NONE20260604121803543Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370106042026363S. L.KatrechkoThis article analyses the features of Kant’s [transcendental] philosophy, which Kant himself described as transcendental idealism. On the one hand, Kant’s transcendentalism rests on the distinction between things-in-themselves and appearances. On the other hand, our method of cognition is representative in that is based on representations — subjective and objective (objectual) ones. A synthesis of the above considerations suggests that Kant’s transcendentalism rests on the [conceptual] triad — ‘[objective] object (thing-in-itself; Ding an sich) —appearance (Erscheinung) — and [mental] representation (Vorstellung)’. Kant’s transcendental philosophy is impossible without the concept (‘premise’) of appearance (a paraphrase of Friedrich Jacobi’s maxim). It is the third complete entity, which has an intermediate ontological and epistemological status. Appearance can be correlated with objective (objective-objectual ‘gegenstänslich’) representation. It would be unwise to identify appearance with thing-in-itself, which was characteristic of pre- Kantian philosophy (naïve realism), or appearance with representation, which was the case in phenomenalist interpretations of transcendentalism à la Berkley (interpretation of two objects). Kant’s appearance, as emphasised in BXXVII of his Critique, is an appearance of an object (thing-initself), which — although implicitly — suggests a semantic relationship of reference. Appearance (as a sign) is impossible without what appears in it (the referent of a sign). This article puts forward a number of arguments in favour of the objective/objective-objectual status of Kant’s concept of appearance.06042026111. Kant, I. 1994a, Izbrannye pis'ma [Selected Letters; letter’s to M.Herz] In: Kant, I. Sobranie sochinenij v 8 tomah. [Works in 8 volumes], vol. 8, S. 57—136.2. Kant, I. 1994b, Antropologija s pragmaticheskoiy tochki zrenija [Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View] In: Kant, I. Sobranie sochinenij v 8 tomah. [Works in 8 volumes], vol. 8.3. Katrechko, S. L. 2014, Transcendentalizm Kanta kak transcendental'naja paradigma filosofstvovanija [Kant’s transcendentalism as transcendental paradigm of philosophizing]. In: Kantovskiiy sbornik [The Kantovsky sbornik], 2014, no. 2 (48). s. 10—25.4. Katrechko, S. L. 2017a, Transcendentalizm Kanta kak realisticheskaja teorija opyta/poznanija (analiz struktury kantovskogo kopernikanskogo perevorota) [Does the Kant’s Copernican Revolution Lead to Idealism? (Structure and Dialectic of Kant's Copernican Revolution] In: Filosofija i nauka: problemy sootnesenija. M.: RGGU, Kn.1, s. 213—226.5. Katrechko, S. L., 2017b, Transcendentalizm Kanta i ego koncept veshi samoiy po sebe [Kant's transcendentalism, transcendental shift (turn) and the thing in itself], Proceedings of the International Workshop “Transcendental Turn in Contemporary Philosophy: Metaphysics, Theory of Experience, Theory of Consciousness (?)” (Moscow, April 22—23, 2016). Moscow: Foundation for Humanities, p. 37—45.6. Ogurcov, A. P. 2011, Filosofiia nauki: XX vek (v 3 tt.) [Philosophy of science: XXth Century]: Koncepcii i problemy (T.1): issledovatel'skie programmy. SPb., Izd. dom "Mir".7. Jacobi, F. H. 1976, Ueber den transzendentalen Idealismus, Appendix to David Hume über den Glauben, oder Idealismus und Realismus. Ein Gespräch, in: Jacobi F. H. Werke, vol. 2. S. 291—310.8. Abela, P., 2002, Kant’s Empirical Realism, Oxford: Clarendon Press.9. Allais, L., 2015, Manifest Reality: Kant's Idealism and his Realism, Oxford University Press Uk.10. Allison, H., 1983, Transcendental Idealism: A Defense, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.11. Allison, H., 2004, Kant's Transcendental Idealism: An Interpretation and Defense, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, Revised and Enlarged Edition.12. Americks, K., 2012, Kant's Elliptical Path, Oxford: Clarendon Press, s. 365.13. Baldner, K., 1990, Is Transcendental Idealism Coherent? In: Synthese, vol. 85, no. 1, p. 1—23.14. Barker, S. F., 1967, Appearing and appearances in Kant, in: The Monist, vol. 51, no. 3, Kant Today: Part I, p. 426—441.15. Bird, G., 1962, Kant’s Theory of Knowledge: An Outline of One Central Argument in the Critique of Pure Reason, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.16. Bird, G., 2006, The Revolutionary Kant: A Commentary on the Critique of Pure Reason, Chicago and La Salle: Open Court.17. Cassirer, E., 1910, Substance and Function. Chicago: Open Court, 1923 (Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff: Untersuchungen über die Grundfragen der Erkenntniskritik. Berlin).18. Chisholm, R., 1950, The Theory of Appearing, in: Max black, ed. Philosophical Analysis (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), p. 102—118.19. Collins, A., 1999, Possible Experience: Understanding Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, University of California Press.20. Falkenstein, L., 1991, Kant's Account of Intuition, in: Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 21, no. 2, p. 165—193.21. Falkenstein, L., 1995, Kant's Intuitionism: A Commentary on the Transcendental Aesthetic, University of Toronto Press.22. Horstmann, R.