NONE20260529204718489Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370105292026361L. A.KalinnikovThis article examines the category of modality through the postulate of empirical thinking in general and in constructing a philosophical system where functions of consciousness are substantial elements. The system comprises ‘faculties of the mind’, as Kant calls them, namely, evaluation, cognition, and practical activity and norms. These forms of activity correlate with the world of possibilities, the actual world, and the world of necessity. Grammatical moods correspond to the modal worlds and the ‘faculties of the mind’. All this means that Kant’s system finds a reflection in the system of language, which is another argument in favour of the organicity of his philosophy. However, the philosophical ideas of Kant’s system can serve as basis for a theory of grammatical moods. Kant’s revolutionary idea of values, knowledge, and norms as three aspects of existential reality lead to a conclusion that modality and moods are not identical, despite being interrelated. The categories of modality do not express the essence of moods but rather the conditions for their functioning. This gives a new perspective on the study of moods and modalities. However, Kant’s system is a cohesive whole and no part of it can be used without considering this fact.05292026111. Vinogradov V. V. 1972, Russkij yazyk [Russian language]. M. : «Vysshaya shkola».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. 1965, Kritika prakticheskogo razuma [Critique of Practical Reason] in: Kant, I. Sochinenija v shesti tomah [The works in six volumes], vol. 4/1, Moscow.4. Kant, I. 1966, Kritika sposobnosti suzhdenija [Critique of Judgment], in: Kant, I. Sobranie Sochineniy v 6 t. [Works in 6 volumes]. Mysl' [Thought], vol. 5, Moscow.5. Kruglov A. N. 2009, Filosofiya Kanta v Rossii v konce XVIII- pervoj polovine XIX vekov[Kant's philosophy in Russia at the end of the first half of XVIII — XIX centuries]. M. : «Kanon+».6. Referovskaya E. A. 1990, Naklonenie [Mood], in: Lingvisticheskij ehnciklopedicheskij slovar' [Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary]. M. : «Sovetskaya ehknciklopediya».7. Yaspers K. 2014, Kant: zhizn', trudy, vliyanie [Kant: life, works, influence]. M. : «Kanon+».A. Yu.VyazminThis paper deals with the methodological and ontological significance of transcendentalism. The author advocates the understanding of transcendental philosophy as ontology and presents a critique of the interpretation given by David Carr, who attached a merely methodological significance to the concept of the ‘transcendental’. Within this interpretation, this paper considers the problem of differences between the ontological aspects of Immanuel Kant’s critical philosophy and Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology, since most interpreters consider these two thinkers the most prominent exponents of transcendental philosophy. The differences in the ontological aspects are interpreted based on the similarities and differences in the epistemological objectives of both philosophers. This corresponds to the principles and programmes of comparative investigations in Kant’s and Husserl’s philosophies, which were proposed by Russian and international philosophers such as Paul Ricoeur, Alexey Chernyakov, William McKenna. The distinctions in the ontological aspects of critical philosophy and phenomenology necessitate an examination of the concept of transcendentalism in a broader historical perspective, which makes it possible to interpret some of the key concepts of critical philosophy and phenomenology as dead metaphors of Ancient Greek philosophy — metaphors that transformed over time into logically preconceived ‘mathemes’. In turn, distinguishing metaphors in the genesis of key univocal terms of critical philosophy and phenomenology provides an opportunity for a more precise description of differences between Kant’s and Husserl’s