NONE20260601070956824Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-37010601202611F. KlemmeH.A. ChernovS.0601202611A. KonevV.0601202611N. BelovV.0601202611G. RumyantsevaT.0601202611Kh. GilmanovV.0601202611I. TrotsakA.0601202611I. TrotsakA.0601202611M. (translated from the English by A. I. TrotsakCaimiby V. O. Belonogova and V. A. Chaly)editedThe article introduces Kant’s doctrine of schematism (Critique of Pure Reason A 137-A 147; B 176-B 187). The inclusion of the chapter on schematism in the ‘Doctrine of the Principles’ rather than the ‘Doctrine of Concepts’ is taken as a clue to distinguishing the Doctrine of Schematism from the Deduction of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding. This provides clarity on the function of schematism. The author conceives of schematism as something entirely new to the Transcendental Deduction of the Categories, namely, as preparation for the use of categories as predicates in sentences known as the ‘Principles of Understanding’ referring to phaenomena (appearances in time and space) rather than the undetermined concept of objects in general. To support this interpretation, the author addresses main concepts of the schematism theory (for instance, those of schema, imagination, homogeneity, and time-determination) and describes the function of schematism. Imagination is presented as an instance of the function usually called “understanding” when directed towards appearances given in time and space. Understanding becomes imagination when it obeys not only the laws of logics, but also the laws of time. Homogeneity (a concept that plays an important role in the theory of schematism) is explained with reference to Tetens’s Philosophical Essays on Human Nature (1777). The explanations of concepts provided in the article are not exhaustive. They are discussed in more detail in the author’s earlier publications referred to in the footnotes. The article also discusses earlier and contemporary literature on schematism.06012026111. Caimi, M. 2015, Der Schematismus der reinen Verstandesbegriffe. In: Rainer Enskat (editor): Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Berlin, De Gruyter. P. 201—238 (electronic version: ISBN 978—3—05—009023—8).2. Caimi, M. 2008, Comments on the conception of Imagination in the Critique of Pure Reason. In: Akten des X. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Band 1: Hauptvorträge. Berlin — New York: De Gruyter. P. 39—50.3. Caimi, M. 2006, Der Teller, die Rundung, das Schema. Kant über den Begriff der Gleichartigkeit. In: Dirk Fonfara (editors): Metaphysik als Wissenschaft. Festschrift für Klaus Düsing zum 65. Geburtstag. München, Karl Alber. P. 211—220.4. Caimi, M. 2012, The logical structure of time according to the chapter on Schematism. In: Kant-Studien, 103. Berlin. P. 415—428.5. Cohen, H. 1918, Kants Theorie der Erfahrung, 3rd Edition. Berlin.6. Curtius, E. R. 1914, Das Schematismuskapitel in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Philologische Untersuchung. In: Kant-Studien 19. P. 338—3667. Detel, W. 1978, Zur Funktion des Schematismuskapitels in Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. In: Kant-Studien 69. P. 17—45.8. Hepfer, K. 2006, Die Form der Erkenntnis. Immanuel Kants theoretische Einbildungskraft. Freiburg/München, Alber.9. Matherne, S. 2014, Kant and the Art of Schematism. In: Kantian Review, vol. 19 issue 2, Pp. 181—205.10. Metz, W. 1991, Kategoriendeduktion und produktive Einbildungskraft in der theoretischen Philosophie Kants und Fichtes. Köln: frommann-holzboog,11. Riehl, A. 1924, Der philosophiche Kritzismus. Geschichte und System. 3rd edition, Leipzig.12. Tetens, J. N. 1777, Philosophische Versuche über die menschliche Natur und ihre Entwicklung. I. Band. (Leipzig). Hildesheim and New York: Olms, 1979. Erster Versuch, Nr. 2: Eine nöthige Nebenbetrachtung über die Begriffe von Einartigkeit und Verschiedenartigkeit. P. 143—165.13. Wunsch, M. 2007, Einbildungskraft und Erfahrung bei Kant. Berlin: De Gruyter.S. A.ChernovA reflection on the meaning of Kant’s manuscript where he uses the expression ‘metaphysics of science’. 