NONE20260604104015070Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-37010604202611L. A.KalinnikovAgainst the background of a dispute with K. Jaspers, this article considers the Critique of Pure Reason as a system of epistemology and an overview of Kant’s philosophical system. The cen-tral thesis is the statement that Kant’s epistemology is based on transcendental anthropology con-nected with the history of philosophy. It is proven that, in terms of its content, the formal dual divi-sion of the Critique is a triad system comprising a number of similar subsystems.06042026111. Abramjan, L. A. 1981, Glavnyj trud Kanta [The main work of Kant], Erevan.2. Jaspers, K. 2014, Kant: zhizn', trudy, vlijanie. [Kant], M.,2014.3. Kant, I. 1963, Kritika chistogo razuma [Critique of Pure Reason], in Kant, I. Sobr. soch. v 6 t., Moscow, T. 3.4. Kant, I. 1965, Kritika sposobnosti suzhdenija [Critique of Judgment], in Kant, I. Sobr. soch. v 6 t., Moscow, T. 5.5. Kant, I. 2000, Iz rukopisnogo naslediya [materialyi k «Kritike chistogo razuma»] [From the manuscript heritage [materials to "Critique of Pure Reason»]], Moscow.6. Cassirer, E. 2004, Filosofiya Prosveshcheniya [The Philosophy of the Enlightenment], Moscow.7. Pushkin, A. S. 2001, Materialy k «Otryvkam iz pisem, mysljam i zamechanijam» [Materials to the "Excerpts from letters, thoughts and remarks"], in Pushkin, A.S Polnoe sobranie sochinenij v 1 t. [Complete Works in 1 vol.], Moscow.8. Pushkin, A. S. 2001, Vozrazhenie na stat'ju Kjuhel'bekera «O napravlenii nashej po-jezii» [Objection on Kuchelbecker's article "On the direction of our poetry"], in Pushkin, A.S Polnoe sobranie sochinenij v 1 t. [Complete Works in 1 vol.], Moscow.9. De Boer, K. 2014, Kant’s Multi-Layered Conception of Things in Themselves, Transcen-dental Objects, and Monads, Kant-Studien 105 (2), p 221—260.10. Livingston D. W. 1984, Hume’s Philosophy of Common Life. Chicago and London.E. N.MotovnikovaP. A.OlkhovThis article considers the major references to Kant’s works in the texts of an authoritative Russian thinker Nikolai Strakhov (1828—1896), whose legacy has been revised in recent historical and philosophical studies. The author of the article analyses the materials of Strakhov’s works ‘The key feature of thinking’, ‘On time’, ‘On objectives of history of philosophy’, ‘On key concepts of psychology’, his many years’ correspondence with L. N. Tolstoy and A. A. Fet, who expressed keen interest in the works of the German philosopher, the works of A. I. Vvedensky, etc. The study fol¬lows the pattern of a dialogical reconstruction; it examines the conceptual range of interpretations of Kant’s philosophical legacy in the context of the Russian intellectual culture of the 1860—90s. Modern Kant studies just began investigating Strakhov’s oeuvre. One cannot but agree that Strakhov ‘offers a subtle and in-depth interpretation of Kant’s understanding of the subjectivity of thinking (V. A. Zhuchkov). However, the complexity of historical and philosophical interpretation and analysis of Kant’s meanings in Strakhov’s philosophical research lies in the fact that this re-search is hermeneutic (‘peripheral’, according to F. E. Shperk). It strives to grasp the meanings not in the framework of historical continuity as a creation of the ‘forefather of ensuing systems’, but as part of the open whole of Kant’s philosophy filled with the ‘questions without answers, doubts without solutions’ (from Strakhov’s letters to Fet). Strakhov considers Kant’s critique of pure rea¬son as a critique of thinking in its ‘deepest’ free meaning-related perspective. With this in mind, Strakhov comments on the concept outlines of Kant’s philosophy and Kant’s apriorism and at¬tempts at ‘joint thinking’ with Kant and about Kant using his original epistemological style of thinking. This style is fundamentally non-solitary, reciprocal; it suggests formal logical and con¬tent-related clarity, metaphysical cautiousness, and conceptual pluralism.06042026111. Baluev, B. P. 2001. Spori o sud’bah Rossii. N. Ja. Danilevsky i ego kniga “Rossija i Ev-ropa”[The polemics on the fate of Russia. Danilevsky and his book "Russia and Europe"], Moscow, 416 p.2. Vvedensky, A. I. 1896. Znachenie filosofskoj dejatel’nosti N. N. Strahova [The meaning of Strakhov’s philosophical activity], Obrazovanie [Education], no. 3, dep. II, p. 1—8.3. Gavrjushin, N. K. 2013. Za kulisami filosofskoj drami: metafizika i istoriosofija N. N. Strahova [Behind the scenes of philosophical drama: metaphysics and historiosophy created by Nikolai Strahov], 23 December, available at: http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/ 3693498.html (accessed 05 May 2015).4. Grigoriev, А. А. 1990. N. N. Strahovu [To N. N. Strakhov]. Orenburg. 