ideas. The author considers Husserl’s phenomenology as a continuation of and elaboration on Kant’s transcendental thought, which arises in neo-Kantian schools. Overall, transcendental philosophy is part of the genesis of ontological thought, which offers great opportunities for reinterpreting the concept of the transcendental in future.05292026111. Aguirre, A. 1970, Genetische Phänomenologie und Reduktion. Zur Letztbegründung der Wissenschaft aus der radikalen Skepsis im Denken E. Husserls. Phaenomenologica 38, Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 197 s.2. Allison, H. 1983, Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 537 p.3. Carr, D. 1997, „Krisis“ Husserla i Problema Istorii. [Husserl’s “Crisis” and a Problem of History], in: Metaphysicheskie Issledovania [The Metaphysical Investigation], № 3, St. Petersburg: St Petersburg State University, P. 214—241.4. Carr, D. 1987, Interpreting Husserl. Critical and Comparative Studies. In: Phaenomenologica, 106, Dordrecht, Lancaster: Martinus Nijhoff, 303 p.5. Carr, D. 1974, Phenomenology and the Problem of History. In: A Study of Husserl’s Transcendental Philosophy, Northwestern, 283 p.6. Carr, D. 2003, Transcendental and Empirical Subjectivity. The Self in the Transcendental Tradition. In: The New Husserl. A Critical Reader, Ed. by D. Welton, Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, p. 181—198.7. Chernyakov, A. G. 1991, Transcendentnoye i Transcendentalnoye. Problema Syntheza v Philosophii Kanta i Husserla. [The Transcendent and the Transcendental. The Problem of Synthesis of Kant’s and Husserl’s Philosophy.], in: Logos. Mezhdunaronye Chtenia po Istorii Kultury. [A Logos. International Reading on Cultural History.] Book 1, Leningrad: Edition of Leningrad State University, p. 159—181.8. Christensen, R. 1981, Lebendige Gegenwart und Urerlebnis. Zur Konkretisierung des transzendentalen Apriori bei Husserl und Reiningen. Wien: Verlag der österreichen Akademie der Wissenschaft, 152 s.9. Derrida, J. 1974, White Mythology: Metaphor in the Text of Philosophy. In: New Literary History, Vol. 6, No. 1, On Metaphor. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, p. 207—271.10. Husserl, E. 1959, Idee der vollen Ontologie. In: E. Husserl, Erste Philosophie. 2. Teil. Theorie der phänomenologischen Reduktion, Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, s. 212—218.11. Husserl, E. 1952, Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Zweites Buch. Phänomenologischen Untersuchungen zur Konstitution, Haag: M. Biemel, 483 p.12. Husserl, E. 2000, Kartezianskie Razmyshlenia. [Cartesian Meditations.] In: E. Husserl. Logicheskie Issledovania. Kartezianskie Razmyshlenia. [Logical Investigations. Cartesian Meditations.], Moscow, Minsk: AST, Harwest, 752 p.13. Husserl, E. 2004a, Krizis Evropeiskikh Nauk i Transcendentalnaya Phenomenologia. Vvedenie v Phenomenologicheskuyu Phiosophiu. [The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Introduction in Phenomenological Philosophy.], St Petersburg: Vladimir Dal, 399 p.14. Husserl, E. 2004b, Osnovnye Problemy Phenomenologii. [The Main Problems in Phenomenology.] In: D. N. Razeev. V Setyakh Phenomenologii., E. Husserl. Osnovnye Problemy Phenomenologii. [D. N. Razeev. In the Web of Phenomenology., E. Husserl. The Main Problems in Phenomenology.], St Petersburg: Edition of St Petersburg State University.15. Kant, I. 1964, Kritika Chistogo Razuma. [The Critic of Pure Reason.], In: Sochinenia v 6 t. [Works in 6 volumes], vol. 3. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of Sciences, Mysl, 799 p.16. Motroshilova, N. V. 1989, Parabola Zhiznennoy Sudby Lva Shestova. [A Parabola of Lev Shestov’s Life Fate.], In: Voprosy Philosophii. [Russian Journal of Philosophical Questions], № 1, p. 129—143.17. Nietzsche, F. 2005, Volya k Vlasti. Opyt Pereotsenki Vsekh Tsennostei. [A Will to Power. The Experience for Revaluation of All the Values.], Moscow: Kultunaya Revolutsia, 880 p.18. Reiningen, R. 1970, Metaphysik der Wirklichkeit. Zweite, gänzlich neubearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, I-II in einem Bd., München: hrsg. v. Otfried Höffe.19. Ricoeur, P. 1967, Husserl: an Analysis of His Phenomenology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 238 p.20. Ricoeur, P. 1998, Kant i Husserl. [Kant and Husserl.], In: Intentsionalnost i Textualnost. [Intentionality and Textuality, Ed. Е. А. Neiman, V. A. Surovtsev], Tomsk: Vodoley, p. 162—193.21. Shestov, L. 1989, Pamyati Velikogo Philosopha. Edmund Husserl. [Dedicated to Great Philosopher. Edmund Husserl.], In: Voprosy Philosophii. [Russian Journal of Philosophical Questions], № 1, p. 144—160.V. N.BelovE. R.FakhrudinovaThe article analyses the leading concepts and provisions of Kant's philosophy of religion. The findings are based on a comparative analysis of the German philosopher’s major works on the philosophical doctrine of religion, namely Lectures on the philosophical doctrine of religion and Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. The authors trace both the evolution of Kant’s ideas on religion and the consistency and systematicity of changes in the philosopher’s views. The published Lectures confirm the fact that Kant never considered the problems of philosophy of religion as minor ones. When comparing the two major works on religion, one cannot but notice the difference between objects constituting the logic of Kant’s reasoning. In the Lectures, this object is theology as a scientific discipline concerned with knowledge of god, whereas, in Religion, it is believers with their predispositions and capacities, generic and individual characteristics. Not unlike Critiques, where Kant moves from the theoretical to the practical, studies on religion proceed from the theoretical significance of the idea of God considered in the Lectures to the practical aspects of this idea addressed in the Religion. The Lectures contain a vast body of speculative evidence of the existence of God, which is completely absent in Religion. Religion places a much stronger emphasis on the need for the moral perfection of human beings than the Lectures do. However, it would be wrong to assume that the Lectures present a position different from the responsibility of human beings for their own moral condition and its development.05292026111. Kant, I. 2016, Lekzii o philosophskom uchenii o religii [Lectures on the philosophical doctrine of religion] (editors K. G. L. Paliza) / Translation, notes and afterword by L. Kryshtop E. / ed. Kruglov. M.2. Kant, I. 1996, Religiya v predelach tolko razuma [Religion within the limits of the mind], in: Immanuel Kant. Traktati [Treatises]. SPb, s. 259—424.3. Kant, I. 1966, Spor fakul'tetov [The Contest of the Faculties], in: Kant I. Soch. v 6 t. T. 6 [Writings: in 6 vol. Vol. 6] М, s. 257—347.4. Kant, I. 1999, Spor fakul'tetov [The Contest of the Faculties]. Publication, introduction and commentary by Professor L. A. Kalinnikov; per. s nem. I. D. Koptseva, in: Kantovskiy sbornik [Kant collection]. Kaliningrad, Vol. 21, s. 196—244.5. Sudakov, A. K. 2009, Meshdu veroy serdza i blagochestiem razuma: kak Kant ne stal philosophom Otkroveniya [Between the faith of heart and godliness of mind, as Kant was not a philosopher of Revelation], in: Kantovskiy sbornik [Kant collection]. No. 1, s. 39—53.M. V.RovboThis article provides a comparative analysis of I. Kant’s and F. Nietzsche’s critical approaches, which is carried out in the context of the thinkers’ attitudes to the problem of the Enlightenment. In spite of a rather peculiar understanding of the Enlightenment, which differed significantly from that of their contemporaries, Kant and Nietzsche have remarkably similar ideas. The author reconstructs the essence and purpose of the Enlightenment, as well as the difficulties faced by philosophers on the way to enlightenment. Another focus is the functional status of the ‘guardian’ and the new interpretation of the ideas of maturity