NONE20260530172953546Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370105302026362L.A.Kalinnikov0530202611A. K.SudakovThis article considers Kant’s deliberations on the essence and varieties of human love, based on the Lectures on Ethics. Kant distinguished between the love of benevolence (ethical love) — a commitment to the other’s wellbeing (discussed in Kant’s other ethical writings) — and a love of delight (aesthetical love), further divided into the sensual and intellectual love. The sensual love of delight is identified with sexual love. The intellectual love of delight eludes definition, since such delight is difficult to perceive. The collision between vital and moral love results in a need to examine under what conditions relations between the sexes are compatible with morality. Such an examination is taking the form of an ethical and legal deduction of matrimony. Kant’s proof of the moral unacceptability of concubinage given in the Lectures is based on the ethical (‘its purpose is merely that one party allows their person to the other for enjoyment’) rather than formal considerations (an allegedly unequal contract). The moral contradiction of mutual objectification and instrumentalisation of free persons in matrimony is on the surface of Kant’s deduction. The moral prohibition of instrumentalisation rules out family ethics and family law. However, the root of all evil is not solely this circumstance. A morally illegitimate union of concubinage is formed to attain the subjective ends of a hedonistic individual and it does not contradict the ends of the human race. Therefore, such a deduction (unlike that presented in the Metaphysics of Morals) has to make a transition from strategies to maxims. In effect, the deduction rests on the question as to which form of delight should lie at the foundation of a matrimony. The ethical problem is solved beyond the realm of ethics — a morally acceptable union of the sexes can be based only on aesthetic delight within the element of beauty.05302026111. Kant 1965 — Kant, Immanuel. Metafisika nrawow (Metaphysics of Morals) // Kant, Immanuel. Sochineniya v 6 tomach. (Pod obshchey redakciey V. F. Asmusa, A. V. Gulygi, T. I. Ojzermana), V. 4. Pt. 2. Moscow: “Mysl”, 1965. P. 107—438.2. Kant 1966 — Kant, Immanuel. Antropologija s pragmatitscheskoj tochki zrenija (Anthropology from a pragmatic Point of View) // Kant, Immanuel. Sochineniya v 6 tomach. (Pod obshchey redakciey V. F. Asmusa, A. V. Gulygi, T. I. Ojzermana), V.6. Moscow: “Mysl”, 1966. P. 349—588.3. Kant 1997 — Kant, Immanuel. Osnovopolozheniye k metafisike nravov (Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals) // Kant, Immanuel. Sochineniya v 4 tomach na nemeckom I russkom yazykach. V. III. Moscow: Moskovskiy filosofskiy fond, 1997. P. 39—276.4. Kant 2005 — Kant, Immanuel. Lektsii po etike (Lectures on Ethics) // Kant, Immanuel. Lektsii po etike. Moscow: “Respublika”, 2005.5. Фихте 2014 — Fichte, Johann Gottlieb. Osnowa yesteswennogo prawa soglasno principam naukoucheniya (Foundations of Natural Right). Moscow: “Kanon+“, 2014.6. Sudakov 2013a — Sudakov A. K. Etiko-filosofskaya antinomiya osnovaniy v kantovskoy teorii semeynogo prava (The ethical and philosophical antinomy of foundations in Kant’s theory of family law) // Kantovskiy sbornik, Kaliningrad, issue 2(44). 2013. P. 7—18.7. Sudakov 2013b — Sudakov A. K. Obshcheniye liz: Kantova teoriya brachnogo prava v plenu yasycheskoy antropologii (Communion of persons: Kant’s theory of Matrimonial Law in the Grip of a pagan Anthropology) // Kantovskiy sbornik, Kaliningrad, issue 3 (45). 2013. P. 33—49.8. Sudakov 2015 — Sudakov A. K. Triyedinyj soyuz: Semeynoye pravo Fichte na fone kantovskoy prakticheskoy filosofii (A triune community: Fichte’s Family Law on the Background of Kantian practical Philosophy) // Kantovskiy sbornik, Kaliningrad, issue 2 (52). 