1861. Sent 23 [23 September 1861], Sochinenija [Works], in 2 vols, vol. 2. Statji. Pis’ma [Articles. Letters], Moscow, p. 421—424.5. Grot, N. Y. 1896. Pamjati N. N. Strahova. K harakteristike ego filosofskogo mirosozert-sanija [In memory of Nikolai Strakhov. By the characteristics of his philosophical outlook], Moscow, 42 p.6. Dmitrieva, N. A. 2007. Russkoje neokantianstvo: “Marburg” v Rossii. Istoriko-filosofskije ocherki [Russian Neokantianism "Marburg" in Russia. Historical and philosophical essays], Moscow, 512 p.7. Zhuchkov, V. A. 2005. Kommentarij k rabote N. N. Strahova “Glavnaja cherta mishlenija” [Commentary on the work of N. N. Strakhov "The main feature of thinking"], Kant: pro et contra, St Petersburg, p. 847—878.8. Ilyin, N. P. 2008. Tragedija russkoj filosofii [The tragedy of Russian philosophy], Moscow, 608 p.9. Kruglov, А. N. 2012. Kant i kantovskaja filosofija v russkoj hudozhestvennoj literature [Kant and Kantian philosophy in the Russian fiction], Moscow, 480 p.10. Kruglov, А. N. 2009. Filosofija Kanta v Rossii v kontse XVIII — pervoj polovine XIX vekov [The Kantian philosophy in Russia in the late XVIII — first half XIX centuries], Mos-cow, 568 p.11. Losev, A. F. 1990. Vladimir Solov’ev i ego vremja [Vladimir Soloviev and his time], Moscow, 720 p.12. Olkhov, P. A. 2009. Zdravij smisl i istorija: (zametki k polemicheskoj epitafii N. N. Strahova «Vzdoh na grobe Karamzina») [Common sense and history (notes to a N. Strakhov’s polemical epitaph "Sigh on the Karamzin’s coffin")], Voprosi filosofii, [Ques-tions of philosophy], no. 5, p. 125—132.13. Modzalevsky, B. L. ed. 1914. Perepiska L. N. Tolstogo i N. N. Strahova. 1870—1894 [The correspondence of Leo Tolstoy and Nikolai Strakhov. 1870—1894], Tolstovskij Muzej [Tolstoy Museum], vol II, St Petersburg, 480 p.14. Perepiska s N. N. Strahovim [The correspondence with Nikolai Strakhov]. 1877—1892, 2011, А. А. Fet i ego literaturnoje okruzhenije [A. A. Fet and his literary environment], bk. 2, Liteaturnoje nasledstvo [The literary legacy], vol. 103, Moscow, p. 233—550.15. Radlov, E. 1896. Neskolko zamechanij o filosofii N. Strahova [Some remarks on the philosophy of Nikolai Strakhov], Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveschenija [Journal of the Ministry of Public Education], pt. CCCV, no. 6, p. 339—361.16. Rozanov, V. V. 2001. Literaturnie izgnanniki: N. N. Strakhov. K. N. Leontiev. [Literary exiles: N. N. Strakhov. K. N. Leontiev], ed. А. N. Nikoljukin, Moscow, 477 p.17. Skatov, N. N. 2000. N. N. Strakhov (1828—1896), Strakhov, N. N. Literaturnaja kritika [Literary Criticism], St Petersburg, p. 3—41.18. Strakhov, N. N. 1895. Anglijskaja psihologija [English psychology], Filosofskije ocherki [Philosophical Essays], St Petersburg, p. 201—267.19. Strakhov, N. N. 1895. Gartman i Shopengauer [Hartmann and Schopenhauer], Filosofskije ocherki [Philosophical Essays], St Petersburg, p. 374—427.20. Strakhov, N. N. 1895. Glavnaja cherta mishlenija [The main feature of thinking], Filosofskije ocherki [Philosophical Essays], St Petersburg, p. 100—122.21. Strakhov, N. N. 1906. O vremeni [About the time], Filosofskije ocherki [Philosophi¬cal Essays], 2nd ed., Kiev, p. 405—414.22. Strakhov, N. N. 1894. O zadachah istorii filosofii [On the tasks of the history of philosophy], Voprosy filosofii i psihologii [Questions of philosophy and psychology], bk. 1 (21), p. 1—34.23. Strakhov, N. N. 1894. Ob osnovnih ponjatijah psihologii i fiziologii [On the fundamen-tal ideas of psychology and physiology], 2nd ed., St Petersburg, XIX, 318 p.24. Tolstoy, L. N. 1953. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij [Complete works in 90 volumes], vol. 64, Letters 1887—1889, Moscow, ХХ, 425 p.25. Shperk, F. E. 2010. N. N. Strahov. Kriticheskij etjud [Nikolai Strakhov. The critical essay], Kak pechal’no, chto vo mne tak mnogo nenavisti… [How sad that in me so much hate...], Sankt-Peterburg, p. 122—128.26. Pruzhinin, B. I. and Schedrina, T. G. 2013. Epistemologicheskij stil’ v russkoi intellek-tual¬noj culture XIX—XX vekov: Ot lichnosti k traditsiji [Epistemological style of Russian in¬tel-lectual culture of XIX—XX centuries: From the individual to the tradition], Мoscow, 447 p.V. N.BelovThe article focuses on overcoming the superficial approach to Neo-Kantianism: Neo-Kantianism is widely interpreted as a one-sided understanding of Kant’s works, their corruption, and, thus, a dead-end branch of the transcendental philosophy of the great Königsberg thinker. The author also discusses some of the fundamental aspects of divergence between Hermann Cohen’s philosophical system and German Neo-Kantianism. It is argued that Cohen created an