and freedom in Nietzsche’s understanding of the Enlightenment. This becomes possible after Nietzsche’s renunciation of Romanticism and experience of the death of God. Nietzsche extends Kant’s list of possible problems in achieving enlightenment — egoism, guardianship, sloth, and cowardice. For Nietzsche, the central problem is the dominant role of reason in the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, reason is not denied but rather it is limited and supplemented with the integrating power of myth, which is considered by Nietzsche not as a prejudice but as the origin of thought correlating with life. Moreover, confidence in culture disappears. The ‘warped wood’ is replaced by the ‘rope over an abyss’ and the immature majority by masses. Inasmuch a person should never be treated as a means, the thinkers avoid the gap between enlightenment and the current process of realisation of the Enlightenment by a person. Similarly to Kant’s idea that enlightenment eludes realisation becoming a benchmark or a regulative idea, Nietzsche’s works do not distinguish between the source and the end and persons overcoming themselves become the only meaning of existence.05292026111. Breifman, B. V. 2015, Sumerechnaya sova… [Twilight owl…], Voprosy Filosofii [Questions of Philosophy], no. 1, p. 139—150.2. Volkova N., Ivanov M. 2014, Svobodnoe myshlenie i otvet I. Kanta na vopros: chto takoe prosveshchenie? [Free thinking and Kant’s answer to the question: What is Enlightenment?], IX Kantovskie chteniya… [IX Kantian reading…], p. 238—241.3. Gerlakh, G.-M. 2010, Kant i berlinskoe Prosveshchenie [Kant and Berlin Enlightenment], Kantovkiy sbornik [Kantian collection], no. 4, p. 13—20.4. Camus, A. 1999, Nitsshe i nigilism [Nietzsche and nihilism], Buntuyushchiy chelovek [The rebel], Moscow, p. 168—179.5. Kant, I. 1966, Ideya vseobshchey istorii vo vsemirno-grazhdanskom plane [Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitian Purpose] in Kant, I. Sochineniya v 6 t. [Collected works in 6 volumes], vol. 6, Moscow.6. Kant, I. 1966, Otvet na vopros: chto takoe Prosveshchenie? [Answering the question: what is Enlightenment?] in Kant, I. Sochineniya v 6 t. [Collected works in 6 volumes], vol. 6, Moscow.7. Kant, I. 1966, K vechnomu miru [Perpetual Peace] in Kant, I. Sochineniya v 6 t. [Collected works in 6 volumes], vol. 6, Moscow.8. Kruglov, A. N. 2014, Nesovershennoletie i zadacha istoricheskogo preobrazovania obraza myshlenia [Minority and the problem of historical transformation of the way of thinking], IX Kantovskiechteniya… [IX Kantian reading…], p. 73—79.9. Kumpf, F. 2007, Ponyatie razuma u Kanta i ego videnie permanentnogo Prosveshcheniya [Kantian concept of the reason and his understanding of permanent Enlightenment], Immanuil Kant: nasledie i proekt [Immanuel Kant: the heritage and the project], Moscow, p. 321—330.10. Mironov, V. N. 2005, Filosofia istorii Fridrikha Nitsshe [Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy of history], Voprosy Filosofii [Questions of Philosophy], no. 11, p. 163—174.11. Nietzsche, F. 1996, O polze i vredeistorii dlya zhizni [On the Use and Abuse of History for Life] in Nietzsche, F. Sobranye sochineniy v 2 t. [Collected works in 2 volumes], vol. 1, Moscow.12. Nietzsche, F. 1996, Rozhdenie tragedii iz duha muzyki [The Birth of Tragedy] in Nietzsche, F. Sobranye sochineniy v 2 t. [Collected works in 2 volumes], vol. 1, Moscow.13. Nietzsche, F. 2011, Chernoviki I nabroski vesna 1884 — osen 1885 gg [Posthumous Fragments spring 1884 — autumn 1885] in Nietzsche, F. Polnoe sobraniye sochineniy v 13 t. [Collected works in 13 volumes], vol. 11, Moscow.14. Pavlov, V. L. 2014, O spetsifike ponimaniya prosveshcheinya I. Kantom [On specific character of Kantian understanding of Enlightenment], IX Kantovskie chteniya… [IX Kantian reading], p. 104—107.15. Rumyantseva, T. G. 2014, V chem slabost prosveshchennogo razuma? [What is a weak side of enlightened reason?], IX Kantovskie chteniya…[IX