rus.)Ferrone, V., 2015. The Enlightenment: History of an Idea. Translated by E. Tarantino. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Foucault, M., 1984. What is Enlightenment? In: P. Rabinow, ed. 1984. The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books, pp. 32-50.Foucault, M., 1986. Kant on Enlightenment and Revolution. Economy and Society, 15(1), pp. 88-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085148600000016.Foucault, M., 2007. What is Critique? Translated by L. Hochroth. In: M. Foucault, 2007. The Politics of Truth. Edited by S. Lotringer, introduction by J. Rajchman. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext(e), pp. 41-81.Foucault, M., 2011. The Government of Self and Others: Lectures at the College de France, 1982—1983. Translated by G. Burchell. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Hendricks, C., 2008. Foucault’s Kantian Critique: Philosophy and the Present. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 34(4), pp. 357-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/019 1453708088509.Hinske, N., 1998. Zwischen Aufklärung und Vernunftkritik: Studien zum Kantschen Logikcorpus. Suttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog.Kant, I., 1991a. The Contest of Faculties. In: I. Kant, 1991. Political Writings. Edited by H. Reiss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 176-191.Kant, I., 1991b. What is Orientation in Thinking? In: I. Kant, 1991. Political Writings. Edited by H. S. Reiss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 237-249.Kant, I., 1992. The Jäsche Logic. In: I. Kant, 1992. Lectures on Logic. Edited by J. M. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 521-643.Kant, I., 1996. An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? (1784). In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical philosophy. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15-22.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Translated by P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2007a. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. In: I. Kant, 2007. Anthropology, History, and Education. Edited by R. B. Louden and G. Zöller. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 227-430.Kant, I., 2007b. Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim. In: I. Kant, 2007. Anthropology, History, and Education. Edited by G. Zöller and R. B. Louden; translated by A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107-120.Koselleck, R., 1985. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press.Krouglov, A. N., 2023. Kant’s Concept of Enlightenment and Its Alternatives. Kantian Journal, 42(2), pp. 16-39. http://dx.doi:10.5922/0207-6918-2023-2-2.McQuillan, C., 2012. Beyond the Limits of Reason: Kant, Critique and Enlightenment. In: K. de Boer and R. Sonderegger, eds. 2012. Conceptions of Critique in Modern and Contemporary Philosophy. Basingstoke, Hampshire & New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 66-83.Mezhuev, B. V., 2023. “Conservative Enlightenment” as “Heroisation of the Present”. Kantian Journal, 42(3), pp. 130-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2023-3-6.Pogonyailo, A. G., 2017. Myshlenie i sozertsanie. Materialy k lektsiiam po istorii filosofii [Thinking and Contemplation. Materials for the Lectures on the History of Philosophy]. St Petersburg: Nauka. (In Rus.)Schmidt, J., 2011. Misunderstanding the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’: Venturi, Habermas, and Foucault. History of European Ideas, 37(1), pp. 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.histeuroideas.2010.08.002.Soboleva, M. E., 2014. The Antinomy of Political Reason. Some Deliberations on Kant’s “Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?” Kantian Journal, 3(49), pp. 40-50. (In Rus.) http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2014-3-3.Startseva, A. and Sabanov, A. O., 2023. Immanuel Kant and the “New Enlightenment”. International Conference Report. Kantian Journal, 42(1), pp. 132-145. http://dx.doi:10.5922/0207-6918-2023-1-7.Sweet, K., 2024. Kant on Free Speech: Criticism, Enlightenment, and the Exercise of Judgement in the Public Sphere. Kantian Review, 29(1), pp. 