original philosophical system; therefore, it is unproductive to speculate whether the Marburg philosopher was a proponent of Kant, Hegel, or Fichte. It seems appropriate to call Hermann Cohen a “Cohenian” and consider his ideas relating to the interaction between theoretical and practical reason and the construction of a rigid and elaborate system con-sisting of verified elements from the perspective of his own system of philosophy, which is complete in its key aspects. This article demonstrates the efforts of the Marburg philosopher to justify both the unity of and the necessary distinctions between theoretical and practical reasons in the system of transcen¬dental philosophy. When considering the monistic nature of Hermann Cohen’s philosophical sys¬tem, the author gives a more detailed definition of this characteristic: it is not monism but a sys¬tematic unity of culture. It is proven that monism is not detected in Cohen’s system, nor is it a mo¬nistic philosophical monolith in relation to other variants of transcendental philosophy.06042026111. Dvorkin I. Filosofija dialoga v poiskach puti [The philosophy of dialogue in the search for the path] // Filosofskije dialogi’2013. Vipusk 7. Kiev, S. 112—171 [Philosophical dialogues'2013. Issue 7. Kiev, p. 112—171].2. Kalinnikov L. A. O neobchodimosti pereozenki neokantianstva v svete sovremen¬noj interpretazii sistemi I. Kanta [The need for re-evaluation of Neo-Kantianism in the light of modern interpretation of Kant] // Neokantianstvo nemezkoje i russkoje: meshdu teoriej poznanija i kritikoj kulturi / pod red. I. N. Grifzovoj, N. A. Dmitrievoj. M., 2010. S. 56—66. [Neo-Kantianism German and Russian: between the theory of knowledge and criticism of culture / ed. IN Griftsova, NA Dmitrieva. Moskow 2010. P. 56—66].3. Kant I. Kritika prakticheskogo razuma [Critique of Practical Reason] // I. Kant. Soch. v 4-ch tomach na nem. i rus. jazikach. Podgotovleni k izdaniju N. Motroshilovoj iB. Tushlingom. T. III. Podgotovleni k izdaniju E. Solovjevim i A. Sudakovim, B. Tushlin-gom i U. Fogelem. M., 1997. [Works in 4 volumes on Germany and Russian languages. Pre-pared for publication N. Motroshilova and B. Tushling. T. III. Prepared for publication by E. Solovyov and A. Sudakov, U. Vogel and B. Tushling. Moskow, 1997].4. Sokuler Z. A. German Kogen i filosofija dialoga. M., 2008. [Herman Cohen and phi-losophy of dialogue]. Moskow, 2008.5. Kogen G. 2012, Teorija opita Kanta [Theory of experience of Kant], Per. s nem. V. N. Be¬lova, Moscow.6. Natorp P. 2006, Kant I marburgskaja škola [Kant and Marburger school], Izbrannije raboti [Selected works], Moskow, p. 119—145.7. Poma A. 2012, Kriticheskaja filosofija Germana Kogena [The critical philosophy of Her-mann Cohen], Per. s it. O. A. Popova, Moscow.8. Savalskiji V. A. 1909, Osnovi filosofii prava v nauchnom idealizme. Marburgskaja škola filosofii. Kogen, Natorp, Shtamler i dr. [Basis of philosophy of right in scientifically idealism. Marburger school of philosophy. Cohen, Natorp, Stammler et al.]. Moskow. Т. 1.9. Adelmann D. “Reinige dein Denken”. Über den jüdischen Hintergrund der Phi-losophie von Hermann Cohen. Würzburg, 2010.10. Cohen H. Kants Begründung der Ethik. 3 Aufl. Hildesheim, 2001.11. Cohen H. Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums. Zweite Aufl. Köln, 1959.12. Rosenzweig F. Einleitung // Hermann Cohen. Jüdische Schriften. Erster Band. Berlin, 1924.L. (translated from the German and introduced by V. N. Belov)BertolinoThe author tries to prove the thesis that Cohen's reception of Spinoza's thought is character-ized by a sequence of what we can find in the whole philosophical system of Marburg Neo-Kantian. Fluctuations in Cohen's interpretation of Spinoza's theoretical constructs correspond to a progres-sive refinement of his own philosophical system project. This research does not aim to shed new light on the wide panorama presented approaches and points of view on the attitude of Cohen to Spinoza, which has not yet studied its aspects are ex-tremely diverse, and because of his interpretations more enriched; it is more a question of fact, to shed light on some aspects of this panorama. Thus, the author does not go into details, "the case of Spinoza," as Cohen let himself be called a tough confrontation with Spinoza against Jewish under-standing — about this "case" there are quite a number of studies. Even less in the study will be discussed on the consideration of personal stories. So here it draws attention to the following topics: the nature of thinking and thinking of nature. Conducted by the author analysis allows to understand the main causes of a Cohen’s critical attitude to Spinoza. Spinoza's pantheism, according to