2015. P. 32—48 ; issue 4 (54). 2015. P. 17—33.L. E.KryshtopThe universal public law is a section of Kant’s lectures on natural right, which he delivered in 1784. A traditional part of the then natural right compendia, it might seem strange to us today. Kant distinguished between three branches of government. However, they were not identical in the name or function to the executive, legislative, and judicial powers. Of interest is the justification of the exclusion of certain powers from the monarch’s authority — the monarch must not dispense justice or rule in a way that is demeaning to his or her greatness. Moreover, the section covers the problem of the rights and obligations of the monarch and his or her subjects in religious matters. This problem was crucial to the Enlightenment. Kant’s deliberations on the issue include a long prehistory of formulating the concept of religious tolerance and modelling relations between the state and different confessions, based on the rules of natural law, which date back to the early Enlightenment. For the first time, it was discussed at length by Christian Thomasius, whose endeavours marked the beginning of the Enlightenment in Germany. Moreover, a number of important aspects relate Thomasius’s early Enlightenment ideas and Kant’s late Enlightenment concept. Firstly, this is the perspective on the role of the monarch in regulating interactions between different confessions. Thus, both thinkers stressed that the secular ruler had to pay heed only to the worldly happiness and wellbeing of his or her subjects. The major criterion for resolving theological disputes must be nothing else than upholding peace and order in the state. This article is supplemented with a translation of a section of Kant’s lectures on national law.05302026111. Kant, I. 2016, Lekzii o filosofskom uchenii o religii [Lectures on the Philosophical Doctrine of Religion], trans. into Russian by L. E. Kryshtop, Moscow. (in Russian)2. Kant, I. 1994, Otvjet na vopros: Chto takoje prosvjeshchenije [An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?], in: Kant, I. 1994, Sobranije sochinenij v 8 tt. [Writings in 8 vol.], ed. by A. V. Gulyga, vol. 8, Moscow, p. 29—37. (In Russian)3. Achenwall, G. 1781, Juris naturalis pars posterior, Göttingen.4. Bernard, F., M. 1971, The „Practical Philosophy“ of Christian Thomasius, in: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 2 (32), p. 221—246.5. Bordoni, G., S. 2016, Note al Testo, Kant I. Lezioni sul Diritto Naturale (Naturrecht Feyerabend), a cura di N. Hinske, G. S. Bordoni. Milano, p. 233—282.6. Ciafardone, R. 1990, Einleitung, in: Die Philosophie der deutschen Aufklärung. Texte und Darstellung, hrsg. von R. Ciafardone, Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam. S. 11—38.7. Dreitzel, H. 1997, Christliche Aufklärung durch fürstlichen Absolutismus. Thomasius und die Destruktion des frühneuzeitlichen Konfessionsstaates, in: Christian Thomasius (1655—1728). Neue Forschungen im Kontxt der Frühaugklärung, hrsg. von F. Vollhardt, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, S. 17—50.8. Fritsch, M., J. 2004, Religiöse Toleranz im Zeitalter der Aufklärung. Naturrechtliche Begründung — konfessionelle Differenzen, Hamburg: Meiner Verlag.9. Hammerstein, N. 1979, Thomasius und die Rechtsgelehrsamkeit, in: Studia leibnitiana, Bd. 11, H. 1, S. 22—44.10. Kant, I. 1998, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, in: Kant I. Werke in sechs Bänden, hrsg. von W. Weischedel, Bd. 6, Darmstadt.11. Kant, I. 1937, Vorlesungen über die philosophische Religionslehre, hrsg. von K. Beyer, Halle: Akademischer Verlag.12. Lehmann-Brauns, S. 2004, Weisheit in der Weltgeschichte, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.13. Schneiders, W. 