20th century philosophy of science acknowledged empiricism and it was anti-metaphysic and positivistic. However, all forms of empiricism and positivism lead to a negation of philosophy, replacing it with logical, methodological, historical, sociological, psychological, cultural, and other studies. In effect, philosophy is the cognition of the absolute universal in both theoretical (the true being) and practical (the supreme good) terms. ‘Transcendental’ philosophy was conceived as a project to redeem philosophy in the era of burgeoning precise empirical natural science and exact sciences. Kant turned science into a foundation of new metaphysics. The anti-philosophical nature of 20th century philosophy of science necessitates addressing Kant’s theory of science when searching for a truly philosophical understanding of science, which can be only of metaphysical nature. The experience of building a system of transcendental metaphysics combined with mathematics and physics shows that philosophy of science is necessary for solving the most important problems of the humanity rather than analysing or synthesising scientific knowledge or development it. Philosophy of science proper should be based on Aristotle’s idea of metaphysics revisited in view of metaphysics of self-consciousness and the doctrine of practical reason, freedom, identity, and dignity of a human being as a personality. It should also embrace the idea of world history and universal civil meaning of philosophy. Recognition of relative a priori determination of human knowledge and behaviour in a broad context of empiricism and relativism (development theory) has no bearing on Kant’s theory. Absolute apriorism as understood in mathematics and physics is an instance of Kant’s universal ‘anthropological’ apriorism and his understanding of the human being, morals, law, and history rather than the seeming ‘absolutisation’ of the Euclidean geometry and Newtonian mechanics. The possibility of metaphysics and the philosophical understanding of science is in knowing the human being. Understanding the essence of science requires grasping the scale of human dignity and the dignity and purpose of philosophy. The project of transcendental metaphysics remains relevant to this day.06012026111. Gödel, K. 2014, Sovremennoe razvitie osnovanij matematiki v svete filosofii [Modern development of the foundations of mathematics in the light of philosophy] in: Hintikka, J. O Gödele [On Gödel]; Gödel K. Statji [Articles]. Moscow, p. 201—211.2. Kant, I. 1964, Kritika chistogo razuma [Critique of Pure Reason] in: Kant, I. Sochinenija v shesti tomah [The works in six volumes], vol. 3, Moscow.3. Kant, I. 1964b, Issledovanie stepeni jasnosti prinzipov estestvennoj teologii I morali [Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality] in: Kant, I. Sochinenija v shesti tomah [The works in six volumes], vol. 2, Moscow.4. Kant, I. 1965а, Prolegomeni ko vsjakoj buduschej metafisike, moguschej pojavitsja kak nauka [Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that may appear as a science] in: Kant, I. Sochinenija v shesti tomah [The works in six volumes], vol. 4/1, Moscow.5. Kant, I. 1965b, Osnovy metafisiki nravstvennosti [Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals] in: Kant, I. Sochinenija v shesti tomah [The works in six volumes], vol. 4/1, Moscow.6. Kant, I. 1965c, Kritika prakticheskogo razuma [Critique of Practical Reason] in: Kant, I. Sochinenija v shesti tomah [The works in six volumes], vol. 4/1, Moscow.7. Kant, I. 1966a, Metafisicheskie nachala estestvoznanija [Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science] in: Kant, I. Sochinenija v shesti tomah [The works in six volumes], vol. 6, Moscow.8. Kant, I. 1966b, Antropologija s pragmaticheskoj tochki zrenija [Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View] in: Kant, I. Sochinenija v shesti tomah [The works in six volumes], vol. 6, Moscow.9. Kant, I. 1980, Logika. Posobie k lekcijam [Logics. Allowance for lectures] in: Kant, I. Traktaty i pisma [Treatises and Letters], Moscow.10. Carnap, R. 1971, Filisofskije osnovanija fisiki. Vvedenie v filosofiju nauki [Philosophical Foundations of Physics. Introduction to the philosophy of science], Moscow.11. Popper, R. 2004, Logika nauchnogo issledovanija [The Logic of Scientific Discovery], Мoscow.12. Mendelssohn, M. 1786, Morgenstunden oder Vorlesungen über das Dasein Gottes. Erster Theil. Veränderte Auflage, Berlin.13. Mittelstraß, J. 2003, Transdisziplinarität — Wissenschaftliche Zukunft und institutionelle Wirklichkeit, Konstanz.14. Stabel, J. 2012, Der Begriff der Gleichzeitigkeit bei Kant und Einstein, Kant-Studien, no. 103/1, p. 47—69.15. Thom, M. 1980, Ideologie und Erkenntnistheorie. Untersuchung am Beispiel der Entstehung des Kritizismus und Transzendentalismus Immanuel Kants, Leipzig.16. Weizsäcker, C.