Kantian reading], p. 218—227.16. Salikov, A. N. 2006, Evolutsyia filosofii Nitsshe skvoz prizmu ego vospriyatiya ucheniya Kanta [The evolution of Nietzsche’s philosophy through his reception of Kant’s philosophy], Argumentatsyia I intertretatsii: issledovaniya po logike, istorii filosofii i sotsialnoy filosofii… [Argumentation and interpretations: researches in logic, history of philosophy and social philosophy…], p. 150—165.17. Frank, S. L. 2001, Nitsshe i etika lubvi k dalnemu [Nietzsche and ethics of “love for distant”], Nitsshe: pro et contra [Nietzsche: pro et contra], p. 598—648.18. Foucault, M. 1999, Chto takoe Prosveshchenie? [What is Enlightenment?], Russkiy filologicheskiy portal [Russian philological data portal], available at: URL: www.philology.ru/literature3/fuko-99.htm (accessed 02 February 2015).19. Habermas, U. 2003, Filosofskiy diskurs o moderne [The philosophical discourse of modenity], Moscow, 416 p.20. Heidegger, M. 2006, Nitsshe [Nietzsche] in Heidegger, M. Nitsshe: v 2 t. [Nietzsche: in 2 volumes], vol. 1, St. Petersburg.P. A.VladimirovThis article analyses the historical and philosophical critique of A. I. Vvedensky’s ‘new psychophysiological’ law. The author examines the most substantial commentaries, namely, those by P. E. Astafyev, N. Y. Grot, L. M. Lopatin, E. L. Radlov, and S. N. Trubetskoy. At the end of the 19th century, these authors contributed to an active discussion in the pages of scientific journals. The discussion focused on the ideas expressed in the work On the Limits and Characteristics of Becoming Conscious, which was published in the form of theses in book 16 book of the journal Problems of Philosophy and Psychology. Trough formulating the law of the absence of objective evidence of becoming consciousness, Vvedensky did not only raise issues relating to philosophy of mind but also pointed to the growing contradictions in Russian philosophy caused by the development of scientific knowledge amid the dominance of religious philosophy. Using the tools of criticism, the Russian philosopher identified the metaphysical origins in scientific knowledge in order to eliminate them, although preserving the particular critical field of metaphysics dealing with issues transcending the available rational knowledge. Such an approach to the role of metaphysics, as well as demarcation of the border between philosophy and psychology amid the need for coherent knowledge provoked sharp criticism. The author describes Vvednesky’s position, which can be traced in all of his later works. Its central elements is the need to create a coherent understanding of the world providing answers to all the phenomena of human existence, including those traditionally interpreted as objects of nonscientific knowledge. In the conclusion, the author focuses on the characteristics of Vvedensky’s oeuvre and its role in the development of Russian critical philosophy. It is postulated that an analysis of the discussion not only is interesting as a fact in the history of Russian philosophical though but it also gives a new perspective on the problems arising with attempts to create a means for attaining objective and reliable knowledge in philosophy and science, which potentially unites them within research. It is proven that Vvedensky’s philosophical ideas can be classed as Neo-Kantian, which emphasises their unique features and relevance for further historical and philosophical analysis.05292026111. Astafiev, P. E. 1893, Vera i Znanie v edinstve mirovozzreniya (opit nachala kriticheskoi monadologii) [Faith and Knowledge in the unity of Outlook (the experience of the early critical monadologie)], Moscow.2. Belov, V. N. 2013, Vvedensky—rodonachalnik russkovo neokantianstva [Vvedensky — the founder of Russian neo-Kantianism], Neokantianstvo v Rossii: Aleksandr Ivanovich Vvedensky, Ivan Ivanovich Lapshin [Neo-Kantianism in Russia: Alexander Vvedensky, Ivan Lapshin], P. 74—93, Moscow.3. Vvedensky, A. I. 1893, Vtorichnij vizov