1983, Aufklärung und Vorurteilskritik. Studien zur Geschichte der Vorurteilstheorie, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.14. Schneiders, W. 1979, Vernunft und Freiheit. Christian Thomasius als Aufklärer, in: Studia leibnitiana, Bd. 11, H. 1, S. 3—21.15. Stapff, J., S. 1735, Jus naturae et gentium: in duos divisum tractatus, quorum primus continet jus publicum universale, alter Hugonis Grotii, jus belli at pacis explicatum, Mainz.16. Thomasius, Chr. 1699, Das Recht evangelischer Fürsten in theologischen Streitigkeiten, Halle.17. Thomasius, Chr. 1726, Von der Kunst vernünftig und tugendhaft zu lieben, als dem einzigen Mittel zu einem glückseligen, galanten und vergnügten Leben zu gelangen, oder: Einleitung der Sitten-Lehre, Halle.18. Wolff, Chr. 1747, Jus naturae methodo scientifica pertractatum. Pars septima, Halle.A. Yu.BerdnikovaThis article provides a comparative analysis of the influence of the two great German thinkers — Immanuel Kant and Gottfried Leibnitz — on the Russian philosophy of the 19th/20th centuries. The ideas of metaphysical personalists and neo-Leibnizians (E. A. Bobrov, A. A. Kozlov, S. A. Alekseev (Askoldov), N. O. Lossky, and V. Salagova) are invoked to demonstrate the main arguments of the critique of Kantianism and neo-Kantianism in Russian philosophy. It is shown that the ideas of Russian neo-Leibnizians are closely connected with those of the thinkers of the ‘late and mature phase’ of German idealism (A. Trendelenburg, R. G. Lotze, and G. Teichmüller). A historical and theoretical analysis of the neo-Kantian and neo-Leibnizian ideas helps to identify the similarities (criticism and the belief in ‘pure experience’ as the basis of science) and differences between the two concepts (the interpretation of ‘pure experience’ as personal and individual vs the propensity to ‘formalise’ and ‘objectify’ it). It is shown that neo-Leibnizian epistemology seeks ‘pure experience’. However, such experience is not interpreted as ‘bare’ cognition or its mere possibility but rather it is perceived as a combination of consciousness (Bewusstsein), knowledge (Erkenntnis), the consciousness of God (Gottesbewusstsein), faith, and free will. Thus, Russian neo-Leibnizians represented their epistemology as a complete sphere and viewed the Kantian and neo-Kantian teaching of ‘pure experience’ as a section of that sphere. However, Russian metaphysical personalists were not Leibniz’s epigones, since they denied one of the key postulates of his Monadology — the principle of pre-established harmony. It is concluded that neo-Leibnizianism or metaphysical personalism has spiritual kinship with Russian religious philosophy (the case of A. S. Khomyakov and V. S. Soloviev is used as proof). On the contrary, neo-Kantianism and Kant’s ideas were in the state of terminal confrontation within this school of thought.05302026111. Alekseev (Askol'dov) S. A. 1912. Aleksey Aleksandrovich Kozlov. [Aleksey Aleksandrovich Kozlov], Moscow, VIII+223 p.2. Alekseev (Askol'dov) S. A. 1914. Vnutrenniy krizis transtsendental'nogo idealizma [The inner crisis of transcendental idealism], Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii [Problems of philosophy and psychology], no. 125, p. 781—796.3. Belov V. N. 2000. Neokantianstvo. Ch. I: Vozniknovenie neokantianstva. Marburgskaya shkola. German Kogen [Neo-Kantianism. Pt. I. Genesis of Neo-Kantianism. Marburg School. Hermann Cohen]. Saratov, 2000, 172 p.4. Belov V. N. 2012. Russkoe neokantianstvo: istoriya i osobennosti razvitiya [Russian Neokantianism: history and characteristics of its development], Kantovskiy sbornik [Kantovsky sbornik], no. 1, p. 27—40.5. Belov V. N., Rozhkov V. P. 2006. Istoriya russkoy filosofii [History of Russian philisophy]. Saratov, 284 p.6. Berdyaev N. A. 2007. A. S. Khomyakov [A. S. Khomyaov] In: Berdyaev N. A. Konstantin Leont'ev. Ocherk iz istorii russkoy religioznoy mysli. Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov [Konstantin Leontiev. Essay of Russian religious life. Aleksey Stepanovich Khomyakov]. Moscow, p. 226—445.7. Bobrov E. A. 1898. Iz istorii kriticheskogo individualizma [From the History of critical individualism]. Kazan, 51 p.8. Bobrov E. A. 1895. O ponyatii iskusstva. Umozritel'no-psikhologicheskoe issledovanie [About the concept of art. Speculative and psychological research]. Yuriev, 248 p.9. Gaydenko P. P. 2001. Vladimir Soloviev i filosofiya Serebryanogo veka [Vladimir Solovyov and the Philosophy of Silver Age]. Moscow, 472 p.10. Gegel G. V. F. 1972. Nauka logiki [Science of Logik]. In 3 vols. Vol. 3. Moscow, 371 p.11. Demin M. R. 2010. Pravo na Kanta: k sporu Adolfa Trendelenburga i Kuno Fishera [Right to Kant: to the dispute of Adolf Trendelenburg and Kuno Fischer] In: Neokantianstvo nemetskoe i russkoe: mezhdu teoriey poznaniya i kritikoy kultury [Russian and German Neokantianism: between theory of knowledge and critics of culture] Moscow. p. 66—85.12. Dlugach T. B. 2002. Problema bytiya v nemetskoy filosofii i sovremennost [Problem of Being in German philosophy and modernity]. Moscow. 222 p.13. Dmitrieva N. A. 2007. Russkoe neokantianstvo: «Marburg» v Rossii. Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki [Russian Neokantianism: “Marburg” In Russia. Historical and philosophical essays]. Moscow, 512 p.14. Zenkovskiy V. V. 2001. Istoriya russkoy filosofii [History of Russian philisophy]. Moscow, 880 p.15. Kant I. 1994. Kritika chistogo razuma [Critique of Pure Reason] Moscow, 591 p.16. Kogen G. 2012. Teoriya opyta Kanta [Kants Theory of Experience]. Moscow. 618 p.17. Kozlov A. A. 1884. Genezis teorii prostranstva i vremeni Kanta [Genesis of Kant’s theory of space and time]. Kiev. IX + 264 p.18. Kozlov A. A. 1892. Svoe slovo. [My Word] Ed. 4. St. Petersburg, 168 p.19. Leibnitz G. V. 1982. Monadologiya [Monadology] In: Leibnitz G. V. Sochineniya v chetyrekh tomakh [Works in Four Volumes]. Vol. I. Moscow, p. 413—430.20. Lopatin L. M. 1912. Spiritualizm, kak monisticheskaya sistema filosofii [Spiritualism as monistic system of philosophy], Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii [Problems of philosophy and psychology], no. V (115), p. 435—471.21. Losskiy N. O. 2008. Vospominaniya. Zhizn i filosofskiy put [Memories. Life and philosophical way] Moscow, 400 p.22. Losskiy N. O. 1995. Chuvstvennaya, intellektualnaya i misticheskaya intuitsiya [Sensual, intellectual and mystical intuition]. Moscow, 400 p.23. Nizhnikov S. A. 2005. Filosofiya Kanta v otechestvennoy mysli [Kant’s philosophy in native thought]. Moscow, 236 p.24. Polovinkin S. M. 2002. Vladimir Solov'ev i russkoe neoleybnitseanstvo [Vladimir Solovyov and Russian Neo-Leibnizianism], Voprosy filosofii [Problems of philosophy], no2, p. 90—96.25. Popova V. S. 2015. I. Kant v stanovlenii filosofskogo mirovozzreniya N. O. Losskogo [I. Kant in formation of N. O. Lossky philosophical worldview], Kantovskiy sbornik [Kantovskiy sbornik], no. 2 (52). p. 62—75.26. Prasolov M. A. 2007. Subjekt i sushchee v russkom metafizicheskom personalizme [Subject and existence in Russian metaphysical personalism]. St. Petersburg, 354 p.27. Salagova V. 1916. Transtsendentalnyy kharakter ucheniya Leybnitsa o monade [Transcendental nature of Leibniz’s doctrine of Monad]. Kharkov, 23 p.28. Teykhmyuller G. 1894. Darvinizm i filosofiya [Darvinism and philosophy]. Yuriev, 100 p.29. Teykhmyuller G. 1913. Deystvitel'nyy i kazhushchiysya mir. [The real and seeming world], Kazan, 389 p.30. Trendelenburg A. 1868. Logicheskie issledovaniya. [Logical investigations] Pt. I. Moscow, XII+361 p.31. Fokht B. A. 2003. Ob osnovnoy