-F. 1971, Die Einheit der Natur. Studien, München.17. Weizsäcker, C.-F. 1973, Die Philosophische Interpretation der modernen Physik, Halle / Saale.A. S.SattarThis article aims to demonstrate the centrality of Kant’s and Fichte’s ethics to the development of Schopenhauer’s ideas of 1811—1813. The author proves the following theses based on the philosopher’s manuscripts and the first edition of his dissertation. Firstly, for a long time, Kant’s ‘moral law’ was a major element of Schopenhauer’s philosophy, whereas the regulatory power of ethics supported its claim as a means to cognise the supersensible. Secondly, the dichotomy between the noumenal and the phenomenal encouraged him to develop a dualistic ontology. Thirdly, the emergence of the central concept of his early works — the ‘better consciousness’ — was strongly influenced by Fichte’s lectures attended by Schopenhauer. Fourthly, Schopenhauer’s doctrine of liberating the better consciousness from all the individual and earthly is also rooted in Fichte’s practical philosophy. Fifthly, Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals and Fichte’s System of Ethnics contributed to Schopenhauer’s understanding of will as the primary essence of all things and the idea of its absolute and unconditional nature and its primacy over cognition. Sixthly, some of the key aspects of Schopenhauer’s pessimism are rooted in Fichte’s philosophy. Seventhly, in the first edition of his dissertation, Schopenhauer advocated Kant’s ethics and formulated the supremacy of the better consciousness over the empirical as noumenal freedom and truly moral behavior and defined the category of negation as its opposite. Later, these ideas, altered and expanded u06012026111. Kant, I. 1964а, Grezi duhovidca, poyasnennie grezami metafiziki [Dreams of a Visionary Explained by Dreams of Metaphysics] in: Kant, I. Sobranie sochineniy v 6 t. [Collected works in 6 volumes], vol 2, Moscow.2. Kant, I. 1964б, Kritika chistogo razuma [Critique of Pure Reason] in: Kant, I. Sobranie sochineniy v 6 t. [Collected works in 6 volumes], vol 3, Moscow.3. Kant, I. 1965б, Kritika practicheskogo razuma [Critique of Practical Reason] in: Kant, I. Sobranie sochineniy v 6 t. [Collected works in 6 volumes], vol 4, part 1, Moscow.4. Kant, I. 1965а, Metafizika nravov [The metaphysics of morals] in: Kant, I. Sobranie sochineniy v 6 t. [Collected works in 6 volumes], vol 4, part 2, Moscow.5. Kant, I. 1965в, Ob iznachalno zlom v chelovecheskoi prirode [On initially evil in human nature] in: Kant, I. Sobranie sochineniy v 6 t. [Collected works in 6 volumes], vol 4, part 2, Moscow.6. Kant, I. 1965г, Prolegomenyi… [Prolegomena…] in: Kant, I. Sobranie sochineniy v 6 t. [Collected works in 6 volumes], vol 4, part 1, Moscow.7. D’Alfonso, Matteo Vincenzo. 2006. Schopenhauer als Schüler Fichtes // Fichte-Studien. Vol. 30. S. 201—211.8. Decher F. 1990. Schopenhauer und Fichtes Schrift Die Bestimmung des Menschen // Schopenhauer-Jahrbuch. Vol. 71. S. 45—67.9. Fichte J. G. 1798. Das System der Sittenlehre nach den Principien der Wissenschaftslehre. C. E. Gabler, Jena; Leipzig.10. Fichte, J. G. 2013. Filosofskie proizvedeniya [Philosophical Works]. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt; Gaudeamus Publ. (In Russian)11. Fichte, J. G. 1997. Nastavleniya k blazhennoi zhizni [The instruction concerning blessed life]. Moscow: Canon+. (In Russian)12. Fichte, J. G. 1993. Sochineniya v 2 t. [Works in 6 vols]. St-Petersburg: Mifril Publ. (In Russian)13. Koßler, M. 2009. Life is but a Mirror: On the Connection between Ethics, Mataphzsics and Character in Schopenhauer // Better Consciousness. Schopenhauer’s Philosophy of Value. Ed. by Alex Naill and Christopher Janaway. Wiley-Blackwell. P. 77—97.14. Metz, W. 2006. Der Begriff des Willen bei Fichte und Schopenhauer // Die Ethik Arthur Schopenhauers im Ausgang vom Deutschen Idealismus. Hragg. von Lore Hühn. Ergon Verlag, Würzburg. S. 387—400.15. Novembre, A. 2011. Il giovane Schopenhauer e Fichte. La duplicità della coscienza. Mainz. 