NONE20261022025037800Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370110222026451Смысл и функции понятия антагонизма в философии КантаV. A.ChalyLomonosov Moscow State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7570-3382D. A.KozlovaLomonosov Moscow State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0009-0007-8201-3145D. P.ZhukovLomonosov Moscow State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0009-0007-7680-6907Antagonism, although often neglected, is one of the key categories of Kant’s philosophy. Its formation in Kant’s pre-critical works on natural philosophy owes much to the influence of Newton. Kant overcomes Newton’s static and providential mechanicism with his concept of dynamic development of the universe out of natural causes. He challenges the monistic and harmonious view of preceding metaphysical (Leibnizian) and “mathematical” (Newtonian) doctrines with a pluralistic and antagonistic one, the sole force of gravitation with the dualism of attraction and repulsion. The result is the characteristic Kantian concept of natural history as the development of the universe through the interaction of opposites whereby human history is an extension of natural history. Kant generalised the physical results by elaborating a metaphysical distinction between logical and real opposites. The role of repulsion and attraction as necessary concepts in the consideration of matter is grounded in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. This development was the underlying foundation of the widely known concept of “unsociable sociability” in Kant’s critical philosophy of history and politics.This concept is arguably a particular case of the general antagonistic worldview and it cannot be dismissed (as does much of the current literature) as a minor and insignificant addition to the Kantian political rationalism and idealism.1022202673910.5922/0207-6918-2026-1-1https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/kant_collection/16101/96108/Brading, K. and Stan, M., 2024. Philosophical Mechanics in the Age of Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Dmitrieva, N. A., 2014. The “Perpetual Peace” of Immanuel Kant at the Turn of the Centuries and During the First World War. Prepodavatel XXI vek, 2/1, pp. 46-61. (In Rus.)Eisler, R., 1930. Kant-Lexikon: Nachschlagewerk zu Kants sämtlichen Schriften, Briefen und handschriftlichem Nachlass. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Esteves, J., 2018. The Antagonism between Nature and Freedom in Kant’s Philosophy. In: V. L. Waibel, M. Ruffing and D. Wagner, eds. 2018. Natur und Freiheit. Akten des XII. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1023-1030.Ferguson, M., 2012. Unsocial Sociability: Perpetual Antagonism in Kant’s Political Thought. In: E. Ellis, ed. 2012. Kant’s Political Theory. University Park: Penn State University Press.Friedman, M., 1992. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Friedman, M., 2013. Kant’s Construction of Nature: A Reading of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Henry, J., 2023. Newton’s ‘De Aere et Aethere’ and the Introduction of Interparticulate Forces into His Physics. Annals of Science, 80(3), pp. 232-267.Howard, S., 2021. Kant on the Fundamental Forces of Matter: Why Attraction and Repulsion? Kantian Review, 26(3), pp. 413—433.Jacob, M. C., 1976. The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689-1720. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Kant, I., 1992a. Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitudes into Philosophy. Translated by D. Walford and R. Meerbote. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical Philosophy, 1755-1770. Edited and translated by D. Walford and R. Meerbote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203-242.Kant, I., 1992b. The Employment in Natural Philosophy of Metaphysics Combined with Geometry, of Which Sample I Contains the Physical Monadology. Translated by D. Walford and R. Meerbote. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical Philosophy, 1755-1770. Edited by D. Walford and R. Meerbote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-66.Kant, I., 1996a. On the Common Saying: That May Be Correct in Theory, but It Is of No Use in Practice. Translated by M. J. Gregor. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 279-309.Kant, I., 1996b. The Conflict of the Faculties. Translated by George di Giovanni. In: I. Kant, 1996. Religion and Rational Theology. Edited by A. W. Wood and G. Di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 233-328.Kant, I., 1996c. The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by M. J. Gregor. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 365-603.Kant, I., 1996d. Toward Perpetual Peace. Translated by M. J. Gregor. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 317-351.Kant, I., 2002. Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Translated by M. Friedman. In: I. Kant, 2002. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Edited by H. E. Allison and P. Heath. Cambridge University Press, pp. 171-270.Kant, I., 2007. Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim. Translated by A. W. Wood. In: I. Kant, 2007. Anthropology, History, and Education. Edited by G. Zöller and R. B. Louden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107-120.Kant, I., 2012a. Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces and Assessment of the Demonstrations That Leibniz and Other Scholars of Mechanics Have Made Use of in This Controversial Subject, Together with Some Prefatory Considerations Pertaining to the Force of Bodies in General. Translated by J. B. Edwards and M. Schönfeld. In: I. Kant, 2012. Natural Science. Edited by E. Watkins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-155.Kant, I., 2012b. Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens or Essay on the Constitution and the Mechanical Origin of the Whole Universe According to Newtonian Principles. Translated by Olaf Reinhardt. In: I. Kant, 2012. Natural Science. Edited by E. Watkins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182-308.Krouglov, A., 2020a. Discussion about Kant during the Great Patriotic War: The Look 75 Years after the Victory. Part I. Voprosy Filosofii, 5, pp. 192-209. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A., 2020b. Discussion about Kant during the Great Patriotic War: The Look 75 Years after the Victory. Part II. Voprosy Filosofii, 6, pp. 169-189. (In Rus.)Kuehn, M., 2001. Kant: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kuteinikov, A. E. and Chaly, V., 2013. Kant’s Political Ideas and Contemporary Theories of International Organization. In: A.N. Salikov, ed. 2013. Kant’s Project of Contemporary Peace in the Context of Current Politics. Kaliningrad: IKBFU Press, pp. 185-194.Laclau, E., and Mouffe, C., 2001. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. Second Edition. New York: Verso.Loraux, N., 2002. The Divided City: On Memory and Forgetting in Ancient Athens. New York: Zone Books.Massimi, M., 2011. Kant’s Dynamical Theory of Matter in 1755, and Its Debt to Speculative Newtonian Experimentalism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 42(4), pp. 525-543.McCloughan, M. J. B., 2003. Kant’s Theory of Progress. London: University College London.Newton, I., 1729. The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Edited by J. Machin. Translated by A. Motte. Vol. 1. London: B. Motte.Newton, I., 1756. Four Letters from Sir Isaac Newton to Doctor Bentley: Containing Some Arguments in Proof of a Deity. London: R. and J. Dodsley.Newton, I., 1978. De Aere et Aethere. In: I. Newton, 1978. Unpublished Scientific Papers of Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 214-228.Newton, I., 1979. Opticks: Or a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections & Colours of Light-Based on the Fourth Edition London, 1730. New York: Dover Publications.Pozzo, R., 1993. Kant e Weitenkampf: Una fonte ignorata dell’Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels e della prima antinomia della ragion pura. Rivista di Storia della Filosofia, 48(2), pp. 283-323.Protopopov, Y., 1991. Precritical Kant on the Relations between the Two Kinds of Opposites. Kantian Journal, 1(16), pp. 147-151. (In Rus.)Ripstein, A., 2021. Kant and the Law of War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Salikov, A. N., 2013. Kant and Contemporary Theory of International Relations. Vestnik IKBFU, 12(12), pp. 97-103. (In Rus.)Schönfeld, M. and Thompson, M., 2014. Kant’s Philosophical Development. In: E. N. Zalta, ed. 2014. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2014. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/kant-development/ (Accessed 20.02.2025).Schönfeld, M., 2000. The Philosophy of the Young Kant: The Precritical Project. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Scott, J. C., 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Siemens, H., 2024. Nietzsche and Kant as Thinkers of Antagonism: Towards a Philosophy of Conflict. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Stan, M., 2025. Kant’s Natural Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Vinokurov, E. Yu., 2001. Kant’s Political Philosophy in Contemporary Philosophical Discussions on Global Political Order. Dissertation. Kaliningrad: Kaliningrad University. (In Rus.)Warren, D., 2010. Kant on Attractive and Repulsive Force: The Balancing Argument. In: M. Friedman, M. Domski, and M. Dickson, eds. 2010. Discourse on a New Method: Reinvigorating the Marriage of History and Philosophy of Science. Chicago: Open Court, pp. 193-241.Watkins, E, ed. 2001. Kant and the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Watkins, E., 2013. The Early Kant’s (Anti-) Newtonianism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 44(3), pp. 429-437.Willaschek, M., Stolzenberg, J., Mohr, G., and Bacin, S., eds. 2015. Kant-Lexikon. Beriln: De Gruyter.Williams, H., 1983. Kant’s Political Philosophy. London: Basil Blackwell.Williams, H., 1992. Kant’s Optimism in His Social and Political Theory. In: H. Williams, ed. 1992. Essays on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Wood, A. W., 1991. Unsociable Sociability: The Anthropological Basis of Kantian Ethics. Philosophical Topics, 19(1), pp. 325-351.Формальная и философская логика у Канта и ГегеляE.FicaraPaderborn Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-2139In § 26 of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant calls the “Leitfaden” section of the Transcendental Analytic (A 67-79 / B 91-106) “metaphysical deduction” (MD). The MD is a relatively short, but fundamental (and somewhat enigmatic) passage. While contemporary contributions offer detailed reconstructions of the MD, which also help to settle a series of thorny exegetic questions much debated in MD’s classic and current reception, I propose to take a step back and ask about the general setting of the MD, and about its meta-philosophical and metalogical implications. I believe that the question of the role of “formal logic” in philosophy, and in the establishment of a philosophical logic (something which was at the heart of Hegel’s interests in reading these Kantian passages), is at stake here. I begin the paper by examining some controversies concerning the question of the contribution of Kant’s thinking about logic to the history of logic. I then turn to Hegel’s reading of Kant’s thoughts about formal logic and truth (A 57-60 / B 82-84) in the Science of Logic. I conclude by critically assessing Hegel’s critique of Kant’s supposed “formalism”. While Hegel laments Kant’s anti-alethic treatment of the forms of judgement and of the categorial forms, I show how Kant accomplishes, in fact, an important operation of repositioning and rethinking traditional logic; and, in so doing, makes a crucial step towards the establishment of a philosophical logic.10222026405810.5922/0207-6918-2026-1-2https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/kant_collection/16102/96111/Achourioti, T. and van Lambalgen, M., 2011. A Formalization of Kant’s Transcendental Logic. Review of Symbolic Logic, 4(2), pp. 254-289. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020310000341.Béziau, J.-Y., Kovač, S. and Lemanski, J., 2024. Neue Forschung zur formalen Logik bei Kant. In: M. Lewin, ed. 2024. Klassische Deutsche Philosophie: Wege in die Zukunft. Paderborn: Brill-Mentis, pp. 19-44.Boyer, C.B., 1968. A History of Mathematics. New York, Chichester et al.: Wiley & Sons.Capozzi, M. and Roncaglia, G., 2009. Logic and Philosophy of Logic from Humanism to Kant. In: L. Haaparanta, ed. 2009. The development of modern logic. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 78-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195137316.003.0014.Cohnitz, D. and Estrada-González, L., 2019. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316275573.Cook, R., 2009. A Dictionary of Philosophical Logic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748631971.D’Agostini, F., 2000. Logica del nichilismo. Roma Bari: Laterza.D’Agostini, F., 2001. From a Continental Point of View: The Role of Logic in the Analytic-Continental Divide. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 9(3), pp. 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672550110058821.D’Agostini, F., 2011. Introduzione alla verità. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri.Dutilh Novaes, C., 2011. The Different Ways in Which Logic Is (Said to Be) Formal. History and Philosophy of Logic, 32(4), pp. 303-332. https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2011.555505.Ficara, E., 2021. The Form of Truth. Hegel’s Philosophical Logic. Berlin New York: De Gruyter.Frege, G., 1979. Logic (1897). In: H. Hermes, F. Kambartel and F. Kaulbach, eds. 1979. Posthumous Writings. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 126-151.Hegel, G.W.F., 1969. Wissenschaft der Logik. In: G. W. F. Hegel, 1969. Werke in zwanzig Bänden. Volume 6. Edited by E. Moldenhauer and K. M. Michel. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Hegel, G. W. F., 2001. Philosophy of Right. Translation by S. W. Dyde. Ontario: Batoche Books Kitchener.Hegel, G. W. F., 2010. Science of Logic. Translation by G. di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hoeppner, T., 2021. Urteil und Anschauung. Kants metaphysische Deduktion der Kategorien. New York & Boston: De Gruyter.Jacquette, D., ed. 2007. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: Philosophy of Logic. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Kant, I., 1889. Lose Blätter aus Kants Nachlass. Edited by R. Reicke. Erstes Heft. Königsberg: Beyer.Kant, I., 1992. Lectures on Logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited and translated by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kneale, W. C. and Kneale, M., 1975. The Development of Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Lapointe, S., 2019. Logic from Kant to Russell. Laying the Foundations for Analytic Philosophy. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351182249.Lemanski, J., 2023. Does Logic Have a History at All? Foundations of Science, 30(1), pp. 227-249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09933-w.Lemanski, J., 2024. Kant’s Crucial Contribution to Euler Diagrams. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie, 55(1), pp. 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-023-09653-6.Nuzzo, A., 2023. Form, Formality, Formalism in Hegel’s Dialectic-Speculative Logic. History and Philosophy of Logic 44(2), pp. 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2023.2181581.Peirce, C. S., 1989. [Introductory Lecture on Logic]. In: Writings of Charles S. Peirce: A Chronological Edition, Volume 4: 1879-1884. Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 507-510.Read, S., 1995. Thinking About Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Russell, B., 2009. Our Knowledge of the External World. London: Routledge.Sainsbury, M., 2001. Logical Forms. An Introduction to Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Blackwell.Santozki, U., 2006. Die Bedeutung antiker Theorien für die Genese und Systematik von Kants Philosophie: Eine Analyse der drei Kritiken. Berlin: De Gruyter.Scholz, H., 1931. Abriss der Geschichte der Logik. Freiburg: Karl Alber.Seebohm, T., 1995. Some Difficulties in Kant’s Conception of Formal Logic. In: H. Robinson, Ed. 1995, Proceedings of the VIII International Kant Congress (Memphis 1995) vol. I.2. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, pp. 567-581.Stelzner, W. and Kreiser, L., 2004. Traditionelle und nichtklassische Logik. Paderborn: Mentis, 2004.Strube, C., 1973. Das Problem einer hermeneutischen Logik. PhD Dissertation: Universität zu Köln.Stuhlmann-Laeisz, R., 1976. Kants Logik: Eine Interpretation auf der Grundlage von Vorlesungen, veröffentlichten Werken und Nachlaß. New York: De Gruyter.Tonelli, G., 1994. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason Within the Tradition of Modern Logic. A Commentary on its History. Hildesheim: Olms.Venn, J., 1971. Symbolic Logic. Reprint of the Second Edition. New York: Chelsea Publ. Co.Wolff, M., 1984. Der Begriff des Widerspruchs in der “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”. Zum Verhältnis von formaler und transzendentaler Logik. In: B. Tuschling, ed. 1984. Probleme der “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”. Kant-Tagung Marburg 1981. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, pp. 178-202.