idee, sushchestve i glavneyshikh momentakh transtsendental'nogo metoda v teoreticheskoy filosofii Kanta [On the main idea, gist and the cardinal points of transcendental method in Kant’s theoretical philosophy]. In: Fokht B. A. Izbrannoe (iz filosofskogo naslediya) [Favorite (From philosophical heritage)]. Moscow, p. 51—128.32. Khomyakov A. S. 1900. O sovremennykh yavleniyakh v oblasti filosofii (Pis'mo k Yu. F. Samarinu) [About the modern phenomena in the field of philosophy] In: Khomyakov A. S. Polnoe sobr. soch. v vosmi tomakh [Full collected works in eight volumes]. Moscow, 1900—1904. Vol. I, p. 287—320.33. Beiser F. C. 2013. Late German Idealism: Trendelenburg and Lotze. New York: Oxford University Press.34. Schwenke H. 2006. Zuruück zur Wirklichkeit: Bewusstsein und Erkenntnis bei Gustav Teichmuüller. Basel: Schwabe.V. I.SavntisevThis article analyses the controversy between Sergey Trubetskoy and Boris Chicherin, which followed the publication of Trubetskoy’s monograph the Foundations of Idealism. This analysis focuses on the philosophers’ understanding of the metaphysical nature of time. The relevance of the work is that the philosophical reflections of the opponents took place against the backdrop of an impending change in science and philosophy — the transition from the classical to neo-classical paradigm. This transition encouraged philosophers to revise the traditional approaches (Kant’s teaching of time as an a priori form of sensibility, the post-Kantian idea of time as a manifestation of the absolute spirit, and the empiricist concept of time as an ordered flow of events), on the one hand, and to seek new criteria for the philosophical understanding of time, on the other. Chicherin suggested that metaphysics resort to the methods of natural sciences. He believed that the rigour and logic of natural sciences would rule out subjectivism and help to marry the temporality of the phenomenon and the object. For Chicherin, time is both an attribute of the absolute spirit and a scientific and philosophical category that is used in both exact physical calculations and natural-philosophical descriptions. Loyal to classical metaphysical traditions, Trubetskoy placed emphasis on the role of the subject, stressing that ‘there is no object (phenomenon) beyond the perceiving subject’ and that time (in a purely metaphysical sense) is possible only as a form of sensory perception of phenomena. At the same time, Trubetskoy argued that, due to the sobornost of consciousness, the subject is not an individual person but the humanity as a community of sentient and intelligent beings. In addressing Platonism, the Kantian tradition, and the philosophy of all-unity, Trubetskoy argued that the purpose of metaphysics was not to search for and formulate the laws of nature but rather to uncover new levels of the understanding of the interaction between thinking and being.05302026111. Gajdenko P. P. 2001. Vladimir Solov’ov i filosofia Serebrianogo veka [Vladimir Soloviev and the philosophy of the Silver age]. Moskow, 2001.2. Zinchenko V. P. 2010. Soznanie I tvorcheskiy akt [Consciousness and the creative act], Moskow, 2010.3. Kalinnikov L. A. Kant v russkoy filosofskoy culture [Kant in the Russian philosophical culture]. Kaliningrad, 2005.4. Mihailov P. B. 2015. Kategorija vremeni v hristianskoj metafizike: Grigoriy Nisskiy i Maksim Ispovednik [Category of time in Christian metaphysics: Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor], ΣΧΟΛΗ Vol. 9. 1. 