Cohen, leads to various unacceptable conse-quences: identification of ethics as metaphysics, which is referred to as an ontology and rests on a false identity, the disappearance of the very possibility of ethics is no difference between being of nature and being of obligation, the opposition against finalism in the name of necessary natural laws. Therefore, we are talking about thinking that even in small things not engaged in scientific idealism and therefore far from the critical philosophy of Cohen. In the philosophy of Spinoza saw Cohen ontological metaphysics, which is based on the erro-neous principle of identity. It cancels the possibility of the ethics as prevents the existence of nature distinguished from being of obligation, and over which dominates the necessity of natural laws. This distinction and the union of logic and ethics for Cohen is equally necessary and complemen¬tary. This fundamental principle of critical idealism overcomes Spinoza's pantheism, the reducing ethics to logic and devastating importance of ethics and logic through the metaphysics of identity of the divine substance.06042026111. Kogen G. 2012, Teorija opita Kanta [Theory of experience of Kant], Per. s nem. V. N. Be¬lova, Moscow.2. Kogen G. 2008, Obosnovanie etiki Kantom [Kantian justification of ethics] / Per. s nem. V. N. Belova // Immanuil Kant i aktualnije problem sovremennoj filosofii. Sb. nauch. trudov / pod obchej red. V. N. Belova i L. I. Tetjueva. T. 2. Moscow.3. Poma A. 2012, Kriticheskaja filosofija Germana Kogena [The critical philosophy of Hermann Cohen], Per. s it. O. A. Popova, Moscow.4. Ein ungedruckter Vortrag Hermann Cohens über Spinozas Verhältnis zum Juden-tum // Festgabe zum zehnjährigen Bestehen der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Juden-tums. 1919—1929, Berlin, 1929. S. 42—68.5. Liebeschütz H. 1960, Hermann Cohen und Spinoza // Bulletin des Leo Baeck In-stituts, № 12, S. 225—2386. Freudenthal Ja. 1904, Spinoza. Sein Leben und seine Lehre, Bd. 1, Das Leben Spino¬zas. Stuttgart.7. Wiedebach H. 2000, Die Hermann-Cohen-Bibliothek. Hildesheim/Zürich/New York.8. Rosenzweig F. 1924 Einleitung // Hermann Cohen. Jüdische Schriften. Erster Band. Berlin, S. XIII—LXIV.B.CzardybonThis article considers the ideas of the Russian Neo-Kantianist Vasily Sesemann (1884—1963) in comparison with the idealism of the Marburg School. The author analyses the key Russian phi-losopher’s works on the topic: ‘The problem of idealism in philosophy’, ‘Theoretical philosophy of the Marburg School’, etc. The article focuses on Sesemann’s interest in the concept of the ‘irra¬tional’ and explains his understanding of Neo-Kantianism and the idea of infinity (fieri). Sesemann is interested in the Neo-Kantian aspiration to achieve a systematic unity of knowledge. The concept of one of the editors of the Russian version of the Logos international philosophical journal under¬goes a transformation from irrationality to the rationality of a higher order. The concept of irration¬ality is defined by the Russian thinker through the inexhaustible set of problems ‘ensuring’ eternal and continuous progress of objective cognition. According to Sesemann, the opposite of a rational, conceptual, mediated element of cognition is an irrational, non-mediated component. The irrational factor of knowledge is the problems faced by human reason, as well as a condition for the progress of knowledge. The Russian philosopher strives to develop an original philosophical structure that just partially transcends the Neo-Kantian school. He is strongly influenced by the phenomenological movement, although expressing certain criticism thereof. The author draws a parallel between Se-semann’s ideas and Nicolai Hartmann’s conception, which makes it possible to classify the Russian philosopher as a post-Neo-Kantianist. The works of Andrey Noras have popularised the term ‘post-neo-Kantianism’ among Polish researchers of the neo-Kantian movement in modern philosophy. The epistemological interpretation of Kant’s philosophy was rejected by the followers of post-Neo-Kantianism in favour of the ontological one.06042026111. Belov V. N. 2010 (a), Problema racionalnogo i irracionalnogo v filosofskoj sistiemie V. E. Sezemana [The problem of rational and irrational in the philosophical system of V. E. Se¬semann] // Х Kantovskije chtenija. Klassicheskij razum i wyzowy sovremiennoj civilizacji. Matierialy miezdunarodnoj w 2 ch. T. 2. / pod red. V. N. Brushinkina [X Kantian reading. Classic minds and challenges of modern civilization. Proceedings of the international conference in 2 hours.2. T. / ed. V. N. Bryushinkin]. Kaliningrad, p. 7—24.2. Belov V. N. 2010 (b), Uchenije Germana Kogena