Дискуссии о субъективности / объективности пространства и времени у Канта: основные подходыL. Yu.KornilaevLomonosov Moscow State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-4520-3218Space and time may be seen either as independent entities, as properties of things or as properties inherent in the subject. Kant, of course, maintains that space and time have a subjective character: he rules out their objective reality, which leads to a substantial separation of the cognising subject and the reality being cognised. This approach to the definition of the ontological and epistemological statuses of space and time is often criticised in the studies of Kantian philosophy. Attempts are made to clarify the objective side of cognition and the exclusiveness of the subjectivistic conception of space and time is problematised, leading to interpretations that try, along with subjectivity, to reconstruct the objective component in Kant’s understanding of space and time. This article purports to summarise and systematise the approaches which stress the ambivalence of Kant’s conception of space and time. The study identifies the following main approaches to the problem of the relation between subjectivity and objectivity of space and time in Kant’s philosophy: 1) the approach which claims that space and time in Kant’s philosophy are subjective only in the epistemological sense whereas ontologically they have objective reality; 2) the position which interprets subjectivity and objectivity of space and time in the context of the Kantian distinction between transcendental idealism and empirical realism; 3) the interpretation which stresses subjectivity as objective validity; 4) the subjective-objective understanding of space and time. I arrive at the conclusion that subjective-objective interpretations of the Kantian doctrine of space and time are mainly based on the problematisation of the concept of subjectivity, which is manifested in the broadening or, on the contrary, the narrowing of the concept of subjectivity, making it more complex and hierarchical, establishing a link between this concept and the concept of empirical reality and the concept of general validity.10222026597710.5922/0207-6918-2026-1-3https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/kant_collection/16102/96114/Abela, P., 1996. Putnam’s Internal Realism and Kant’s Empirical Realism: The Case for a Divorce. Idealistic study, 26(1), pp. 45-56.Abela, P., 2002. Kant’s Empirical Realism. New York: Oxford University Press.Allais, L., 2015. Manifest Reality. Kant’s Idealism and his Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Allison, H., 1996. Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant’s Theoretical and Practical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Asmus, V. F., 1973. Immanuil Kant [Immanuel Kant]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Rus.)Brinkmann, K., 2011. Idealism Without Limits: Hegel and the Problem of Objectivity. Boston: Springer Netherlands.Chaplin, R., 2022. Kant on the Givenness of Space and Time. European Journal of Philosophy, 30(3), pp. 877-898. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12817.Demin, M. R., 2010. The Right to Kant: On the Dispute between Adolf Trendelenburg and Kuno Fischer. In: I. N. Griftsova and N. A. Dmitrieva, eds. 2010. Neokantianstvo nemetskoe i russkoe: mezhdu teoriei poznaniya i kritikoi kul’tury [German and Russian Neo-Kantianism: Between Theory of Cognition and Critique of Culture]. Moscow: Rossiiskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN), pp. 66-85. (In Rus.)Heidemann, D., 2021. Kant and the Forms of Realism. Synthese, 198, Suppl 13, pp. 3231-3252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02502-4.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2004. Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Edited by K. Americks and D. Clark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kılınç, B., 2008. Concepts of Objectivity in Kant. In: V. Rohden, R. R. Terra, G.A. de Almeida and M. Ruffing, eds. 2008. Recht und Frieden in der Philosophie Kants: Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, pp. 363-374. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110210347.2.363.Lega, V. P., 2009. Istoriya zapadnoi filosofii. Chast’ vtoraya. Novoe vremya. Sovremennaya zapadnaya filosofiya: uchebnoe posobie [The History of Western Philosophy. Part Two. The Modern Era. Contemporary Western Philosophy: A Textbook]. Moscow: PSTGU Press. (In Rus.)Martić, M., 2022. Zeit und Raum. Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Zeit- und Raumlehre bei Immanuel Kant. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Melnick, A., 1989. Space, Time, and Thought in Kant. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Oizerman, T. I., 2009. Kantian Conception of Space and Time. Kantian Journal, 29(1), pp. 7-18. (In Rus.)Razeev, D. N., 2010. Teleologiya I. Kanta [I. Kant’s Teleology]. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka. (In Rus.)Schrader, G., 1951. The Transcendental Ideality and Empirical Reality of Kant’s Space and Time. The Review of Metaphysics, 4(4), pp. 507-536.Semenov, V. E., 2022. I. Kant’s Copernican Revolution and the Theory of Experience. Studies in Transcendental Philosophy, 3(1-2). http://dx.doi.org/10.18254/S271326680020910-1 (Accessed 1 April 2025). (In Rus.)Trendelenburg, A., 1862. Logische Untersuchungen. Second Edition. Volume 1. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Trendelenburg, A., 1867. Über eine Lücke in Kants Beweis von der ausschließenden Subjektivität des Raumes und Zeit. Historische Beiträge zur Philosophie. Volume 3. Berlin: G. Bethge, pp. 215-276.Tusсhling, B., 2006. Nachwort der deutschen Herausgeber. In: I. Kant, 2006. Werke. Zweisprachige deutsch-russische Ausgabe. Volume 2, Part 2: Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 509-574. (In Rus.)Vaihinger, H., 1922. Kommentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Stuttgart: Union deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft.Vvedensky, A. I., 1895a. Kant’s Doctrine of Space (Explanation and Criticism). Bogoslovskiy vestnik [Theological Bulletin], 2(6), pp 390-404. (In Rus.)Vvedensky, A. I., 1895b. Kant’s Doctrine of Space (Explanation and Criticism). Bogoslovskiy vestnik [Theological Bulletin], 3(7), pp 73-102. (In Rus.)Vvedensky, A. I. and Rozhin, D. O., 2024. “The Great Rationalist”: Alexey Vvedensky on Kant in the Context of Russian Kantiana. Kantian Journal, 43(1), pp. 149-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2024-1-7.Westphal, K., 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Proof of Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Эхо идей И. Канта в контексте современных когнитивных исследованийV. A.BazhanovUlyanovsk State Universityhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0336-9570This article examines Kant’s ideas on the a priori character of space and time in the context of modern cognitive research and neuroscience. Proceeding from the Kantian view of space and time as forms of sensibility, I look at how neurobiological data confirm and simultaneously modify classical philosophical nativism. I pay particular attention to empirically-confirmed, inborn cognitive mechanisms such as the “sense of number” and the supposed “sense of space” which have ontogenetic and neural foundations. I look at discoveries pertaining to the brain’s navigation systems, including “place” cells, which point to the existence of a functionally autonomous “geometric” (and not just a “number”) module. This module has been shown to play a key role, not only in one’s orientation in physical space, but also in the formation of abstract concepts, semantic structures, and social ties. I examine data on the independence of basic geometric intuition from cultural and sensory experience, including research on spatial representations in born-blind individuals. A special section is devoted to the analysis of the Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes (SNARC) effect: its possible influence on the character of the writing system, and, conversely, of script configuration on spatial-numerical and cognitive associations. This phenomenon demonstrates an interconnection between the perception of numbers and direction in space, which is partly determined by cultural features: people with left-to-right writing associate numbers of a larger magnitude with the right side, while people who write from right to left have the reverse association. Thus, human perceptions of space and time are the result of intricate interactions between congenital properties of the nervous system and extra-personal cultural influence. In conclusion, I stress the prospectivity of the concept “biocultural co-constructivism”, according to which congenital neuron structures and cultural practices are in dynamic interaction, and which promises deeper insight into the meaning of the Kantian research programme as implemented in modern neuroscience.10222026789610.5922/0207-6918-2026-1-4https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/kant_collection/16102/96116/Amalric, M., Wang, L., Pica, P. et al., 2017. The Language of Geometry: Fast Comprehension of Geometrical Primitives and Rules in Human Adults and Preschoolers. PLOS. Computational Biology, 13(1), Art. e1005273. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005273.Bazhanov, V.A., 2019. Mozg — kul’tura — sotsium: kantianskaya programma v kognitivnykh issledovaniyakh [Brain — Culture — Society: A Kantian Programme in Cognitive Researches]. Moscow: Kanon+ ROOI Rehabilitation. (In Rus.)Bazhanov, V.A., 2021. Number and the Kantian Research Programme in Modern Neuroscience. Voprosy filosofii, 7, pp. 50-60. (In Rus.)Biederman, I., 2013. Psychophysical and Neural Correlates of the Phenomenology of Shape. In: L. Albertazz, ed. 2013. Handbook of Experimental Phenomenology: Visual Perception of Shape, Space and Appearance. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. P. 4125-4136. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118329016.Brown, T. I., 2021. Cognitive Mapping: Anchoring our Brain’s Sense of Space in a Dynamic World. Current Biology, 31, pp. R291-R295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.01.041.Buzsaki, G. and Llinas, R. 2017. Space and Time in the Brain. Science, 357(6362), pp. 482-485. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan886.Carey, S., 2009. The Origin of Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chiandetti, C. and Vallortigara, G., 2008. Is there an Innate Geometric Module? Effects of Experience with Angular Geometric Cues on Spatial Re-Orientation Based on the Shape of the Environment. Animal Cognition. 11. pp. 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-007-0099-y.De Cruz, H. and De Smedt, J., 2010. The Innateness Hypothesis and Mathematical Concepts. Topoi, 29, pp. 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-009-9061-8.Dehaene, S. and Brannon, E., 2011a. Space, Time, and Number: A Kantian Research Program. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(12), pp. 517-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.009.Dehaene, S. and Brannon, E., eds. 2011b. Space, Time and Number in the Brain: Searching for the Foundations of Mathematical Thought. L.: Academic Press.Dehaene, S., Sablé-Meyer, M. and Ciccione, L., 2025. Origins of Numbers: A Shared Language-of-Thought for Arithmetic and Geometry? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(6), pp. 526-540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.03.001.Dillon, M.R., Huang, Y. and Spelke, E., 2013. Core Foundations of Abstract Geometry. PNAS, 110(35), pp. 14191-14195. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.13126401.Fias, W., Dijck, van J.-P. and Gevers, W., 2011. How is Number Associated with Space? The Role of Working Memory. In: S. Dehaene and E. Brannon, eds. 2011. Space, Time and Number in the Brain: Searching for the Foundations of Mathematical Thought. L.: Academic Press, pp. 133-147.Fodor, J., 1983. The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Gromov, M., 2011. Structures, Learning, and Ergosystems: Chapters 1-4, 6. December 30, 2011 (Unpublished). Available at: (Accessed 18 November 2025).Gromov, M., 2018. Great Circles of Mysteries: Mathematics, the World, the Mind. Cham: Birkhauser.He, Y., Nuerk, H. -C., Derksen, A. et al., 2021. A Gifted SNARC? Directional Spatial-Numerical Association in Gifted Children with Hugh-Level Skills do not Differ from Controls. Psychological Research, 85, pp. 1645-1661. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01354-9.Heimler, B. Behor, T., Dehaene, S. et al., 2021. Core Knowledge of Geometry Can Develop Independently of Visual Experience. Cognition, 212, Art. 104716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104716.Izard, V., Pica, P., Spelke, E. et al., 2011. Flexible Intuitions of Euclidian Geometry in an Amazonian Indigene Group. PNAS, 108(24), pp. 9782-9787. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016686108.Jackson, A., 2002. The World of Blind Mathematicians. Notices of AMS, 49(10), pp. 1246-1251.Joseph, A., Francis, N. and Balay, M., 2025. Brain-Inspired AI with Hyperbolic Geometry. arXiv:2409.12990v3 [q-bio.NC], 03 Feb. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2409.12990.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 1992. On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and the Intelligible World [Inaugural Dissertation]. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical philosophy, 1755-1770. Translated and edited by D. Walford фтв R. Meerbote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373-416.Khachouf, O. T., Poletti, S. and Pagnoni, G., 2013. The Embodied Transcendental: A Kantian Perspective on the Neurophenomenology. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Art. 611. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00611.Kinzler, K. D. and Spelke, E. S., 2007. Core Systems in Human Cognition. Progress in Brain Research, 164, pp. 257-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)64014-X.Król J., Schumann, A., Bielas K., 2022. Brain and Its Universal Model of Multi-Agent Biological Systems. Logica Universalis, 16, pp. 671-687. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-022-00319-3.Krupic, J., Bauza, M., Burton, S. et al., 2015. Grid Cell Symmetry Is Shaped by Environmental Geometry. Nature, 518(7538), pp. 232-235. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14153.Larson, C. L., Aronoff, J. and Steuer, E. L., 2012. Simple Geometrical Shapes are Implicitly Associated with Affective Value. Motivation and Emotion, 36, pp. 404-413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9249-2.Lopiccolo, D. and Chang, C.B., 2021. Cultural Factors Weaken but Do not Reverse Left-to-Right Spatial Biases in Numerosity Processing: Data from Arabic and English Monoliterates and Arabic-English Biliterates. PLoS One, 16(12), Art. e0261146. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261146.Low, I. and Giocomo, L., 2021. Fifty Years of the Brain’s Sense of Space. Nature, 599(7885), pp. 376-377. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03010-7.Manin, Y. I., 2015. Neural Codes and Homotopy Types: Mathematical Models of Place Field Recognition. Moscow Mathematical Journal, 15(4), pp. 741-748. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1501.00897.Marchetti, I. and Koster, E., 2014. Brain and Intersubjectivity: A Hegelian Hypothesis on the Self-Other Neurodynamics. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Art. 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00011.Moser, E. I. and Furstenberg, A., 2025. Theory and Practice in Neuroscience Modelling of Thought: An Interview with Edward I. Moser. Human Arenas, 8, pp. 803-808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-024-00436-z.Nemeh, F., Humberstone, J., Yates, M.Y. and Reeve, R.A., 2018. Non-symbolic Magnitudes are Represented Spatially: Evidence from a Non-symbolic SNARC Task. PLOS One, 13(8), Art. e0203019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203019.O’Keefe J. and Dostrovsky, J., 1971. The Hyppocampus as a Spatial Map. Preliminary Evidence from Unit Activity in the Freely-Moving Rat. Brain Research. 34, pp. 171-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-8993(71)90358-1.Padakannaya, P., Georgion, G. K. and Winskel, H., 2022. Script’s Influence on Reading Processes and Cognition: A Preamble. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 6, pp. 93-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-022-00109-9.Pae, H. K., 2022. Toward a Script Relativity Hypothesis: Focused Research Agenda for Psycholinguistic Experiments in the Science of Reading. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 6, pp. 97-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-022-00103-1.Pantsar, M., 2022. On the Development of Geometric Cognition: Beyond Nature vs. Nurture. Philosophical Psychology, 35(4), pp. 595-616. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2021.2014441.Pettit, N. L., Yap, E -L., Greenberg, M. E. and Harvey, Ch. D., 2022. Fos Ensembles Encode and Shape Stable Spatial Maps in the Hippocampus. Nature, 609, pp. 327-333. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05113-1.Prpic, V., Fumarola, A., De Tommaso M. and Baldassi G., 2013. A SNARC-like Effect for Music Tempo. Review of Psychology, 20(1-2), pp. 47-51.Rav, Y., 2006. Philosophical Problems of Mathematics in the Light of Evolutionary Epistemology. In: R. Hersh, ed. 2006. 