na cpor o zakone oduschevleniy i otvet protivnikam [Secondary call to dispute about the law of animation and response to the opponents], Voprosi filosofii i psihologii [Questions of philosophy and psychology], Vol. 18, p. 120—148, Moscow.4. Vvedensky, A. I. 2014, Logika kak chas't teorii poznaniya [The logic as part of the theory of knowledge], Moscow.5. Vvedensky, A. I. 2012, O predelah i priznakah oduschevleniya [The limits and signs of animation], Moscow.6. Vvedensky, A. I. 2011, Opit postroeniya teorii materii na kriticheskoj filosofii [The experience of building a theory of matter on the principles of critical philosophy], Moscow.7. Vvedensky, A. I. 1892, O predelah i priznakah oduschevleniya [The limits and signs of animation], Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya [Journal of the Ministry of national education], vol. CCLXXXI, p. 73—112, St Petersburg.8. Vvedensky, A. I. 2013, Psihologya bez vsyakoj metafiziki [The psychology without any metaphysics], Moscow.9. Vvedensky, A. I. 1996, Stat'ei po filosofii [Articles on philosophy], St Petersburg.10. Grot, N. Y. 1889, O zadachah zhurnala [The mission of the journal], Voprosi filosofii I psihologii [Questions of philosophy and psychology], Vol. 1, p. 1—20, Moscow.11. Lopatin, L. M. 1893, Novij psihofiziologicheskij zakon g. Vvedenskogo [A new physiological law Vvedensky], Voprosi filosofii I psihologii [Questions of philosophy and psychology], Vol. 19, p. 60—81, Moscow.12. Lossky, N. O. 2007, Istoriy russkoj filosofii [History of Russian philosophy], P. 213—223, Moscow.13. Malinov, A. V. Osipov, I. D. 2005, Logizizm A. I. Vvedenskovo v istoriko — filosofskom osvyschenii [The logicism of Vvedensky A. I. in historical and philosophical light], P. 299—310, Moscow.14. Malinov, A. V. 2013, «Psiho-fizicheskii zakon» A. I. Vvedenskovo i ego kritiki ["Psycho — physical law" A. I. Vvedensky and his critics], Neokantianstvo v Rossii: Aleksandr Ivanovich Vvedensky, Ivan Ivanovich Lapshin [Neo-Kantianism in Russia: Alexander Vvedensky, Ivan Lapshin], P. 127—154, Moscow.15. Radlov, E. L. 1893, Neudachnij metafizik [Failed metaphysician], Vestnik Evropi [Herald Of Europe], Vol. 1, p. 898—912.16. Radlov, E. L. 1893, Otvet proff. Vvedenskomu [The answer of Prof. Vvedensky], Voprosi filosofii i psihologii [Questions of philosophy and psychology], Vol. 19, p. 105—109, Moscow.17. Sezeman, V. S. 1911, Rationalnoe i irrationalnoev sisteme filosofii [The rational and the irrational in the system of philosophy], Logos [Logos], Vol. 1, p. 93—122, Moscow.18. Sirotkina, L. S. 2015, Teoreticheskie komponenti obraza psihologii v russkoi logiko-filosofskoi misli kontsa 19 v. (v kontekste problem psilogizma russkoi logiki 19 v. — nachala 20 vv.) [The theoretical components of the image of psychology in the Russianlogical philosophy of the late 19th century. (In the context of Russian psychology of logic end of the 19th century—early 20th century)], Рацио. ru [Ratio. ru], no. 15, p. 196—221.19. Trubetskoy, S. N. 1893, K voprosu o priznakah soznaniy (A. Vvedensky: O predelah i priznakah oduschevleniya) [To the question about the signs of consciousness (A. Vvedensky: On the limits and signs of animation)], Voprosi filosofii i psihologii [Questions of philosophy and psychology], Vol. 16, p. 97—109, Moscow.N. A.DmitrievaMany scholars and practitioners in the sphere of the public education and upbringing in Russia addressed themselves to the philosophical-pedagogical ideas of German philosopher of Neo- Kantian movement Paul Natorp. These ideas were formulated mainly in his fundamental work “Social Pedagogy”. Vladimir Dinze relies on Natorp’s thesis of the national school as the way of accustoming “the all people to the national culture”, actualizes the heritage of Russian and Western pedagogues and philosophers and formulates newly the problem of the national upbringing that is after hundred years in tune with the times as before. The papers of Dinze himself and the translation of