461 S. (Diss.)16. Novembre, A. 2012. Schopenhauers Verständnis der Fichdte'schen "absoluten Besonnenheit" // Schopenhauer-Jahrbuch. Vol. 92. S. 53—62.17. Schelling, F. W. J. 1806. Darstellung des wahren Verhältnisses der Naturphilosophie zu der verbesserten fichte‘schen Lehre. J. G. Cotta, Tübingen.18. Schelling, F. W. J. 1804. Philosophie und Religion. Tübingen, I. G. Cotta.19. Schöndorf, H. 1982. Der Leib im Denken Schopenhauers und Fichtes. Johannes Bergmans Verlag, München.20. Schopenhauer 2008. Schopenhauers Kollegnachschriften der Metaphysik- und Psychologievorlesungen von G. E. Schulze: (Göttingen, 1810—11) Ergon.21. Schopenhauer A. 1911—1942. Sämtliche Werke. Hrsgg. von P. Deussen. München: R. Piper.22. Schopenhauer A. 1966—1975. Der Handschriftliche Nachlaß. Hrsg. von Arthur Hübscher. 5 Bände. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Waldemar Kramer.23. Zint, H. 1921. Schopenhauers Philosophie des doppelten Bewußtseins // Jahrbuch der Schopenhauer-Gesellschaft. Vol. 10. S. 3—45.24. Zöller, G. 2006. Kichtenhauer. Der Ursprung von Schopenhauers Welt als Wille und Vorstellung in Fichtes Wissenschaftslehre 1812 und System des Sittenlehre // Die Ethik Arthur Schopenhauers im Ausgang vom Deutschen Idealismus. Hragg. von Lore Hühn. Ergon Verlag, Würzburg. S. 365—386.A. S.TausnevaThis article considers H.-G. Gadamer’s hermeneutics in the context of Kant’s aesthetic theory laid down in the Critique of Judgement. Kant facilitated the development of aesthetics as an independent science, for the first time addressing the problem of the cognising and perceiving subject. Gadamer, a prominent 20th century philosopher, builds his aesthetic concept based on Kant’s theory. However, their theories differ in some aspects. This article is an attempt to establish the connection between the two systems. Special attention is paid to the fundamental differences between the theories and their common principles. Unlike Gadamer, Kant focuses on general aesthetic categories and aesthetic perception rather than artistic phenomena. Kant’s thesis about ‘disinterested liking’ and the correlation between Kant’s definitions of art and cognition are considered. Kant distinguishes between aesthetic judgment and cognition, whereas Gadamer defines art as a method of cognition, an event that can become genuine under the condition of maximum of understanding. The author analyses the key categories of aesthetics — taste, play, and the beautiful. It is concluded that Kant understands the category of play from the perspective of the subject, whereas Gadamer interprets it as an instance of movement, independent from the observer. The correlation between Kant’s aesthetic theory and the ensuing romantic concepts of is established. In the conclusion, the authors stresses the influence of Kant’s theory on the development of hermeneutics, which has been aimed at avoiding pseudo-understanding since German Romanticism.06012026111. Gadamer H.-G. 1991, Aktual’nost’ prekrasnogo [The Actuality of the Beautiful], Moscow, 367 p.2. Gadamer H.-G. 2006, Igra iskusstva [The Play of Art], Voprosy filosofii, no. 8, p. 164—168.3. Gadamer H.-G. 1988, Istina i metod: Osnovy filosofskoiy germenevtiki [Truth and method], Moscow, 704 p.4. Gulyga A. V. 1977, Kant, Moscow, 304 p. URL: http://www.lib.ru/MEMUARY/ZHZL/kant.txt.5. Gulyga A. V. 1994, Estetika Kanta [Kant’s aesthetics]. In: Kant I. Kritika sposobnosti suj’denija [The Critique of Judgment], Moscow, p. 9—35.6. Dobrohotov A. L. 2008, Teleologija Kanta kak uchenie o kul’ture [Kant’s teleology as a culture study]. In: Dobrohotov A. L. Izbranoije [Selected works], Moscow, p. 284—294.7. Kant I. 1999, Antropologija s pragmaticheskoj tochki zrenija [Antropology from a pragmatic point of view], SPb., 471 p.8. Kant I. 2001, Kritika sposobnosti suj’denija. Pervoje vvedenie v “Kritiku sposobnosti suj’denija” [The