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1017/S136941542300047X.Venturi, F., 1971. Utopia and Reform in the Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Трансформация неокантианской теории восприятия в русской физиологии: Сеченов и ГельмгольцGonzález S. A.FuentesImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1092-0321The later self-assessment of Nikolai N. Alekseev concerning his independence from the philosophical trends of his time led researchers to believe that the philosophical foundations of his worldview were remote from the Neo-Kantian principles of philosophy. And yet, an attentive reading of his philosophical and public writings, as well as the study of archive materials and the origins of his views, warrant the conclusion that he was among the Russian Neo-Kantians, many of whom would subsequently follow their own intellectual paths while, however, preserving some significant Neo-Kantian references. Alekseev’s focus on the question of the people’s political ideal was conditioned by his involvement in the movement of Eurasianism during the 1920s and 1930s; but there are signs that he was edging toward this theme already during the period of the two 1917 Russian revolutions and the Civil War. Analysing the political situation of the time, Alekseev drew attention to the fact that the anarchic inclinations of the people concerning the running of public life, as well as the people’s views on the social “truth-justice”, were linked to the idea of autocratic monarchy, an idea which had been dominant for much of Russian history and was apparent even in cases where the people revolted. In his reflections on the Russian people, Alekseev links the Neo-Kantian doctrine of values with the principles of “folk psychology” (Völkerpsychologie) which influenced intellectual life at least until the Second World War. In conclusion, I demonstrate the connection between Alekseev’s German-language article “The Origin of the Russian People’s Political Ideals” (1931) — Russian and English translations of which are included in this issue of the “Kantian Journal” — and the 1917—1919 texts reworked in 1927 for the journal “Put’”.0528202611815310.5922/0207-6918-2025-4-5https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/16054/93157/Alekseev, N.N., 1909. The Social Philosophy of Rudolf Stammler. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii [Issues of Philosophy and Psychology], 96(1), pp. 2-5. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1912. Nauki obshchestvennye i estestvennye v istoricheskom vzaimootnoshenii ikh metodov. Ocherki po istorii i metodologii obshchestvennykh nauk [The Social and Natural Sciences in the Historical Context of Their Methods. Essays on the History and Methodology of the Social Sciences]. Part 1: Mekhanicheskaya teoriya obshchestva. Istoricheskij materializm (Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo universiteta. Otdel yuridicheskiy. Vyp. 38) [The Mechanical Theory of Society. Historical Materialism (Academic Writings of Moscow University. Department of Law, Issue 38)]. Moscow: Printing House of the Imperial Moscow University. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1913. The Main Philosophical Premises of L. I. Petrażycki’s Psychological Theory of Right. Yuridicheskij vestnik [Legal Bulletin], 4, pp. 5-23. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1917a. The Bourgeoisie. Narodopravstvo [The People’s Rulership], 1, pp. 4-7. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1917b. Anarchism. Narodopravstvo [The People’s Rulership], 2, pp. 2-3. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1917c. The Contemporary Crisis. Narodopravstvo [The People’s Rulership], 17, pp. 12-13. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1918. Vvedenie v izuchenie prava [An Introduction to the Study of Law]. Moscow: The Moscow Educational Commission Press. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1919a. Obshchee uchenie o prave. Kurs lekcij, prochitannyh v Tavricheskom universitete v 1918/19 godu [General Theory of Right. Course of Lectures given at Taurida University in the Academic Year 1918/19]. Simferopol: s.n. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1919b. Ocherki po obshchey teorii gosudarstva. Osnovnye predposylki i gipotezy gosudarstvennoy nauki [Essays on the General Theory of the State: Fundamental Premises and Hypotheses of State Science]. Moscow: Moscow Scientific Publishing House. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1926. The Idea of the ‘Earthly City’ in Christian Doctrine. Put’ [The Way], 5, pp. 20-41. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1927a. Christianity and the Idea of Monarchy. Put’ [The Way], 6, pp. 15-31. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N.N., 1927b. The Russian People and the State. Put’ [The Way], 8, pp. 21-57. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1930. Religiya, parvo i nravstvennost’ [Religion, Right and Morality]. Paris: YMCA Press. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1998a. On the Ways to the Future Russia (The Soviet System and Its Political Capabilities). In: N. N. Alekseev, 1998. Russkiy narod i gosudarstvo [The Russian People and the State]. Moscow: Agraf, pp. 283-371. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1998b. The Russian People and the State. In: N. N. Alekseev, 1998. Russkiy narod i gosudarstvo [The Russian People and the State]. Moscow: Agraf, pp. 68-119. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1998c. Eurasianists and the State. In: N. N. Alekseev, 1998. Russkiy narod i gosudarstvo [The Russian People and the State]. Moscow: Agraf, pp. 169-185. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1998d. [Theory of the State: Theoretical Studies of the State, State Structure, the Ideal of the State]. In: N. N. Alekseev, 1998. Russkiy narod i gosudarstvo [The Russian People and the State]. Moscow: Agraf, pp. 386-624. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N. and Dmitrieva, N. A., 2025. Nikolai N. Alekseev: The Origin of the Russian People’s Political Ideals. Kantian Journal, 44(4), pp. 177-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2025-4-7Alexejew, N. N., 1931. Der Ursprung der politischen Ideale des russischen Volkes. Osteuropa, 6(6), pp. 313-328.Anonymous, 1927a. News from All Over. Poslednie novosti [The Latest News], 2118 (9 January), p. 2. (In Rus.)Anonymous, 1927b. In the Russian Scientific Institute. Rul’ [Steering Wheel], 1881 (6 February), p. 7. (In Rus.)Anonymous, 1927c. In the Russian Scientific Institute. Rul’ [Steering Wheel], 1887 (13 February), p. 7. (In Rus.)Anonymous, 1927d. In the Russian Scientific Institute. Rul’ [Steering Wheel], 1869 (23 January), p. 8. (In Rus.)Anonymous, 1975. “Osteuropa”-Aufsätze, 1925—1939. Osteuropa, 25(8/9), pp. A463-А475.Arjakovsky, A., 2000. Zhurnal “Put’” (1925—1940): pokolenie russkikh religioznykh mysliteley v emigracii [The Journal “The Way” (1925—1940): A Generation of Russian Religious Thinkers in Exile]. Kiev: Feniks.Beiser, F. C., 2011. The German Historicist Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Beiser, F. C., 2018. Hermann Cohen. An Intellectual Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bogdanova, O. A., 2018. On the Features of the Artistic and Publicistic Discourse in the Journal “The People’s Rulership” (1917—1918). Studia Litterarum, 3(4), pp. 184-203. (In Rus.) https://doi.org/10.22455/2500-4247-2018-3-4-184-203.Dmitrieva, N. A., 2007. Russkoe neokantianstvo: “Marburg” in Russia. Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki [Russian Neo-Kantianism: ‘Marburg’ in Russia. Historical and Philosophical Essays]. Moscow: Rossijskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN). (In Rus.)Epstein, F. T., 1975. Otto Hoetzsch und sein “Osteuropa” 1925—1930. Osteuropa, 25(8/9), pp. 541-554.Ermishin, O. T. and Nazmutdinov, B. V., eds. 2017. “My Dear Friend Pyotr Nikolaevich”: Letters from N. N. Alekseev to P. N. Savitsky (1957—1961). Ezhegodnik Doma russkogo zarubezhya imeni Aleksandra Solzhenitsyna [Yearbook of the Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad], 7, pp. 359-445. (In Rus.)Gorlin, M., 1933. Die philosophisch-politischen Strömungen in der russischen Emigration. Osteuropa, 8(5), pp. 279-294.Gundlach, H., 2017. Wilhelm Windelband und die Psychologie. Das Fach Philosophie und die Wissenschaft Psychologie im Deutschen Kaiserreich. Heidelberg: University Publishing.Hoetzsch, O., 1925. Deutschland und Rußland. Ein Wort zur Einführung. Osteuropa, 1(1), pp. 1-8.Ilyin, V. N., 1931. The Eudocratic Transformation of Science. In: Tridtsatye gody. Utverzhdenie evraziycev [The Thirties. The Assertion of Eurasianists], 7, pp. 123-128. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1996. An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? ln: I. Kant, 1996. Practical philosophy. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15-22.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.M. v. K., 1929. Notizen. Der Zwist in der Eurasierbewegung. Osteuropa, 4(9), pp. 634-635.Mikhalchenko, S. I. and Tkachenko, E. V., 2017. The Russian Scientific Institute in Berlin in the Memoirs and Correspondence of Russian Emigrants. The Bryansk State University Herald, 4(34), pp. 94-103. (In Rus.)Nazmutdinov, B.V., 2017. “My Dear Friend Pyotr Nikolaevich”: Letters from N. N. Alekseev to P. N. Savitsky (1957—1961). Preface. Ezhegodnik Doma russkogo zarubezhya imeni Aleksandra Solzhenitsyna [Yearbook of the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad], 7, pp. 351-358 (In Rus.)Novgorodtsev, P. I., 1913. Social and Natural Sciences. (Some Remarks on N. N. Alekseev’s Book). Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii [Issues of Philosophy and Psychology], 120, pp. 716-722. (In Rus.)Rezvykh, T. N. and Tsygankov, A. S., 2022. S. L. Frank and the Russian Scientific Institute in Berlin. History of Philosophy, 27(2), pp. 90-116. (In Rus.)Schlögel, K., Kucher, K., Suchy, B. and Thum, G., eds. 1999. Chronik russischen Lebens in Deutschland 1918—1941. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Shaveko, N. A., 2021. Pravovoy ideal: kantianskaya traditsiya v ucheniyakh o spravedlivosti XX veka [The Legal Ideal: The Kantian Tradition in Twentieth-Century Theories of Justice]. Second Edition. Мoscow: Prospekt. (In Rus.)Unser, J., 1975. “Osteuropa”: Biographie einer Zeitschrift. Osteuropa, 25(8/9), pp. 555-601.Vernadsky, V.I., 1912. From the History of Ideas. Russkaya mysl’ [Russian Thought], 10, section 2, pp. 123-138. (In Rus.)Vysheslavtsev, B. P., 1995. Russian National Character. Edited by N. K. Gavryushin. Voprosy Filosofii, 6, pp. 112-121. (In Rus.)Walicki, A., 1992. Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism. Notre Dame, IN & London: University of Notre Dame Press.Weber, M., 1907. R. Stammlers “Überwindung” der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 24(1), pp. 94-151.Wischeslavzeff, B., 1912. Recht und Moral. In: P. Natorp, ed. 1912. Philosophische Abhandlungen: Hermann Cohen zum 70sten Geburtstag. Berlin: Cassirer, pp. 190-202.Wundt, W., 1911. Probleme der Völkerpsychologie. Leipzig: Ernst Wiegandt.Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2020. The Concept of the National State in Nikolay Alekseev’s Philosophy of His Emigrant Period. Voprosy Filosofii, 8, pp. 139-149. (In Rus.) https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-8-139-149.Русский неокантианец о народном политическом идеале в евразийской перспективеN. A.DmitrievaImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1092-0321The later self-assessment of Nikolai N. Alekseev concerning his independence from the philosophical trends of his time led researchers to believe that the philosophical foundations of his worldview were remote from the Neo-Kantian principles of philosophy. And yet, an attentive reading of his philosophical and public writings, as well as the study of archive materials and the origins of his views, warrant the conclusion that he was among the Russian Neo-Kantians, many of whom would subsequently follow their own intellectual paths while, however, preserving some significant Neo-Kantian references. Alekseev’s focus on the question of the people’s political ideal was conditioned by his involvement in the movement of Eurasianism during the 1920s and 1930s; but there are signs that he was edging toward this theme already during the period of the two 1917 Russian revolutions and the Civil War. Analysing the political situation of the time, Alekseev drew attention to the fact that the anarchic inclinations of the people concerning the running of public life, as well as the people’s views on the social “truth-justice”, were linked to the idea of autocratic monarchy, an idea which had been dominant for much of Russian history and was apparent even in cases where the people revolted. In his reflections on the Russian people, Alekseev links the Neo-Kantian doctrine of values with the principles of “folk psychology” (Völkerpsychologie) which influenced intellectual life at least until the Second World War. In conclusion, I demonstrate the connection between Alekseev’s German-language article “The Origin of the Russian People’s Political Ideals” (1931) — Russian and English translations of which are included in this issue of the “Kantian Journal” — and the 1917—1919 texts reworked in 1927 for the journal “Put’”.0528202615417610.5922/0207-6918-2025-4-6https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/16054/93160/Alekseev, N.N., 1909. The Social Philosophy of Rudolf Stammler. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii [Issues of Philosophy and Psychology], 96(1), pp. 2-5. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1912. Nauki obshchestvennye i estestvennye v istoricheskom vzaimootnoshenii ikh metodov. Ocherki po istorii i metodologii obshchestvennykh nauk [The Social and Natural Sciences in the Historical Context of Their Methods. Essays on the History and Methodology of the Social Sciences]. Part 1: Mekhanicheskaya teoriya obshchestva. Istoricheskij materializm (Uchenye zapiski Moskovskogo universiteta. Otdel yuridicheskiy. Vyp. 38) [The Mechanical Theory of Society. Historical Materialism (Academic Writings of Moscow University. Department of Law, Issue 38)]. Moscow: Printing House of the Imperial Moscow University. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1913. The Main Philosophical Premises of L. I. Petrażycki’s Psychological Theory of Right. Yuridicheskij vestnik [Legal Bulletin], 4, pp. 5-23. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1917a. The Bourgeoisie. Narodopravstvo [The People’s Rulership], 1, pp. 4-7. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1917b. Anarchism. Narodopravstvo [The People’s Rulership], 2, pp. 2-3. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1917c. The Contemporary Crisis. Narodopravstvo [The People’s Rulership], 17, pp. 12-13. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1918. Vvedenie v izuchenie prava [An Introduction to the Study of Law]. Moscow: The Moscow Educational Commission Press. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1919a. Obshchee uchenie o prave. Kurs lekcij, prochitannyh v Tavricheskom universitete v 1918/19 godu [General Theory of Right. Course of Lectures given at Taurida University in the Academic Year 1918/19]. Simferopol: s.n. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1919b. Ocherki po obshchey teorii gosudarstva. Osnovnye predposylki i gipotezy gosudarstvennoy nauki [Essays on the General Theory of the State: Fundamental Premises and Hypotheses of State Science]. Moscow: Moscow Scientific Publishing House. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1926. The Idea of the ‘Earthly City’ in Christian Doctrine. Put’ [The Way], 5, pp. 20-41. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1927a. Christianity and the Idea of Monarchy. Put’ [The Way], 6, pp. 15-31. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N.N., 1927b. The Russian People and the State. Put’ [The Way], 8, pp. 21-57. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1930. Religiya, parvo i nravstvennost’ [Religion, Right and Morality]. Paris: YMCA Press. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1998a. On the Ways to the Future Russia (The Soviet System and Its Political Capabilities). In: N. N. Alekseev, 1998. Russkiy narod i gosudarstvo [The Russian People and the State]. Moscow: Agraf, pp. 283-371. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1998b. The Russian People and the State. In: N. N. Alekseev, 1998. Russkiy narod i gosudarstvo [The Russian People and the State]. Moscow: Agraf, pp. 68-119. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1998c. Eurasianists and the State. In: N. N. Alekseev, 1998. Russkiy narod i gosudarstvo [The Russian People and the State]. Moscow: Agraf, pp. 169-185. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1998d. [Theory of the State: Theoretical Studies of the State, State Structure, the Ideal of the State]. In: N. N. Alekseev, 1998. Russkiy narod i gosudarstvo [The Russian People and the State]. Moscow: Agraf, pp. 386-624. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N. and Dmitrieva, N. A., 2025. Nikolai N. Alekseev: The Origin of the Russian People’s Political Ideals. Kantian Journal, 44(4), pp. 177-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2025-4-7Alexejew, N. N., 1931. Der Ursprung der politischen Ideale des russischen Volkes. Osteuropa, 6(6), pp. 313-328.Anonymous, 1927a. News from All Over. Poslednie novosti [The Latest News], 2118 (9 January), p. 2. (In Rus.)Anonymous, 1927b. In the Russian Scientific Institute. Rul’ [Steering Wheel], 1881 (6 February), p. 7. (In Rus.)Anonymous, 1927c. In the Russian Scientific Institute. Rul’ [Steering Wheel], 1887 (13 February), p. 7. (In Rus.)Anonymous, 1927d. In the Russian Scientific Institute. Rul’ [Steering Wheel], 1869 (23 January), p. 8. (In Rus.)Anonymous, 1975. “Osteuropa”-Aufsätze, 1925—1939. Osteuropa, 25(8/9), pp. A463-А475.Arjakovsky, A., 2000. Zhurnal “Put’” (1925—1940): pokolenie russkikh religioznykh mysliteley v emigracii [The Journal “The Way” (1925—1940): A Generation of Russian Religious Thinkers in Exile]. Kiev: Feniks.Beiser, F. C., 2011. The German Historicist Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Beiser, F. C., 2018. Hermann Cohen. An Intellectual Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bogdanova, O. A., 2018. On the Features of the Artistic and Publicistic Discourse in the Journal “The People’s Rulership” (1917—1918). Studia Litterarum, 3(4), pp. 184-203. (In Rus.) https://doi.org/10.22455/2500-4247-2018-3-4-184-203.Dmitrieva, N. A., 2007. Russkoe neokantianstvo: “Marburg” in Russia. Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki [Russian Neo-Kantianism: ‘Marburg’ in Russia. Historical and Philosophical Essays]. Moscow: Rossijskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN). (In Rus.)Epstein, F. T., 1975. Otto Hoetzsch und sein “Osteuropa” 1925—1930. Osteuropa, 25(8/9), pp. 541-554.Ermishin, O. T. and Nazmutdinov, B. V., eds. 2017. “My Dear Friend Pyotr Nikolaevich”: Letters from N. N. Alekseev to P. N. Savitsky (1957—1961). Ezhegodnik Doma russkogo zarubezhya imeni Aleksandra Solzhenitsyna [Yearbook of the Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad], 7, pp. 359-445. (In Rus.)Gorlin, M., 1933. Die philosophisch-politischen Strömungen in der russischen Emigration. Osteuropa, 8(5), pp. 279-294.Gundlach, H., 2017. Wilhelm Windelband und die Psychologie. Das Fach Philosophie und die Wissenschaft Psychologie im Deutschen Kaiserreich. Heidelberg: University Publishing.Hoetzsch, O., 1925. Deutschland und Rußland. Ein Wort zur Einführung. Osteuropa, 1(1), pp. 1-8.Ilyin, V. N., 1931. The Eudocratic Transformation of Science. In: Tridtsatye gody. Utverzhdenie evraziycev [The Thirties. The Assertion of Eurasianists], 7, pp. 123-128. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1996. An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment? ln: I. Kant, 1996. Practical philosophy. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15-22.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.M. v. K., 1929. Notizen. Der Zwist in der Eurasierbewegung. Osteuropa, 4(9), pp. 634-635.Mikhalchenko, S. I. and Tkachenko, E. V., 2017. The Russian Scientific Institute in Berlin in the Memoirs and Correspondence of Russian Emigrants. The Bryansk State University Herald, 4(34), pp. 94-103. (In Rus.)Nazmutdinov, B.V., 2017. “My Dear Friend Pyotr Nikolaevich”: Letters from N. N. Alekseev to P. N. Savitsky (1957—1961). Preface. Ezhegodnik Doma russkogo zarubezhya imeni Aleksandra Solzhenitsyna [Yearbook of the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn House of Russia Abroad], 7, pp. 351-358 (In Rus.)Novgorodtsev, P. I., 1913. Social and Natural Sciences. (Some Remarks on N. N. Alekseev’s Book). Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii [Issues of Philosophy and Psychology], 120, pp. 716-722. (In Rus.)Rezvykh, T. N. and Tsygankov, A. S., 2022. S. L. Frank and the Russian Scientific Institute in Berlin. History of Philosophy, 27(2), pp. 90-116. (In Rus.)Schlögel, K., Kucher, K., Suchy, B. and Thum, G., eds. 1999. Chronik russischen Lebens in Deutschland 1918—1941. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Shaveko, N. A., 2021. Pravovoy ideal: kantianskaya traditsiya v ucheniyakh o spravedlivosti XX veka [The Legal Ideal: The Kantian Tradition in Twentieth-Century Theories of Justice]. Second Edition. Мoscow: Prospekt. (In Rus.)Unser, J., 1975. “Osteuropa”: Biographie einer Zeitschrift. Osteuropa, 25(8/9), pp. 555-601.Vernadsky, V.I., 1912. From the History of Ideas. Russkaya mysl’ [Russian Thought], 10, section 2, pp. 123-138. (In Rus.)Vysheslavtsev, B. P., 1995. Russian National Character. Edited by N. K. Gavryushin. Voprosy Filosofii, 6, pp. 112-121. (In Rus.)Walicki, A., 1992. Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism. Notre Dame, IN & London: University of Notre Dame Press.Weber, M., 1907. R. Stammlers “Überwindung” der materialistischen Geschichtsauffassung. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, 24(1), pp. 94-151.Wischeslavzeff, B., 1912. Recht und Moral. In: P. Natorp, ed. 1912. Philosophische Abhandlungen: Hermann Cohen zum 70sten Geburtstag. Berlin: Cassirer, pp. 190-202.Wundt, W., 1911. Probleme der Völkerpsychologie. Leipzig: Ernst Wiegandt.Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2020. The Concept of the National State in Nikolay Alekseev’s Philosophy of His Emigrant Period. Voprosy Filosofii, 8, pp. 139-149. (In Rus.) https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2020-8-139-149.Николай Алексеев: Происхождение политических идеалов русского народаN. N.AlexeyevN. A.DmitrievaNikolai Alekseev’s article was written whilst in exile and belongs to the Eurasian period of his philosophical work. It draws on ideas developed in articles from 1926 and 1927, written for the journal “Put’ [The Way]: A Journal of Russian Religious Thought”. Based on the research of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Russian historians, Alekseev demonstrates how the Russian people’s views on state power and the figure of the ruler took shape. From his perspective, these views uniquely combine, on one hand, attachment to an absolutist monarchical form of government, and, on the other, a preference for an anarchic principle of social organisation.0528202617720710.5922/0207-6918-2025-4-7https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/16054/93161/Alekseev, N. N., 1998a. Christianity and the Idea of Monarchy. In: N. N. Alekseev, 1998. Russkiy narod i gosudarstvo [The Russian People and the State]. Moscow: Agraf, pp. 48-67. (In Rus.)Alekseev, N. N., 1998b. The Russian