18 Unconventional Essays on the Nature of Mathematics. New York: Springer, pp. 71-96.Sablé-Meyer, M., Benjamin, J., Potier Watkins, C. et al., 2025. A Geometrical Shape Regularity Effect in the Human Brain. eLife, 14, Art. RP106464. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.106464.3.Sablé-Meyer, M., Ellis, K., Tenenbaum, J. and Dehaene, S., 2021. A Language of Thought for the Mental Representation of Geometrical Shapes. PsyArXiv. Preprint, 23 Dec 2021. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/28mg4.Sablé-Meyer, M., Fagot, J., Caparos, S. and Dehaene, S., 2021. Sensitivity to Geometric Shape Regularity in Humans and Baboons: A Putative Signature of Human Singularity. PNAS, 118(16), Art. e2023123118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023123118.Spelke, E. S. and Kinzler, K. D., 2007. Core Knowledge. Developmental Science, 10(1), pp. 89-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.x.Tooley, U. A., Bassett, D. S. and Mackey, A. P., 2021. Environmental Influences on the Pace of Brain Development. Nature Review Neuroscience, 22, pp. 372-381. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-021-00457-5.Vaid, J., 2022. Biscriptiality: A Neglected Construct in the Study of Bilingualism. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 6, pp. 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41809-022-00101-3.Vallortigara, G., 2012. Core Knowledge of Object, Number, and Geometry: A Comparative and Neural Approach. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29(1-2), pp. 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2012.654772.Vandervert, L. R., 1994. How the Brain Gives Rise to Mathematics in Ontogeny and in Culture. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 15(4), pp. 343-350.Zaitseva, N. V. and Zaitsev, D. V., 2017. Phenomenological Perspective in Contemporary Neuroscience. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences, 1, pp. 71-84. (In Rus.)Правовые ориентиры государственных реформ: кантовские мотивы в философии С. И. ГессенаA. S.ZilberImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (IKBFU)https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8317-4086This article compares the ideological foundations of the political projects of Sergey Hessen (Gessen) and Immanuel Kant as projects of political development and transformation, i.e. gradual reform. The starting point is the project of “rule-of-law socialism” which Hessen saw as a synthesis of the new liberalism and new socialism of his time. The main question is overt or covert reception of Kant’s ideas in this project. Kant and Hessen share historical optimism and reject utopias, but the core of Hessen’s philosophy of history is the transformation of Neo-Kantian doctrine of values. The influence of the Baden school of Neo-Kantianism can also be traced in the fact that Hessen defines the stages in the development of liberalism and socialism in accordance with Hegel’s dialectical method. But while Hessen’s “rule-of-law socialism” combines liberal values, i.e. law and freedom, with the socialist values of welfare and equal opportunities, Kant’s political philosophy on the whole belongs to classical liberalism which emphasises law and freedom. But for Hessen Kant, as it were, stands aside from liberalism and is perceived first and foremost as a moral philosopher, author of the teaching on the freedom and autonomy of the individual which should be protected even under socialism. Hessen interprets the relationship between right and good differently from Kant, without turning to him for support, although similarities of their ideas exist. The situation is similar in the interpretation of the concept of the social contract and the common will, which are equally important for both philosophers as reference points, but their ideas on how to achieve them differ substantially. A separate section is devoted to the comparison of the principles of property relations, Kant’s anti-feudal theses and Hessen’s anti-monopoly theses. On details, Hessen’s project of “rule-of-law socialism” has more differences than similarities to Kant’s ideas, but is similar to Kant’s in spirit. An analysis of Kant’s ideas from Hessen’s viewpoint shows that some provisions of Kant’s philosophy are formulated in such a way that they do not fully apply to Hessen’s critique of classical liberalism.102220269712910.5922/0207-6918-2026-1-5https://journals.kantiana.ru/eng/kant_collection/16103/96117/Belov, V. N., 2020. “Non-academic” Neo-Kantian S. I. Hessen. In: V. V. Sapov and T. G. Shchedrina, eds. 2020. Sergey Iosifovich Gessen [Sergey I. Hessen]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 89-103. (In Rus.)Dierksmeier, C., 2009. Zur systematischen Liberalität von Kants Politik- und Staatsbegriff. In: H. Ottmann, ed. 2009. Kants Lehre von Staat und Frieden. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 42-63.Dmitrieva, N. A., 2025. Kant in Russia: Themes, Problems, Lacunas. Filosofskii zhurnal / Philosophy Journal, 18(2), pp. 53-62. https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2025-18-2-53-62. (In Rus.)Guyer, P., 2000. Kant on Freedom, Law, and Happiness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hessen, S., 1912. Mystik und Metaphysik. Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur, 2(1), pp. 92-113.Hessen, S. I., 1995. Osnovy pedagogiki: Vvedenie v prikladnuyu filosofiyu [Fundamentals of Pedagogy: An Introduction to Applied Philosophy]. Мoscow: Shkola-press. (In Rus.)Hessen, S. I., 2010а. Leo Tolstoy as a Thinker. In: S. I. Hessen, 2010. Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works]. Мoscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 711-739. (In Rus.)Hessen, S. I., 2010b. My Life Story In: S. I. Hessen, 2010. Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works]. Мoscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 772-826. (In Rus.)Hessen, S. I., 2010c. Political Freedom and Socialism. In: S. I. Hessen, 2010. Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works]. Мoscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 529-564. (In Rus.)Hessen, S. I., 2010d. State of Law and Socialism. In: S. I. Hessen, 2010. Izbrannye trudy [Selected Works]. Мoscow: ROSSPEN. pp. 43-392. (In Rus.)Hessen, S.I., 2024. Immanuel Kant. (On the Bicentenary of His Birth — 24 April 1724). Publication and Commentary by M. A. Kolerov. Kantian Journal, 43(2), pp. 160-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2024-2-6.Kant, I., 1991. On the Common Saying: This May Be True in Theory, but It Does Not Apply in Practice. In: I. Kant, 1991. Political Writings. Edited by H. S. Reiss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 61-63.Kant, I., 1996b. The Conflict of the Faculties. In: I. Kant, 1996. Religion and Rational Theology. Translated by M. J. Gregor and R. Anchor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 233-328.Kant, I., 1996c. The Metaphysics of Morals (1797). In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical philosophy. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 365-603.Kant, I., 1996d. Toward Perpetual Peace. A Philosophical Project (1795). ln: I. Kant, 1996. Practical philosophy. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 317-351.Kant, I., 1998a. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by and Translated by P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 1998b. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Edited by P. Guyer. Translated by P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2007. 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.Kolerov, M. A., 2024. Russian Political Kant After Liberalism: Sergey Hessen on 1924 Kant Jubilee. Kantian Journal, 43(2), pp. 152-159. https://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2024-2-5.Kulikov, V. B., 2020. The Decline of Liberalism (Russian version by Sergei Hessen). In: V. V. Sapov and T. G. Shchedrina, eds. 2020. Sergei Iosifovich Gessen [Sergey I. Hessen]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 104-118. (In Rus.)Samojlov, D., 2012. Reception of the Moral Teaching of Emanuel Kant in the Works of Sergey Hessen. Bulletin of the Orthodox St. Tikhon’s University for the Humanities. Series 1: Theology, Philosophy, 39(1), pp. 43-57. (In Rus.)Solovyov, E. Y., 2005. Kategoricheskiy imperativ nravstvennosti i prava [The Categorical Imperative of Morality and Law]. М.: Progress-Traditsiya. (In Rus.)Rickert, H., 1910. Vom Begriff der Philosophie. Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur, 1(1), pp. 1-34.Shchedrovitsky, G. P., 2024. Sergey I. Hessen. 112 Essays on the Philosopher. In: Filosof i metodolog Shchedrovitskiy Petr Georgievich [Philosopher and Methodologist Peter G. Shchedrovitsky. Published on 08.01.2024. Available at: https://shchedrovitskiy.com/wp-content/uploads/Gessen_Sergei_Iosifovich_ocherki_o_filosofe.pdf (accessed 15 May 2025). (In Rus.)Langer, C., 1986. Reform nach Prinzipien: Untersuchungen zur politischen Theorie Immanuel Kants. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Sanchez-Madrid, N., 2025. Kant on Social Suffering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Vlaskin, A. G. and Ermichev, A. A., 2004. The Political Philosophy of S. I. Hessen. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Series 6, 2, pp. 42-48. (In Rus.)Walicki, A., 1987. The Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism. New York: Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press.Walicki, A., 2020. Sergey Hessen: Philosopher in Exile. In: V. V. Sapov and T. G. Shchedrina, eds. 2020. Sergey Iosifovich Gessen [Sergey I. Hessen]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 10-32. (In Rus.)Zagirnyak, M. J., 2017. Hegel’s Dialectic in Political Philosophy of Sergius Hessen. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya — Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 37, pp. 30-36. https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/37/3. (In Rus.)Zagirnyak, M. J., 2019. Solidarity as an Instrument of the Institutionalization of Freedom in Sergius Hessen’s Philosophy. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya. Politologiya — Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 47, pp. 121-128. https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/47/13. (In Rus.)Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2020a. Georges Gurvitch and Sergey Hessen on the Possibility of Forming Social Unity. Kantian Journal, 39(3), pp. 72-96. http://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2020-3-4.Zagirnyak, M.Yu., 2020b. The Context of the Formation of the Concept of Solidarity in the Sergius Hessen’s Conception of Social Law. Sociology, 6, pp. 226-231. (In Rus.)Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2020c, The Status of Law in the Axiological Model of Socio-Cultural Development of Hessen. In: V. V. Sapov and T. G. Shchedrina, eds. 2020. Sergey Iosifovich Gessen [Sergey I. Hessen]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 119-140. (In Rus.)Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2025. Paul Natorp’s Social Pedagogy in Sergey Hessen’s Axiological Historism. RUDN Journal of Philosophy. 29(1), pp. 119-132. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2025-29-1-119-132. (In Rus.)Zagirnyak, M. Yu. and Dmitrieva, N. A., 2026. National Education in Sergey Hessen’s Axiological Historism. Voprosy filosofii, 3, pp. 80-103. (In Rus.)Zilber, A. S., 2016. How Transcendental Are Kant’s Principles of Public Law? Kantian Journal, 1(55), pp. 34-51. http://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2016-1-3. (In Rus.)