Critique of Judgment. The first introduction into the “Critique of Judgment”]. In: Sochinenija na nemeсkom i ruskom iazykah. [Works in German and Russian], v 4 t. [in 4 volumes], T. 4, Moscow, 1120 p.9. Mamardashwili M. 1997, Kantianskije variacii [Variations on Kantian Themes], Moscow, 320 p.10. Safranski R. 2005, Hoffmann, Moscow, 383 p.11. Xyojzinga J. 2015, Homo ludens. Chelovek igrayushhij. SPb, 416 p.L. A.KalinnikovBased on the theory of genius presented in Kant’s Critique of Judgement, the author considers the idea of normal genius as opposed to the genius of Romanticism and Postmodernism. The influence of Postmodernism is manifested in popular interpretations of the works of great artists — especially, Russian ones — as a product of mental disorders and perversions. The author analyses an interpretation of the oeuvre of the great Russian poet and thinker A. A. Fet. Factors that affected the fundamentals of A. A. Fet’s world view are considered. The author proves that the influence of the Moravian Church in Võru, where the poet studied there for several years, was insignificant.06012026111. Афанасьев А. Н. Поэтические воззрения славян на природу. Опыт сравнительного изучения славянских преданий и верований в связи с мифическими сказаниями других родственных народов : в 3 т. М., 1995. Т. 2.2. Благой Д. Д. Мир как красота (О «Вечерних огнях» А. Фета) // Фет А. А. Вечерние огни. М., 1981.3. Блок Г. П. Рождение поэта. Повесть о молодости Фета. Л., 1924.4. Бухштаб Б. Я. Фет // Фет А. А. Полное собрание стихотворений. Л., 1959.5. Вайскопф М. Танец с черепом: балладно-вампирические мотивы в творчестве Афанасия Фета // Новое литературное обозрение. 2014. № 4 (128).6. Дидро Д. Размышления по поводу книги г-на Гельвеция «Об уме» // Соч. : в 2 т. М., 1991. Т. 2.7. Кант И. Критика способности суждения // Соч. : в 6 т. М., 1965а. Т. 5.8. Кант И. Ответ на вопрос: что такое Просвещение? // Соч. : в 6 т. М., 1966б. Т. 6.9. Кант И. Что значит ориентироваться в мышлении // Кант И. Трактаты. Рецензии. Письма. Калининград, 2009.10. Тютчев Ф. И. Предопределение // Соч. : в 2 т. М., 1980. Т. 1.11. Фет А. А. Вечерние огни. М., 1981.12. Фет А. А. Ранние годы моей жизни // Фет А. А. Воспоминания. М., 1983.13. Шопенгауэр А. Мир как воля и представление. М., 1993. Т. 2.M. V.VorobievThe paper discusses Paul Natorp’s social pedagogy theory from the point of its relevance to the modern educational discussions. Natorp sees practical task of his pedagogic theory in negation of German society’s crisis tendencies. The theoretical context of social pedagogy was defined by several key factors. The first one is Natorp’s dependency on legacy of Plato, J. Pestalozzi and I. Kant, while second deals with his critic of fundamental grounds of dominant contemporary pedagogical system. The major Natorp’s objection was directed against positioning psychology at the basis of a pedagogical theory. In principle this point of critique was matter of continuation of much broader debate between Neo- Kantianism and Positivism which for this time took place on pedagogical “territory”. In addition to ethics and psychology Natorp proposes to broaden theoretical ground of pedagogy by adding “pure normative sciences” such as logic and aesthetics to psychology and ethics which are already in use. In the center of his pedagogy Natorp places the concept of “will”. It is directly connected to the three levels of activity of consciousness which are associated with the three stages of education — family education, school and stage of free adult self-education. The last stage represents a “lifelong” process and ideally shouldn’t be bounded by any external factors. Natorp expects that developing German system of “folk academies” becomes a basis for implementation of this ideal in practice. He specifies that matter of people’s education should be responsibility of “secular clergy” — a class composed of all persons who are willing and able to contribute to the cause of people’s education. In this endeavor Natorp especially stresses the uniqueness of position of persons with scientific background. Thus the social function of the universities as institutions where persons of such quality are being cultivated is actualized. This