Natorp’s “Social Pedagogy” which was organized by him turned out to be the catalysts in the debates on the national education and upbringing. The debates took place in Russian in 1913— 1916, and the outstanding philosophers and pedagogues like M. Rubinstein, P. Blonskiy, V. Soroka- Rosinskiy, S. Zolotarev, P. Devin, S. Rusova and others participated in these debates. As result there worked out the principles of the general and equally accessible national education for all social groups and the harmonious and humane patriotic upbringing, which had to be open to the best achievements of the world culture. The letters of Russian scholars V. Dinze and A. Grombach to P. Natorp and one letter of Natorp to Dinze will be published as a supplement to the article. These letters show not only the process of the translation of “Social Pedagogy” into Russian, but also disclose the peculiarities of the organization of translations of the contemporary scientific literature in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. They were the personal initiative, enthusiasm, the responsibility before the future reader, the scope and intensity of the translators’ and publishers’ activity and the constant lack of adequate financing of this activity.05292026111. Bart, P. 1913, Elementy vospitanija i obuchenija (na osnovanii sovremennoj psihologii i filosofii) [Elements of upbringing and education (on the base of contemporary psychology and philosophy], transl. by V. A. Volkovich, N. K. Kul’man, E. A. Leve, V. R. Mrochek, V. V. Polovcov, S. I. Sozonov, in 2 parts, St. Petersburg.2. Blonskij, P. P. 1915, O nacional’nom vospitanii [About the national upbringing], Moscow.3. Windelband, W. 1900, Platon [Plato], trasl. from German by A. Grombach. St. Petersburg.4. Volzhanin, Vl. [Dinze, V. F.] 1916a, Vojna i shkola [War and school], in: Volzhanin, Vl., Dinze, V. F., Smirnov, S. D. O nacional’noj shkole: Sbornik statej [About national school: Collected papers], Petrograd, p. 102—127.5. Volzhanin, Vl. [Dinze, V. F.], 1916b, Istorija kak predmet nachal’nogo obuchenija [History as a subject of national education], Petrograd.6. Gessen, S. I. 1998, Ideja nacii [Idea of nation], in: Gessen, S. I., Izbrannye sochinenija [Selected papers], ed. by A. Valicky, N. Chistjakova, Moscow, p. 78—105.7. Devin, P. I. 1916, O nacional’nom russkom vospitanii [About the national upbringing], Russkaja shkola [Russian school], no. 2—3, depart. I, p. 11—29.8. Dinze, V. F. 1916a, O natsii i natsional’noi idee v pedagogike [About nation and national idea in pedagogy], in: Volzhanin [Dinze], V., Dinze, V. F., Smirnov, S. D., O natsional’noi shkole [About national school], Petrograd, p. 5—21.9. Dinze, V. F. 1913, O natsional’nom vospitanii. Opyt privlecheniya otechestvennogo vnimaniya k nasushchnomu voprosu [About national upbringing. An attempt to draw the domestic attention to the urgent problem], St. Petersburg.10. Dinze, V. F. 1916b, O natsional’noi russkoi shkole [About national Russian school], in: Volzhanin [Dinze], V., Dinze, V. F., Smirnov, S. D., O natsional’noi shkole [About national school], Petrograd, p. 35—66.11. F. I. P. [Pavlov, F. I.], 1913, (Rec.:) Vl. Dinze. O nacional’nom vospitanii. Opyt privlechenija otechestvennogo vnimanija k nasushhnomu voprosu. Izd. O. V. Bogdanovoj. SPb. 1913. C. 50 kop. [Review: Vl. Dinze, About the nationa upbringing. An attempt to draw the domestic attention to the urgent problem], Russkaja shkola [Russian school], no. 10, depart. III, p. 18—20.12. Lapshin, I. I. 1911, Sotsial’naya pedagogika Natorpa [Social pedagogy of Natorp], in: Nechaev, A. P. (ed.), Ocherki po istorii pedagogicheskikh uchenii [Essays on the history of pedagogical studies], Moscow, p. 209—229.13. Lunacharsky, A. V. 1927, Upadochnoe nastroenie sredi molodezhi [Low spirit among youth], in: Upadochnoe nastroenie sredi molodezhi. Eseninshhina [Low spirit among youth. Contagion of Esenin], forwort by V. G. Knorin, Moscow, p. 6—44.14. Malinov, A. V., Rostovcev