People and the State. In: N. N. Alekseev, 1998. Russkiy narod i gosudarstvo [The Russian People and the State]. Moscow: Agraf, pp. 68-119. (In Rus.)Alexejev, N. N., 1937. Das russische Volk und der Staat. In: N. Alexejev, N. Berdjajev, S. Bulgakov et al., 1937. Kirche, Staat und Mensch. Russisch-orthodoxe Studien. Genf: Forschungsabteilung des Oekumenischen Rates für Praktisches Christentum, pp. 5-54.Alexejew, N. N., 1931. Der Ursprung der politischen Ideale des russischen Volkes. Osteuropa, 6(6), pp. 313-328.Antonovich, V. B., 1863. Issledovanie o kozachestve po aktam s 1500 po 1648 god [A Study of the Cossacks Based on Documents from 1500 to 1648]. Kiev: I. and A. Davidenko. (In Rus.)Astakhov, A. M., ed. 1960. Byliny v zapisyakh i pereskazakh XVII—XVIII vekov [Epics in 17th—18th-Century Records and Retellings]. Moscow & Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR Press. (In Rus.)Bakunin, M. A., 1862. Narodnoe delo. Romanov, Pugachev ili Pestel? [The People’s Cause: Romanov, Pugachev, or Pestel?]. London: Trübner & Co. (In Rus.)Bonch-Bruevich, V. D., ed. 1908. Materialy k istorii i izucheniyu russkogo sektantstva i raskola. Vyp. 1. Baptisty. Beguny. Duhobortsy. L. Tolstoi o skopchestve. Pavlovtsy. Pomortsy. Staroobryadtsy. Skoptsy. Shtundisty [Materials on the History and Study of Russian Sectarianism and Schisms. Volume 1. Baptists. Beguns. Dukhobors. Leo Tolstoy on the Skoptsy. Sectarians of Pavlovka. Pomorians. Old Believers. Skoptsy. Stundists]. St. Petersburg: B. M. Volf. (In Rus.)Bonwetsch, N., 1906. (Rez.) Karl Konrad Grass, Die russischen Sekten. 1. Bd.: Die Gottesleute (Chlüsten). 1. Lief.: Die Legende der Gottesleute auf ihre Glaubwürdigkeit untersucht. 2. Lief.: Geschichte und Lehre der Gottesleute. Leipzig, J. C. Hindrichs, 1905/6. S. 1—352. 80. M. 2 u. 5. Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 17, col. 1043-1045.Dal, V. I., Poslovicy russkogo naroda. Sbornik poslovits, pogovorok, recheniy, prisloviy, chistogovorok, pribautok, zagadok, poveriy i proch. [Proverbs of the Russian People. A Collection of Proverbs, Sayings, Adages, Rhymes, Riddles, Beliefs etc.]. Moscow: University Press. (In Rus.)Diakonov, M. A., 1889. Vlast’ moskovskikh gosudarei. Ocherki iz istorii politicheskikh idei drevnei Rusi do kontsa XVI veka [The Authority of the Moscow Rulers: Essays on the History of Political Ideas in Old Russia up to the End of the 16th Century]. St. Petersburg: I. N. Skorokhodov. (In Rus.)Fennell, J. L. I., ed. 1963. Correspondence between Prince of A.M. Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan IV of Russia, 1564—1579. Translation and Notes by J. L. I. Fennell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Firsov, N. N., 1918. Smuta i narod na Rusi v nachale XVII veka [The Time of Troubles and the People in Russia in the Early 17th Century]. Moscow: A. I. Mamontov. (In Rus.)Firsov, N. N., 1922. The History of the Zaporozhian Cossacks by Evarnytsky. Volume One. With illustrations. Second revised and expanded edition. Moscow. 1900. (Review for the Faculty of History and Philology). In: N. N. Firsov, 1922. Istoricheskie kharakteristiki i eskizy (1890—1920 gg.) [Historical Sketches and Essays (1890—1920)]. Volume 2. Kazan: Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic State Press, pp. 276-286. (In Rus.)Gilferding, A. F., ed. 1873. Onezhskie byliny, zapisannye letom 1871 goda [The Onega Epics, Recorded in the Summer of 1871]. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences Press. (In Rus.)Grass, K. K., 1907. Die russischen Sekten. In 2 Volumes. Volume 1. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs.Guryanova, N. S., 2008. Evfimiy. In: Kirill the Patriarch, ed. 2008. Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya [Orthodox Encyclopaedia]. Volume 17. Moscow: “Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya”, pp. 411-414. (In Rus.)Ikonnikov, V. S., 1869. Opyt issledovaniya o kul’turnom znachenii Vizantii v russkoy istorii [A Study of the Cultural Significance of Byzantium in Russian History]. Kiev: University Press. (In Rus.)Joseph Volotsky, 2011. Prosvetitel’ [The Enlightener]. Preface by Metropolitan Ioann (Snychev), edited by O. A. Platonov. Moscow: Institut russkoj civilitsacii. (In Rus.)Kelsiev, V. I., ed. 1860. A Testimony of a Fedoseyan (1855) In: V. I. Kelsiev, ed. 1860. Sbornik pravitelstvennykh svedeniy o raskolnikakh [A Collection of Government Information on Schismatics]. Volume 1. London: Trübner & C°; Free Russian Press, pp. 217-221. (In Rus.)Kelsiev, V. I., ed. 1862. Excerpt from Euthymius’s “Flower Garden”. In: V. I. Kelsiev, ed. 1862. Sbornik pravitelstvennykh svedeniy o raskolnikakh [A Collection of Government Information on Schismatics]. Volume 4. London: Trübner & C°; Free Russian Press, pp. 259-270. (In Rus.)Khrushchov, I. P., 1868. Issledovanie o sochineniakh Iosifa Sanina, prep. igumena Volotskogo [A Study of the Writings of Joseph Sanin, the Venerable Hegumen of Volotsk]. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences Press. (In Rus.)Kolesov, V. V., ed. 2000. Starets Filofei’s Epistles. In: D. S. Likhachev, L. A. Dmitriev, A. A. Alekseev and N. V. Ponyrko, eds. 2000. Biblioteka literatury Drevnei Rusi [Library of the Literature of Old Russia]. Volume 9: Late 14th — First Half of the 16th Century. St. Petersburg: “Nauka”, pp. 291-305. (In Rus.)Kostomarov, N. I., 1991. Russkaja istoriya v zhizneopisaniyakh ee glavneishikh deyatelei. Reprintnoe vosproizvedenie izdaniya 1873—1888 gg. [Russian History as Told through the Biographies of Its Leading Figures. A Reprint of the 1873—1888 Edition]. Book II (Part 5). Moscow: “Kniga”. (In Rus.)Kozlova, A. A., 2015. The Image of Spain in Documental and Historical Russian Prose of 15th—18th Centuries. The New Philological Bulletin, 4(35), pp. 164-173. (In Rus.)Mankov, A. G., 1975. The First Reaction to Stepan Razin’s Uprising. In: A. G. Mankov, ed. 1975. Inostrannye izvestiya o vosstanii Stepana Razina. Materialy i issledovaniya [Foreign Accounts of Stepan Razin’s Uprising. Materials and studies]. Leningrad: “Nauka”, Leningr. otd., pp. 5-7. (In Rus.)Melnikov, P. I., 1860. A Memorandum on the Russian Schism, Written for Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich at the Behest of Lansky (1857). In: V. I. Kelsiev, ed. 1860. Sbornik pravitelstvennykh svedenii o raskolnikakh [A Collection of Government Information on Schismatics]. Volume 1. London: Trübner & C°; Free Russian Press, pp. 167-198. (In Rus.)Platonov, S. F., 1901. Ocherki po istorii Smuty v Moskovskom gosudarstve XVI—XVII vv. (Opyt izucheniya obshhestvennogo stroya i soslovnykh otnoshenii v Smutnoe vremya) [Essays on the History of the Time of Troubles in the Moscow State in the 16th—17th Centuries (An Examination of the Social Order and Class Relations during the Time of Troubles)]. Second Edition. St. Petersburg: I. N. Skorokhodov. (In Rus.)Possevino, A., 1586. Moscovia. Vilnae: In Lituania apud Ioannem Velicensem.Possevino, A., 1977. The Moscovia. Translated, with Critical Introduction and Notes by H. F. Graham. Pittsburgh: University Center for International Studies.Robinson, M. A. and Dostal, M.Yu., 1997. Lecture by E. F. Shmurlo “Moscow — The Third Rome”. Slavianovedenie [Slavic Studies], 5, pp. 52-66. (In Rus.)Rybnikov, P. N., ed. 1864. Pesni, sobrannye P. N. Rybnikovym. Ch. 3: Narodnye byliny, stariny, pobyvalshchiny i pesni [Songs, Collected by P. N. Rybnikov. Part 3: Folk Epics, Old Tales, Stories and Songs]. Petrozavodsk: Provincial Press. (In Rus.)Shmurlo, E. F., 1922. Istoriya Rossii [History of Russia], 862—1917. Munich: “Grad Kitezh”. (In Rus.)Simoni, P. K., ed. 1899. Starinnye sborniki russkikh poslovits, pogovorok, zagadok i proch. XVII — XIX stoletiy [Antique Collections of Russian Proverbs, Sayings, Riddles etc. from the 17th to the 19th Centuries]. Volume 1, Part I—II. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences Press. (In Rus.)Sinitsyna, N. V., 1998. Tretiy Rim. Istoki i evolyutsiya russkoi srednevekovoi kontseptsii (XV—XVI vv.) [The Third Rome: Origins and Evolution of the Russian Medieval Concept (15th—16th Centuries)]. Moscow: Indrik. (In Rus.)Smirnov, P. S., 1909. Spory i razdeleniya v russkom raskole v pervoi chetverti XVIII v. [Disputes and Divisions within the Russian Schism in the First Quarter of the 18th Century]. St. Petersburg: M. Merkushev. (In Rus.)Solovyev, S. M., 1861. Istoriya Rossii s drevneishikh vremen. T. 11: Istoriya Rossii v tsarstvovanie Alekseya Mikhailovicha, t. 2 [A History of Russia from Ancient Times. Volume 11: A History of Russia during the Reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, Part 2]. St. Petersburg: I. I. Glazunov. (In Rus.)Tikhomirov, L. A., 1905. Monarhicheskaya gosudarstvennost. Ch. 3: Russkaya gosudarstvennost [Monarchical Statehood. Part 3: Russian Statehood]. Moscow: University Press. (In Rus.)Ustryalov, N. G., ed. 1842. Skazaniya kniazya Kurbskogo [The Sayings of Prince Kurbsky]. Second Edition Revised and Expanded. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences Press. (In Rus.)Zimin, A. A. and Lurie, Ya. S., eds. 1959. Poslaniya Iosifa Volotskogo [Joseph Volotsky’s Epistles]. Moscow & Leningrad: Academy of Sciences Press. (In Rus.)Zinoviy, 1863. Istiny pokazanie k voprosivshim o novom uchenii [Truth’s Message to Those Who Asked about the New Teaching]. Kazan: University Press. (In Rus.)