notion makes Natorp’s standpoint resemble in many ways the extended reading of university’s “third mission”.06012026111. Auzan, A. A., 2013, Missiya universiteta: vzglyad ehkonomista [University’s mission: economist point of view], Polit. ru: Publichnye lekcii. [Polit. ru: Public lectures]. Moscow, 18.04.2013. URL: http://www.polit.ru/article/2013/05/07/auzan/(accessed: 05 November 2015).2. Buldakov, S. K., 2014, Filosofskie osnovaniya obrazovatel’nyh idej i teorij na rubezhe XIX—XX vekov [Philosophical foundations of ideas and theories of education at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries], Vestnik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. N. A. Nekrasova [Vestnik of Kostroma State University named after N. A. Nekrasov], vol. 20, no. 3, p. 128—131.3. Belov, V. N., 2003, Neokantianstvo. Chast II. Paul Natorp [Neo-Kantianism. Part II. Paul Natorp], Saratov.4. Gessen, S. I., 1995, Osnovy pedagogiki. Vvedenie v prikladnuyu filosofiyu [Foundations of pedagogy. Introduction to applied philosophy], Moscow.5. Gessen, S. I., 2013, Paul Natorp [Paul Natorp], Kantovsky sbornik [Kantian collection], no. 3 (45), p. 87—102.6. Golovko, N. V., Zinevich, O. V., Ruzankina, E. A., 2014, «Tret'ya missiya» universiteta i proekt obshchestvennogo ponimaniya nauki: Doklad Bodmera [“Third mission” of the university and the project of public understanding of science: Bodmer Report], Filosofiya obrazovaniya [Philosophy of Education], no. 6, p. 77—93.7. Dmitrieva, N. A., 2010, Ideya nauki v russkom neokantianstve: neokantianstvo vs. pozitivizm [Idea of science in Russian Neo-Kantianism: Neo-Kantianism vs. Positivism] Istoriko- filosofskij al'manah: Vyp. 3 [History and Philosophy almanac: 3rd Issue], p. 140—166.8. Dmitrieva, N. A., 2008, Religija v predelah chelovechnosti: k istorii problemy religii v filosofii Paulja Natorpa [Religion within the bounds of humanity]. In: D. N. Razejev, ed. 2008, Vera i znanie: sootnoshenije ponjatij v klassicheskoj nemeckoj filosofii [Faith and knowledge: correlation of the concepts in the classical German philosophy], St. Petersburg, p. 260—270.9. Dmitrieva, N. A., 2007, Russkoe neokantianstvo: «Marburg» v Rossii. Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki [Russian Neo-Kantianism: “Marburg” in Russia. History and Philosophy essays], Moscow.10. Kurennoy, V. A., 2006, Filosofiya i pedagogika Paulya Natorpa [Paul Natorp’s philosophy and pedagogics], Izbrannye raboty [Selected works], Moscow, p. 7—25.11. Lapshin, I. I., 1911, Social'naya pedagogika Natorpa. [Natorp’s social pedagogy] Ocherki po istorii pedagogicheskih uchenij [Essays in history of pedagogical studies], Moscow, p. 209—229.12. Natorp, P., 2006, Izbrannyje raboty [Selected works], ed. by V. A. Kurennoj, Moscow.13. Natorp, P., 1911, Sozial’naja pedagogika. Teorija vospitanija voli na osnove obschhnosti [Social pedagogy. Theory of the upbringing of will on the basis of community]. Translated by A. A. Grombah after the 3rd added ed., St. Petersburg.14. Schelsky, H., 2013, Uedinenie i svoboda. K social’noj idee nemeckogo universiteta [Solitude and Freedom. On to the social idea of German university] Logos: Filosofskoliteraturnyj zhurnal [Logos: Philosophical and Literary Journal], Moscow, no. 1, p. 65—86.15. Faradzhev, K. V., 2010, Nesostoyavshayasya al'ternativa: neokantianskaya pedagogika v Rossii v nachale XX veka [Alternative cancelled: Neo-Kantian pedagogic in Russia at the dawn of 20th century], Neokantianstvo nemeckoe i russkoe: mezhdu teoriej poznaniya i kritikoj kul'tury [Russian and German Neo-Kantianism: between theory of knowledge and critic of culture], Moscow, p. 400—413.16. Focht, B. A., 2003, Izbrannoe (iz filosofskogo nasledija) [Selected writings (from philosophical heritage)]. Publication, preface, commentaries by N. A. Dmitrieva, Moscow.V. Kh.Gilmanov06012026111. Кант И. Критика чистого разума // Собр. соч. : в 8 т. М., 1994. Т. 3.2. Швейцер А. Христианство и мировые религии // Швейцер А. Упадок и возрождение культуры. Избранное. М., 1993а.3. Швейцер А. Культура и этика // Швейцер А. Упадок и возрождение культуры. Избранное. М., 1993б.A. (translated from the German by V. Kh. Gilmanov)Schweitzer0601202611A. VladimirovP.0601202611