v Rossii: osobiennosti recepcii [The teachings of Hermann Cohen in Russia: especially the reception] // Neokantianstvo nie-mieckoje i russkoje: mezdu tieoriej poznanija i kritikoj kultury / pod red. I. N. Grifcovoj, N. А. Dmit-rijewoj [Russian and German Neo-Kantianism: between epistemology and criticism of culture / ed. I. N. Griftsova, N. A. Dmitrieva]. Мoscow, p. 299—317.3. Belov V. N. 2012 (a), V. E. Sezeman — sistiematik russkogo neokantianstwa [V. E. Se¬semann — systematics of Russian neo-Kantianism] // Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philo-sophy]. № 4, p. 121—127.4. Belov V. N. 2012 (b), Russkoje neokantianstwo: istorija i osobiennosti razvitija [Russian neo-Kantianism: history and features of development] // Kantovskij sbornik [Kant’s collection]. № 1, p. 27—40.5. Belov V. N. 2012 (w), Predislovie [Preface] // Poma А. Kriticheskaja filosofija Germana Kogena. Pier. О. А. Popowoj [A. Poma. Critical philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Trans. O. A. Popo-va]. Мoscow, p. 5—17.6. Berdaev N. А. 1990, Smysl tvorchestva [The meaning of creativity] // Berdaev N. А. Filosofija svobody. Smysl tvorchestva [Berdyaev N. A. The philosophy of freedom. Meaning of creativity]. Мoscow, p. 254—535.7. Gessen S. I. 1998, Mojo ziznieopisanije [My life] // Gessen S. I. Izbrannyje sochinienija / pod red. А. Valickogo, N. Chisiakovoj [S. I. Hessen Selected works / eds. A. Walicki, N. Chistya¬ko-va]. Мoscow, p. 723—782.8. Losskij N. О. 1991, Istorija russkoj filosofii [The history of Russian philosophy]. Мoscow, URL: http://vehi.netnlossky/istoriya/20.html (data obrashchenija: 1.05.2015).9. Miklush K. V. 2008, Refleksivnostʼ kak osnovanije gnoseologii V. E. Sezemana [Reflexivity as the basis of epistemology of V. E. Sesemann] // Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universitieta [Herald of Volgograd State University]. № 1, p. 153—155.10. Miklush K. V. 2010, Osnovnyje cherty tieorii poznanija V. E. Sezemana [The main features of the theory of knowledge of V. E. Seszemann] // Neokantianstvo niemieckoje i russkoje: mezdu tieoriej poznanija i kritikoj kultury / pod red. I. N. Grifcovoj, N. А. Dmitrijewoj [Rus¬sian and German neo-Kantianism: between epistemology and criticism of culture / eds. I. N. Grift¬sova, N. A. Dmitrieva]. Мoscow, p. 208—221.11. Sezeman V. E. 1911, Racionalnoje i irracionalnoje v sistemie filosofii [Rational and ir¬rational system of philosophy] // Logos [Logos]. № 1, p. 93—122; Sesemann W. 1911—1912, Das Rationale und das Irrationale im System der Philosophie // Logos. № 1, p. 208—241.12. Sezeman V. E. 1913, Tieoreticheskaja filosofija Marburgskoj shkoly [Theoretical philosophy of the Marburg school] // Novyje idiei v filosofii. Niepieriodicheskoje izdanije [New ideas in philosophy. Non-periodical publications]. № 5, p. 1—34.13. Sezeman V. E. 2011, Realnaja ustanovka i «chistoje» (biezustanowochnoje) znanije (Iz rukopisnogo nasledija) / pod red. V. I. Povilajtisa [Actual installation and „cleanˮ (without mounting) knowledge (From the manuscript heritage) / ed. V. I. Povilaytis] // Kantovskij sbornik [Kants collection]. № 1, p. 88—97.14. Sezeman V. E. 2012, Problema idealizma v filosofii. Pier. V. N. Belova [The prob¬lem of idealism in philosophy. Trans. V. N. Belov] // Voprosy filosofii [Problems of philoso¬phy]. № 4, p. 127—134.15. Sezeman-Kovno V. 2006, K problemie chistogo znanija. Pier. V. N. Belova [On the problem of pure knowledge. Trans. V. N. Belov] // Logos [Logos]. № 6, p. 119—162.16. Frank S. L. 1995, Predmiet znanija. Ob osnovah i predelah otvlechennogo znanija [The subject knowledge. On the principles and the limits of abstract knowledge] // Frank S. L. Predmiet znanija. Dusha cheloveka [Frank S. L. The subject knowledge. The soul of man]. SPb, p. 7—515.17. Jakovenko B. 1912—1913, Ob immanientnom transcendentizmie, transcen¬dent¬nom immanentizmie i dualizmie voobshche. Vtoroje, bolschoje specialnoje vvedenije v trans-cendentalizm [About immanent transcendentalism, transcendental im¬manentism and dualism altogether. The second, more special introduction to the tran¬scendentalism] // Logos [Logos]. № 1—2, p. 99—182.18. Jakovenko B. V. 2003, Istorija russkoj filosofii / pod red. Ju. N. Soloduhinoj [The history of Russian philosophy / ed. J. N. Solodukhina]. Мoscow.19. Aster E. von 1935, Die Philosophie der Gegenwart. Leiden.20. Augustyn L. 2003, Myslenie z wnetrza objawienia. Studium filozofii Siemiona L. Franka [The reflection from within the revelation. The study in philosophy of Semyon L. Frank]. Cracow.21. Botz-Bornstein Th. 2002, Vasily Sesemann: Neo-Kantianism, Formalism and the Question of Being // Slavic and East European Journal. № 3. p. 511—549.22. Cohen H. 