E. A. (eds.), Biograficheskij slovar’ filosofov Peterburgskogo universiteta. URL: http://bioslovhist.history.spbu.ru/component/fabrik/details/1/1367.html (accessed 20.11.2016).15. Natorp, P. 1911, Sotsial’naya pedagogika. Teoriya vospitaniya voli na osnove obshchnosti [Social pedagogy. The theory of upbringing of the will on the base of community], St. Petersburg.16. Natorp, P. 2006a, Kul’tura naroda i kul’tura lichnosti. Shest’ lektsii [Culture of folk and culture of person. Six lectures] (transl. by M. M. Pubinstein), in: Natorp, P., Izbrannye raboty [Selected works], ed. by V. A. Kurennoi, Moscow, p. 145—294.17. Natorp, P. 1912a, Pestalocci. Ego zhizn’ i ego idei [Pestalozzi, his life and his ideas], transl. by M. A. Engelgardt, St. Petersburg.18. Natorp, P. 1912b, Razvitie naroda i razvitie lichnosti [Development of folk and development of person], transl. by A. Palchik. St. Petersburg.19. Natorp, P. 2006b, Filosofija i psihologija [Philosophy and psychology] (1914), in: Natorp, P. Izbrannye raboty [Selected works], ed. by V. A. Kurennoj. Moscow, p. 25—54.20. Natorp, P. 2006c, Filosofija kak osnova pedagogiki [Philosophy as the base of pedagogy], transl. by G. G. Shpet (1910), in: Natorp, P. Izbrannye raboty [Selected works], ed. by V. A. Kurennoj. Moscow, p. 297—383.21. Novikov, M. V. 2014, Pervaja mirovaja vojna i aspekty nacional’nogo vospitanija v Rossii [The First World War and the aspects of national upbringing in Russia], Jaroslavskij pedagogicheskij vestnik [Jaroslavl pedagogical bulletin], no. 4, part II (Psihologo-pedagogicheskie nauki), p. 9—14. URL: http://vestnik.yspu.org/releases/2014_4pp/06.pdf(accessed 19.11.2016).22. RGALI [The Russian state archive of literature and arts], F. 1348. Op. 4. Ed. 2. 1 l. Pis’mo P. Natorpa V. F. Dinze. Na nem. yaz. [Letter of P. Natorp to V. Dinze, in German]. Marburg, 20.12.1909.23. Rubinshtein, M. M. 1916a, Vojna i ideal vospitanija (K voprosu o nacionalizme v pedagogike) [War and the ideal of upbringing (To the problem of nationalism in pedagogy)], Vestnik vospitanija [Bulletin of upbringing], no. 3, depart. I, p. 32—72.24. Rusova, S. F. 1913, (Rec.:) Vl. Dinze. O nacional’nom vospitanii. Izd. Bogdanovoj, S.-Pet. 1913. C. 50 k. [(Review:) Vl. Dinze, About the national upbringing. An attempt to draw the domestic attention to the urgent problem], Pedagogicheskoe obozrenie [Pedagogical review], no. 1, p. 83—84.25. Sedova, E. E. 2010, Koncepcija nacional’nogo obrazovanija v pedagogicheskom nasledii S. Gessena [Conception of national education in pedagogical legacy of S. Gessen], Problemy pedagogiki i psihologii [Problems of pedagogy and psychology], no. 3, p. 194—199.26. Selli, Dzh. 1901, Ocherki po psihologii detstva [Essays on psychology of childhood], transl. by A. Grombach, Moscow.27. Soloviev, V. S. 1988, Opravdanie dobra [Justification of Good], in: Soloviev, V. S., Sochinenija v 2-h t. [Works in 2 vol.], ed. by A. F. Losev and A. V. Gulyga, vol. 1. Moscow, p. 50—580.28. Soroka-Rosinsky, V. N. 1991, Put’ russkoj nacional’noj shkoly [The way of Russian national school] (1916), in: Soroka-Rosinsky, V. N., Pedagogicheskie sochinenija [Pedagogical works], ed. by A. T. Gubko, Moscow, p. 55—124.29. Stammler, R. 1907, Hoziajstvo i pravo s tochki zrenija materialisticheskogo ponimanija istorii [Economy and right from the point of view of materialistic understanding of history], in 2 vol., St. Petersburg.30. Sully, J. 1897, Untersuchungen über die Kindheit. Psychologische Abhandlungen für Lehrer und gebildete Eltern, aus dem Englischen übetr. und mit Anmerkungen versehen von J. Stimpfl, Leipzig.31. UB Marburg, Handschriftenabteilung, Natorp-Nachlaß, Ms. 831.32. Zolotarev, S. A. 1916, K. D. Ushinskij i samoopredelenie russkoj shkoly [Konstantin Ushinsky and selfdetermination of Russian school], Russkaja shkola [Russian school], no. 2—3, depart. I, p. 1—10.A. (translated from the German by V. Kh. Gilmanov)Schweitzer0529202611V. A.Konev0529202611V. N.BelovI. A.Ezhov0529202611