2015. p. 119—136.5. Trubetskoy S. N. 1908а. Osnovanija idealizma [The Foundation of idealism] in: Trubetskoy S. N. Sobranie sochineniy kn. S. N. Trubetskogo v 5 t. [Works in 5 volumes], Moskow, 1908a, vol. 2.6. Trubetskoy S. N. 1908б. O prirode chelovecheskogo soznanija [About the nature of human consciousness] in: Trubetskoy S. N. Sobranie sochineniy kn. S. N. Trubetskogo v 5 t. [Works in 5 volumes], Moskow, 1908б, vol. 2.7. Trubetskoy S. N. 1908в. V zash′itu idealzma (otvet B. N. Chicherinu) [In defense of idealism (in response to B. N. Chicherin)], in: Trubetskoy S. N. Sobranie sochineniy kn. S. N. Trubetskogo v 5 t. [Works in 5 volumes], Moskow, 1908в, vol. 2.8. Chicherin B. N. 1895. Prostranstvo I vrem′a [Space and time], Voprosy filosofii i psihologii [Questions of Philosophy and Psychology]. no. 26 (1). Moskow, 1895, p. 1—56.9. Chicherin B. N. 1897. Sush′estvo i metodi idealizma [Genesis and methods of idealism], Voprosy filosofii i psihologii [Questions of Philosophy and Psychology]. no. 2 (37). Moskow, 1897, p. 185—238.V. Kh.GilmanovA. S.TausnevaThis article revisits the ratio-centric system developed by the prominent exponent of the German enlightenment J. Chr. Gottsched (1700—1766). The authors examine the problem of the ontological argument in the context of the current civilizational crisis of consciousness, which arose against the background of the 20th century crisis of objectivist methodology of modern natural sciences. Such a methodology is incapable of solving the problem of an accurate description of the reality, in particular, as regards the ontological status of a wave function. This poses a serious ontological challenge to the entire scientific paradigm of today’s natural science standard. It is stressed that, in the context of the problem of consciousness and being symmetry/asymmetry, the ontological argument brings to the fore questions about the current place of modern civilizational process, which shows distressing symptoms of existential foundation deficiency. The authors reconsider the historical and philosophical significance of Gottsched’s Enlightenment classicism to estimate the danger of the de-ontologisation of reason, which leads to the loss of reality. The phenomenon of Gottsched is considered within the hermeneutic discourse of the so-called mystery of the German spirit. It is stressed that Gottsched was committed to a well-reasoned apologia of reason as a mediator between the reality and the spirit — a mediator that acts through the mystery of imagination and the psychology of unconscious interest. The authors examine relevant aspects of Gottsched’s rational aesthetics in his struggle against pre-Romanticism theories. Attention is paid to the ideational proximity between Gottsched’s ideas and Kant’s regulative principles of practical reason. The authors emphasise the significance of Gottsched’s philosophy of language and his connection with the tradition of ontological theory of language in the context of modern hermeneutic research.05302026111. Weidle V. 2000, Umiranije iskusstva. Razmyishleniya o sudbe literaturnogo i hudozhestvennogo tvorchestva. Glava 4. Umiranie iskusstva [The dying of art. Reflections on the fate of literary and artistic creation. Chapter 4. The dying of art]. In: Samosoznanie kulturyi i iskusstva XX veka. Zapadnaya Evropa i SShA [Self-awareness of culture and art of the twentieth century. Western Europe and the USA]. Moscow; SPb., pp. 352—378.2. Goethe J. W. 1969, Poeziya i pravda [Poetry and truth], Moscow, 606 p.3. Goethe J. W. 1976, Sobranie sochineniy [Collected works], v 10 t., Moscow.4. Heisenberg W. 1989, Fizika i filosofiya. Chast i tseloe [Physics and Philosophy. Part and whole], Moscow, 400 p.5. Gilmanov, V. H. 2005, «Krestovye pohody» I. G. Gamana protiv Prosveshhenija [“The Crusades“ of I. G. Haman against the Enlightenment], Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Bulletin of Moscow State University], Ser. Philosophy, no. 3, pp. 14—26.6. Gilmanov, V. H. 2007, Simon Dah i tayna barokko [Simon Dach and the Baroque Mystery], Kaliningrad, 312 p.7. Humboldt, V. fon. 1984, Izbrannye trudy po jazykoznaniju [Selected works on linguistics], Moscow, 400 p.8. Istoriya nemetskoy literaturyi 1985, [History of German literature], v 3 t., Moscow.9. Kant, I. 1994, Sobranie sochinenij v 8 tomah. Jubilejnoe izdanie 1794—1994 [Works in 8 volumes. Jubilee Edition 1794—1994], Gulygi, A. В. (ed.), Moscow.10. Lavrinovich K. K. 1996, Albertina. Ocherki istorii Kenigsbergskogo universiteta [Essays on the history of the University of Königsberg], Kaliningrad, 415 p.11. Lektsii po istorii estetiki. Filosofskiy fakultet. 