1871, Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Berlin.23. Cohen H. 1877, Kants Begründung der Ethik. Berlin.24. Cohen H. 1900, Liebe und Gerechtigkeit in den Begriffen Gott und Mensch. Berlin.25. Cohen H. 1902, System der Philosophie. T. 1: Logik der reinen Erkenntniss. Berlin.26. Cohen H. 1919, Religion der Vernunft aus der Quellen des Judentums. Leipzig.27. Czardybon B. 2013, Filozofia Nicolaia Hartmanna a filozofia rosyjska — wybrane analogie [The philosophy of Nicolai Hartmann and the Russian philosophy — selected analogies] // Studia nad filozofia Nicolaia Hartmanna (z bibliografia polskich przekładow i op¬ra-co¬wan po roku 1945) / pod red. L. Kopciucha [The studies of the philosophy of Nicolai Hartmann (with Polish translations and elaborations after 1945) / ed. L. Kopciuch]. Lublin, p. 235—252.28. Czardybon B. 2014, Sezeman Wasyl [Sesemann Vasily] // Idiei w Rossii — Idee w Rosji — Ideas in Russia. Leksykon rosyjsko-polsko-angielski. Т. 8 / pod red. J. Dobieszewskiego [Ideas in Russia. Russian-Polish-English lexicon, vol. 8 / ed. J. Dobieszewski]. Lodz, p. 380—384.29. Frank S. L. 2008, Pierwsze okreslenie i istota intuicji. Pier. B. Czardybon [The first qualification and the nature of intuition. Trans. B. Czardybon] // Logos i Ethos [Logos and Ethos]. № 2, p. 165—183.30. Galewicz W. 1987, N. Hartmann [N. Hartmann]. Warsaw.31. Gonec W. 1999, Sezeman Wasyl. Pier. S. Grzybowskiеgо [Sesemann Vasily. Trans. S. Grzybowski] // Idiei w Rossii — Idee w Rosji — Ideas in Russia. Leksykon rosyjsko-polsko-an-gielski. T. 1 / pod red. А. de Lazari [Ideas in Russia. Russian-Polish-English lexicon, vol. 1 / ed. A. de Lazari]. Warsaw, p. 357—359.32. Hanuszkiewicz W. 2011, Filozofia Hermanna Cohena w perspektywie sporu o jednosc metody transcendentalnej [Hermann Cohen’s philosophy in the perspective on the dispute about the unity of the transcendental method]. Warsaw.33. Hartmann N. 2007, Zarys metafizyki poznania. Pier. E. Drzazgowskiej, P. Piszczatow-skie¬go [Outlines of a metaphysics of knowledge. Trans. E. Drzazgowska, P. Piszczatowski]. Warsaw.34. Kaminski S. 1993, Wspolczesne metody metafizyki [The methods of contemporary me¬taphysics] // Filozofia i metoda. Studia z dziejow metod filozofowania / pod red. J. Herbuta [Phi¬losophy and method. Studies on the history of methods of philosophizing / ed. J. Herbut]. Lub-lin, p. 123—132.35. Kubalica T. 2013, Wiedza w neokantyzmie [Knowledge at neo-Kantianism] // Wied¬za / pod red. D. Leszczynskiego // Studia Systematica [Knowledge / ed. D. Leszczynski // Studia Systematica]. № 3, p. 89—107.36. Musiol A. 2011, Ernst Cassirer neokantysta? Między formą symboliczna jako istota kultury a filozofia Immanuela Kanta [Ernst Cassirer — neo-Kantian philosopher? Between the symbolical form as the essence of culture and Immanuel Kant’ philosophy] // Filozofia Kanta i jej recepcja / pod red. D. Bebena, A. J. Norasa [Kant’s philosophy and its reception / ed. D. Be¬ben, A. J. Noras]. Katowice, p. 199—215.37. Natorp P. 1910, Die logischen Grundlagen der exakten Wissenschaften. Leipzig — Ber-lin.38. Natorp P. 2011, Kant a szkoła marburska. Pier. A. J. Norasa [Kant and the Marburg school. Trans. A. J. Noras] // Neokantyzm badenski i marburski. Antologia tekstow / pod red. A. J. Norasa, T. Kubalicy [Baden and Marburg neo-Kantianism. Anthology of texts]. Katowice, p. 241—266.39. Noras A. J. 2004, Postneokantyzm wobec Kanta [Post-neo-kantianism regarding Kant] // Idea. Studia nad Struktura i Rozwojem Pojec Filozoficznych [Idea. Studies on the struc-ture and development of philosophical concepts]. № 16, p. 79—88.40. Noras A. J. 2005, Historia filozofii — nauka niepotrzebna? [History of philosophy — science unnecessary] // Filozofia i czas przeszly. Profesorowi Czeslawowi Glombikowi w 70. rocznice urodzin / pod red. B. Szotek, A. J. Norasa [Philosophy and the past tense. To Professor Czes¬law Glombk at his 70. anniversary of the birth]. Katowice, 2005, p. 97—108.41. Noras A. J. 2005 (б), Kant a neokantyzm badenski i marburski [Kant and Baden and Marburg neo-Kantianism]. Katowice. 2nd Edition.42. Noras A. J. 2012, Historia neokantyzmu [The history of neo-Kantianism]. Katowice.43. Pietras A. 2011, Nicolai Hartmann as a post-neo-Kantian // The philosophy of Nico-lai Hartmann / pod red. R. Poli, C. Scognamiglio, F. Tremblay [The philosophy of Nicolai Hart-mann / eds. R. Poli, C. Scognamiglio, F. Tremblay]. Berlin, p. 237—251.44. Pietras A. 2012 (a), Karla Jaspersa postneokantowski projekt metafizyki [Karl Jaspers’s post-neo-kantian project of the metaphysics] // Kwartalnik Filozoficzny [Philoso-phical Quarterly]. № 4, p. 25—40.45. Pietras A. 2012 (б), W strone ontologii. Nicolaia Hartmanna i Martina Heideggera post-neokantowskie projekty filozofii [Towards ontology. Nicolai Hartmann and Martin Heidegger’s post-neo-Kantians projects of philosophy]. Krakow.46. Pietras A. 2013, Nicolaia Hartmanna projekt syntezy dyskursu i intuicji [Nicolai Hartman’s project of the synthesis of discourse and intuition] // Przeglad Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria [Philosophical Review. New Series]. № 1, p. 335—350.47. Poma A. 1988, La Filosofia Critica di Hermann Cohen. Milano.; Poma A. 1997, The Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Pier. J. Denton. Albany.48. Postneokantyzm — ontologizm / pod red. B. Czardybon, L. Augustyna, M. Bo-huna [Post-neo-Kantianism / eds. B. Czardybon, L. Augustyn, M. Bohun] // Estetyka i Kry¬tyka [Aesthetics and Criticism]. № 26.49. Skarga B. 1976, Trzy typy neokantyzmu we Francji [Three types of neo-Kan¬tianism at France] // Dziedzictwo Kanta. Materialy z sesji kantowskiej / pod red. J. Ga¬rewicza [Heritage of Kant. Materials from the Kantian session / ed. J. Garewicz]. Warszawa, p. 245—261.50. Wundt M. 1924, Kant als Metaphysiker. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Deutschen Phi-losophie im 18. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart.A. N.SalikovThis article presents an overview of Russian philosophers’ publications in German periodicals of the late 19th/early 20th centuries. At the time, Germany boasted a significant number of journals dedicated to philosophy or addressing philosophical problems. Even in the first approximation, there are several dozen journals featuring either texts by Russian scientists or works dedicated to Russian philosophy. Of special importance are two journals with the most pronounced presence of Russian authors, namely, Kant-Studien and Logos. Both journals have a strong Neo-Kantian spirit — many of their publishers and authors were advocates of this movement. In general, the Russia-related materials published in Kant-Studien and Logos demonstrate a strong Russian presence in these periodicals. Therefore, it is possible to speak of an — although not decisive — but tangible influence of Russian thought on the philosophy of the German-language space. This influ¬ence is accounted for by the phenomenon that would be later called the ‘Silver age of Russian phi¬losophy’ and the phenomenon of Russian philosophy abroad — a product of the wars and revolu¬tions in Russia and a result of the exodus of Russian philosophers to the West, where Germany was one of their first safe havens.06042026111. Ermichev, A. A. 2012, Filosofskoe soderzhanie zhurnalov russkogo Zarubezh'ja (1918—1939) [Philosophical content of the magazines of Russian émigré (1918—1939)], Saint Pe-tersburg.2. Kramme, R. 1995, “Tvorit' novuju kul'turu” [“To create a new culture” — “Logos” 1910—1933], in: Sociologicheskij zhurnal [Sociological magazine], 1995, № 1, p. 122—136.3. Salikov, A. N. 2010, Russkie v «Kant-shtudien» [Russian in Kant-Studien], in: Kan-tovskij sbornik [Kant’s collection]. 2010, № 4 (34), p. 87—96.4. Salikov, A. N. Russkie v Kant-Shtudien. Chast' I. Fajhingerovskij «Kant-Shtudien» (1896—1933) [Russian in Kant-Studien. Part I. Vaihinger’s Kant-Studien (1896—1933)], in: Kantovskij sbornik [Kant’s collection], № 2 (36), p. 95—107.5. Aus der Einführung in die russische Logosausgabe. 1910/1911, in: Logos, № 1,S. 153—158.6. Braun, O. 1918, Solovjeff, Wladimir. Die geistigen Grundlagen des Lebens, Kant-Stu-dien, № 22. S. 151—152.7. Bubnoff, N. 1920, Das Wesen und die Voraussetzungen der Induktion, Kant-Stu-dien, № 13, S. 357—408.8. Bubnoff, N. 1919/1920, Das Problem der spekulativen Mystik, Logos, № 8, S. 163—178.9. Burkamp, W. 1929, Losskij N. O. Handbuch der Logik, Kant-Studien, № 34,S. 454—455.10. Frank, S. 1926, Die russische Philosophie in den letzten fünfzehn Jahren, Kant-Studien, № 31, S. 89—104.11. Frank, S. 1928, Erkenntnis und Sein, Logos, № 17. S. 165—196.12. Frank, S. 1929, Erkenntnis und Sein, Logos, № 18, S. 231—261.13. Gurwitch, G. 1931, Rezension, Logos, № 20, S. 105—118.14. Gurwitsch, Georg. 1922/1923, Otto von Gierke als Rechtsphilosoph, Logos, № 11, S. 86—132.15. Hartmann, N. 1912, Systematische Methode, Logos, № 3, S.121—163.16. Hartmann, N. 1933, Sesemann, Wilhelm. Die logischen Gesetze und das Sein, Kant-Studien, № 38, S. 227—232.17. Hartmann, N. 1915, Logische und ontologische Wirklichkeit, Kant-Studien, № 20, S. 1—28.18. Hartmann, N. 1910, Zur Methode der Philosophiegeschichte, Kant-Studien, № 15, S. 459—486.19. Hartmann, N. 1914/1915, Über die Erkennbarkeit des Apriorischen, Logos, № 5,S. 290—329.20. Heller, J. 1933, Klatzkin, Jacob. Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae et veteris et recentioris, Kant-Studien, № 38, S. 184—185.21. Hessen, S. 1909, Individuelle Kausalität. Studien zum transcendentalen Empirismus, Bd. XI. Berlin.22. Hessen, S. 1922, Individuelle Kausalität. Studien zum transcendentalen Empirismus, Kantstudien-Ergänzungshefte, № 27.23. Hessen, S. 1927, Rezension, Logos, № 16, S. 369—377.24. Hessen, S. 1912, Mystik und Metaphysik, Logos, № 2, S. 92—113.25. Hessen, S. 1929, Die Entwicklung der Physik Galileis und ihr Verhältnis zim phy-sikalischen System von Aristoteles, Logos, № 18, S. 339—361.26. Hessen, S. 1914/1915, Die Philosophie der Strafe, Logos, № 5, S. 173—220.27. Hessen, S. 1910/1911, Individuelle Kausalität, Logos, № 1, S. 416—417.28. Hessen, S. 1930, Tolstoi als Denker, Logos, № 19, S. 145—172.29. Iwanow, W. 1912, L. Tolstoj und die Kultur, Logos, № 2, S.175—191.30. Jakovenko, B. 1910/1911, Benedetto Croce: Filosofia dello Spirito” (1909), Logos, № 1, S. 161—162.31. Kistiakowski Th. 1901, Gesellschaft und Einzelwesen, Kant-Studien, № 5, S. 252.32. Kraft, J. 1930, Lenin. Materialismus und Empiriokritizismus, Kant-Studien, № 35, S. 368—369.33. Kronenburg, M. 1898, A. Tumarkin. Herder und Kant, Kant-Studien, № 2, S. 116—118.34. Kroner, R. Brief an Werner Siebeck vom 21.01.1923, Verlagsarchiv J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Tubingen. (Quoted from: Kramme, R. 1995, “Tvorit' novuju kul'turu” [“To create a new culture” — “Logos” 1910—1933], in: Sociologicheskij zhurnal [Sociological magazine], 1995, № 1, p. 122).35. Lanz, H. 1912, Das Problem der Gegenständlichkeit in der modernen Logik, Berlin.36. Lanz, H. 1912, Das Problem der Gegenständlichkeit in der modernen Logik, Kant-studien-Ergänzungshefte, № 26.37. Lapschin, I. 1909, Denkgesetze und Erkenntnisformen, Kant-Studien, № 14,S. 89—90.38. Losskij, N. 1908, Thesen zur Grundlegung des Intuitivismus, Kant-Studien, № 13, S. 461—464.39. Losskij, N. 1912, Die logische und die psychologische Seite der bejahenden und verneinenden Urteile, Logos, № 3, S. 327—343.40. Losskij, N. 1926, Fichtes konkrete Ethik im Lichte des modernen Transcendenta-lismus, Logos, № 15, S. 349—364.41. Lowtzky, H. 1928, Schestow, Leo. Dostojewski und Nietzsche, Kant-Studien, № 33, S. 411—412.42. Lowtzky, H. 1929, Schestow, Leo. Potestas clavium (Die Schlüsselgewalt), Kant-Stu¬dien, № 34, S. 228—229.43. Lowtzky, H. 1928, Schestow, Leo. Tolstoi und Nietzsche, Kant-Studien, № 33,S. 410—411.44. Medicus, Fritz. 1901, Kistiakowski, Theodor. Gesellschaft und Einzelwesen, Kant-Stu¬dien, № 5, S. 252.45. Müller, A. 1929, Nuzubidze, Schalwa. Wahrheit und Erkenntnis-struktur, Kant-Stu¬dien, № 34, S. 461.46. Nuzubidze, S. 1926, Wahrheit und Erkenntnisstruktur. Erste Einleitung in den alethei¬o-logischen Realismus, Bd. XI. Berlin; Leipzig.47. Petraschek, K. 1929, Bulgakow, Sergius. Die Tragödie der Philosophie, Kant-Studien, № 34, S. 186—187.48. R. M. 1912, Solowjoff W. Judentum und Christentum, Logos, № 3. S. 372—373.49. Scheller, W. 1928, Berdjajew, Nikolai. Der Sinn des Schaffens, Kant-Studien, № 33, S. 256—257.50. Schestow, L. 1931, ΠΑΡΜΕΝΙΔΗΣ ΔΕΣΜΩΤΗΣ, Logos. № 20, S. 17—87.51. Sesemann, W. 1912, Das Rationale und das Irrationale im System der Philosophie, Logos, № 2. S. 208—241.52. Ssynopaloff, A. 1910, Kants Lehre von der transcendentalen Apperzeption. Eine Unter-suchung über d. Entwicklung d. reinen Denkens. Heilderberg.53. Stadelmann, R. 1932, Russische Geschichtsphilosophie und deutscher Geist, Lo¬gos, № 21, S. 44—64.54. Steppuhn, F. 1910/1911, Friedrich Schlegel, als Beitrag zu einer Philosophie des Lebens, Logos, № 1, S.261—288.55. Steppuhn, Feodor. 1912, Die Tragödie des mystischen Bewusstseins, Logos, № 3, S. 164—191.56. Stepun, F. 1927, Deutsche Romantik und die Geschichtsphilosophie der Sla-wophilen, Logos, № 16, S. 46—67.57. Struve, P. 1910/1911, Über einige grundlegende Motive im ationalökonomischen Denken, Logos, № 1, S. 342—360.58. Sveistrup. (Buchbesprechung) Gurwitsch, Georg. Otto v. Gierke als Rechtsphilo-soph // Kant-Studien. 1925. N 30. S. 215—216.59. Tschaadaeffs Werke (Notizen)// Logos. 1914/1915. № 5. S. 123—124.60. Tumarkin A. Zur transcendentalen Methode der Kantischen Ästhetik // Kant-Stu-dien. 1906. № 11. S. 348—378.61. Tumarkin, A. Dichtung und Weltanschauung // Logos.1919/1920. № 8. S. 195—228.62. Wundt, M. (Recensionen) Hartmann, N. Des Proklus Diadochus philosophische Anfangsgründe der Mathematik// Kant-Studien. 1911. № 16. S. 457—458.63. Wwedenskij A. Russische Literatur über Kant aus den Jahren 1893—1895 // Kant-Studien. 1898. № 2. S. 349—389.M.Soboleva0604202611V. N.Belov0604202611V. DanilkinaN.0604202611T. A.AkindinovaV. N.Belov0604202611Белов В. Н. Международная научная конференция «Герман Коген и культура ХХ века // Кантовский сборник. 2014. № 3. С. 123—125.