1972 [Lections on the history of aesthetics]. Filosofskiy fakultet. Kniga 1. Izd-vo LGU im. A. A. Zhdanova, Leningrad. 206 p.12. Lyotard, J.-F. 1998, Sostoyanie Postmoderna [Postmodern Condition], Moscow, SPb, 160 p.13. Mamardashvili M. K. 1996, O soznanii [About consciousness] In: Neobhodimiost sebya (Lektsii. Stati. Filosofskie zametki) [The necessity of self (Lections, articles, Philosophical notes)], Moscow, pp. 214—228.14. Mihailov A. V. Poetika barokko: zavershenie ritoricheskoi epokhi [The poetics of the Baroque: the end of the rhetorical era]. In: Mikhailov, A. V. Iazyki kul’tury [Languages of culture], Moscow, pp. 112—175.15. Romanovskaya, T. B. 2000, Inaya realnost i problemyi interpretatsii v fizike [Another reality and problems of interpretation in physics]. In: Kontseptsiya virtualnyih mirov i nauchnoe poznanie [The concept of virtual worlds and scientific knowledge], SPb.16. Heidegger, M. 1988, Pis'mo o gumanizme [Letter on Humanism]. In: Problema cheloveka v zapadnoy filosofii [The problem of man in Western philosophy]. Moscow, pp. 314—356.17. Chalmers, D. 2013, Soznayushchii um: v poiskakh fundamental’noi teorii [The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory], Moscow, 512 pp.18. Schweitzer, А. 1996, Hristianstvo i mirovyie reli [Christianity and world religions]. In: Zhizn i myisli [The life and thought], Moscow.19. Schrödinger, E. 2000, Razum i materiya [Mind and matter], Izhevsk.20. Yung, K. G. 2000, Psikhologiya i poeticheskoe tvorchestvo (fragmentyi) [Psychology and Poetry (fragements)], In: Samosoznanie kul'tury i iskusstva XX veka. Zapadnaya Evropa i SShA [Self-awareness of culture and art of the twentieth century. Western Europe and the USA], SPb, pp. 114—130.21. Yazyik i nauka kontsa 20 veka. 1995, [Language and science of the late 20th century], Moscow, 432 p.22. Gottsched Ch. Gesammelte Schriften: in 6 Bd. Berlin, 1903—1906.23. Lindney D. The end of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory. New York, 1994.24. Sedlmayr H. Der Tod des Lichtes. Salzburg, 1964.M. V.VorobievThis article aims to consider the concept of personality proposed by the prominent exponent of Russian neo-Kantianism Sergey Hessen and its philosophical and legal content. The frame of reference used to achieve this aim is determined by the personality-culture-the general will-the state coordinates. The author compares Hessen’s ideas with Bogdan Kistyakovsky’s legal concept. Hessen distinguished between several layers of meaning in the notion of culture — civilizedness, level of education, and civic virtue. He stressed that the personality and culture existed in a dialectical relationship. Hessen emphasised the primacy of personal freedom and the need to distinguish between freedom and power of choice. Acts of choice are random and unpredictable — they do not have a solid foundation, whereas acts of freedom are a prerequisite for creativity — an integral characteristic of personality. The creative essence of personality suggests individuality and uniqueness of each person. Personality has a historical dimension. In analysing the problem of the relationship between a person and society, Hessen considered Rousseau’s concept of general will. Hessen proposed a dynamic understanding of general will as a continuous process of establishing and re-establishing that involves the general population. Hessen counterposed law against the notions of nature and morality and interpreted law as an insufficient but necessary prerequisite for harmonizing relations in a society. Hessen developed an original understanding of the ideal of state organisation — a democratic state that incorporates the principles of liberalism and socialism.05302026111. Gessen, S. I., 2010a, Moe zhizneopisanie [My biography], in: Gessen S. I. Izbrannoe [Selected works], Moscow, p. 772—827.2. Gessen, S. I., 2010b, Pravovoe gosudarstvo i socialism [Legal state and socialism], in: Gessen S. I. Izbrannoe [Selected works], Moscow, p. 43—395.3. Gessen, S. I., 1995, Osnovy pedagogiki. Vvedenie v prikladnuyu filosofiyu. [The foundations of pedagogy. Introduction to applied philosophy], Moscow.4. Gessen, S. I., 2011a, Sovremennaya demokratiya [Modern democracy], Kantovskij sbornik [Kantian collection], no. 3(37), p. 93—97.5. Gessen, S. I., 2011b, Sovremennaya demokratiya [Modern democracy], Kantovskij sbornik [Kantian collection], no. 4(38), p. 99—106.6. Gessen, S. I., 2012, Sovremennaya demokratiya [Modern democracy], Kantovskij sbornik [Kantian collection], no. 1(39), p. 75—84.7. Hessen, S., 1909, Individuelle Kausalitat. Studien zum transcendentalen Empirismus. Berlin. (Kantstudien. Ergänzungsheft, Nr. 15).8. Kistiakovsky, B. A. 2010a, Izbrannoe: v dvuh chastiah, Chast 1. [Selected works in 2 parts, part 1], Moscow.9. Kistiakovsky, B. A., 2002, Obshchestvo i individ. [Society and individual], Moscow.10. Ochirokonova, N. V., 2005, Problema cheloveka v filosofii S. I. Gessena [The problem of human in S. I. Hessen’s philosophy]. Thesis, Moscow.11. Rubinshtejn, M. M., 1925, Social'no-pravovye predstavleniya i samoupravlenie u detej. [Children’s social and legal perceptions], Moscow.12. Walicki, A., 2012, Filosofia prava russkogo liberalism [Legal philosophy of Russian liberalism], Moscow.13. Zagirnyak, M. Y., 2012, Filosofsko-pravovye idei S. I. Gessena: istoriko-filosofskij kontekst [Philosophical and legal ideas of S. I. Hessen]. Thesis, Moscow.14. Zagirnyak, M. Y., 2017, Znachenie prava dlya svobody lichnosti v filosofii S. I. Gessena [The significance of the law for the individual freedom in the philosophy of Sergius Hessen], in: Nauchno-tekhnicheskij progress i sovremennoe obshchestvo: sbornik nauchnyh trudov po materialam I Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii molodyh uchenyh [Scientific and technical progress and modern society: collection of scientific works based on materials of the 1st International scientific and practical conference of young scientists], Moscow,15 January 2017. p. 250—264.16. Zhilyaeva, E. I., 2012, Problema cheloveka v social'noj filosofii S. I. Gessena [The problem of human in social philosophy of S. I. Hessen]. Thesis, Moscow.A. (translated from the German by V. Kh. Gilmanov)Schweitzer0530202611Швейцер А. Философия религии Канта (от «Критики чистого разума» до «Религии в пределах только разума»). Предисловие. Ч. 1 // Кантовский сборник. 2016. Т. 35, № 2. С. 109—118 ; № 3. С. 82—98 ; № 4. С. 73—78 ; 2017. Т. 36, № 1. С. 90—103.boardEditorial0530202611V. N.BelovL. I.Tetyev0530202611Тренделенбург А. Элементы логики Аристотеля / пер. Б. А. Фохта, А. Г. Вашестова, публик. и вступ. ст. М. Р. Демина ; под общ. ред. Н. А. Дмитриевой, — М. : Канон+ РООИ «Реабилитация», 2017. — 336 с.I. V.Tsvyk0530202611Шевцов А. В. М. И. Каринский и русская гносеология конца XIX — начала XX века. — М. : Мир философии, 2017. — 303 с. Зеньковский В. В. История русской философии. Л., 1991. Т. 1, ч. 1. С. 15—16. Пустарнаков В. Ф. Университетская философия в России. Идеи. Персоналии. Основные центры. СПб., 2003 ; Цвык И. В. Духовно-академическая философия в России XIX в. М., 2002.