-P., 1997, Bausteine kritischer Philosophie. Arbeiten zu Kant. Bodenheim.23. Howell, R. 2011, Kant on Representation and Objectivity (A. B. Dickerson, 2004): https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/kant-on-representation-and-objectivity/.24. Prauss, G., 1971, Erscheinung bei Kant: Ein Problem der "Kritik der reinen Vernunft", Berlin: de Gruyter & Co.25. Prauss, G., 1974, Kant und das Problem der Dinge an sich, Bonn: Bouvier.26. Prichard, H. A., 1909, Kant’s theory of knowledge, Oxford, 1909.27. Robinson, H., 1994, Two Perspectives on Kant's Appearances and Things in Themselves, in: Journal of the History of Philosophy, vol. 32, р. 411—441.28. Rohlf, M., 2010, Immanuel Kant (SEP); URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant/#TraIde.29. Röd, W., 1991, Erfahrung und Reflexion. Theorien der Erfahrung in transzendentalphilosophischer Sicht. München.30. Sellars, W., 1968, Science and Metaphysics: Variations on Kantian Themes, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd; London, and The Humanities Press; New York.31. Westphal, K. R., 2004, Kant’s Transcendental Proof of Realism, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.A. K.SudakovThis paper deals with the forms of satisfaction in the Critique of Judgement — disinterested affection for a beautiful form in a pure feeling, vital love for something sensorily pleasant, rational respect for unconditioned good, and non-self-regarding love for humanity. A synthetic union of the above gives the conceptual key to the critical philosophy of love, which was never fully articulated in Kant’s lectures or published works. Moral love and legal awareness prevent the encroachment of vital love, as the maxims of ‘barbarian taste’ are being overcome. Aesthetic love — which dwells in the element of sophisticated taste as a capacity to judge with pleasure in matters of beauty, free from any interest, and without the mediation of concepts — appears to be the paramount condition for the possibility of a relationship between the sexes that is ‘compatible with morality’. This is not a restricting, but rather a liberating and affirming kind of satisfaction. Only the capability to see one another in the element of humanly beautiful, the capability to rejoice in one another in the beauty which gives birth to the culture of all faculties of human beings, is, according to Kant, the condition for possibility of the only kind of relationship worthy of humanity and compatible with morality. This condition is discovered by Kant beyond the borders of ethics. Therefore, it is not discussed within those borders any more. The crucial significance of love based on aesthetic taste to Kantian anthropology evokes some superficial Kantian objections but proves to be justified by the philosophy of the culture of free personality as striving towards the integral self, as it was formulated later in German idealism.06042026111. Kant, I. 1965, Metafisika nravov (Metaphysics of Morals), in: 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, I. 1997, 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. P. 39—276.3. Arroyo, Ch. 2016, Kant on the Emotion of Love, in: European Journal of Philosophy, volume 24, issue 3 (September 2016), p. 580—606.4. Cohen, H. 1889, Kants Begründung der Ästhetik. Berlin: Ferd.Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung.5. Cohen, H. 1912, Die Ästhetik des reinen Gefühls. Erster Band. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.6. Kant, I. 1989, Kritik der Urteilskraft, in: Kant, Immanuel. Werkausgabe in 12 Bänden. Hrsg. Von Wilhelm Weischedel. Bd.10. Kritik der Urteilskraft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. S. 69—456.7. Menzer P. (hg.) 1924, Eine Vorlesung Kants über Ethik. Berlin : Verlag Rolf Heise, 1924.8. Paulsen, F. 1904, Immanuel Kant. Sein Leben und seine Lehre. Stuttgart : Fr. Frommann (E. Hauff).9. Rinne, P. 2017, Kant on Love. (Kantstudien-Ergänzungshefte 196). Berlin : de Gruyter, (in press).10. Singer, I. 2001, Explorations in Love and Sex. Lanham — Boulder — New York — London : Rowman & Littlefield.11. Windelband, W. 1904, Die Geschichte der neueren Philosophie in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der allgemeinen Kultur und den besondereA. G.PushkarskyDebates over Kant’s famous postulate about the existence of synthetic a priori judgements in mathematics, formulated in the Critique of Pure Reason, have been raging for over two centuries. On the one hand, it was fiercely criticised by neo-positivists in the early 20th century. On the other hand, Kant’s ideas on constructive nature of mathematics served as a philosophical framework for LEJ Brouwer’s programme of intuitionism in the foundations of mathematics. Of interest are the ideas of the great logician and mathematician Kurt Gödel about the analytical nature of mathematics, put forward in a number of his works on philosophy of mathematics. Although he never mentions synthetic a priori judgements, the course of his reasoning about analytical judgements is close to that employed by Kant. As early as the mid-20th century, Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and the works of Church and Turing constituted arguments in favour of the existence of synthetic a priori judgements. The American logician Irving Copi was the first to use Gödel’s first incompleteness theory to that end. While his small work went almost unnoticed, such ideas were expressed by at least two other mathematicians. In modern mathematics, particularly, Martin-Löf type theory, the existence of synthetic a priori truths, is considered justified. Although it is based on different grounds than those mentioned above, it is nevertheless compatible with Gödel’s results. Analysing proofs of existence of synthetic a priori judgements helps demonstrate that a solution to this problem is determined by the implicitly or explicitly accepted image of logic, whose key parameter is the object of logic or, in other worlds, the ideas about the nature of the logical and, therefore, the ideas about the boundaries of logic and mathematics.06042026111. Bryushinkin V. N., Popova V. S. 2010, Logika v russkom neokantianstve: obraz logiki A. I. Vvedenskogo [Logic in Russian Neokantianism: the image of logic A. I. Vvedensky] In: Griftsova, I. N., Dmitrieva, N. A. (eds.), Neokantianstvo nemeckoe i russkoe: mezhdu teoriej poznaniya i kritikoj kultury [German and Russian Neo-Kantianism: between the theory of knowledge and the criticism of culture]. Moscow, р. 165—178.2. Biryukov B. V. 2000, Vvedenie. Gottlob Frege: sovremennyj vzglyad [Introduction. Gottlob Frege: modern look] In: Frege G. Logika i logicheskaya semantika [Logic and Logical Semantics]. Moscow, рр. 8—63.3. Gödel K. 2014a, Rasselovskaya matematicheskaya logika (1942) [Russellian mathematical logic] In: Hintikka Y. A. O Gödele. Kurt Gödel Stat'i [About Gödel. Kurt Gödel Articles]. M.: «Kanon+» ROOI «Reabilitaciya», рр. 125—165.4. Gödel K. 2014b, Nekotorye osnovnye teoremy v osnovaniyah matematiki i ih sledstviya (1951) [Some basic theorems in the foundations of mathematics and their consequences] In: Hintikka Y. A. O Gödele. Kurt Gödel Stat'i [About Gödel. Kurt Gödel Articles]. M.: «Kanon+» ROOI «Reabilitaciya», рр. 125—165.5. Gödel K. 2014c, Sovremennoe razvitie osnovanij matematiki v svete filosofii (1961) [Modern development of the foundations of mathematics in the light of philosophy] In: Hintikka Y. A. O Gödele. Kurt Gödel Stat'i [About Gödel. Kurt Gödel Articles]. M.: «Kanon+ » ROOI «Reabilitaciya», рр. 125—165.6. Grifcova I. N. 1998, Logika kak teoreticheskaya i prakticheskaya disciplina. K voprosu o sootnoshenii formal'noj i neformal'noj logiki [Logic as a theoretical and practical discipline. On the question of the relationship between formal and informal logic]. Moscow.7. Zeebom T. M. 1992, Logika ponyatij kak predposylka kantovskoj formal'noj i transcendental'noj logiki [The logic of concepts as a prerequisite for Kant's formal and transcendental logic] In: Kantovskij sbornik. Vyp. 17. [Kantovsky sbornik. Issue 17] Kaliningrad.8. 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.9. Kant, I. 1965, 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.10. Karnap R. 1971, Filosofskie osnovaniya fiziki [Philosophical Foundations of Physics]. Moscow, Progress.11. Karnap R., Hahn H., Neurath O. 2006, Nauchnoe miroponimanie — Venskij kruzhok [Wissenshhaftliche Weltauffassung] in: Zhurnal («Poznanie»). Izbrannoe [Journal “Erkenntnis”. Favorites]. Moscow, рр. 57—74.12. Quine, W. V. 2010, S tochki zreniya logiki. 9 logiko-filosofskih ocherkov [From A Logical Viewpoint - Logico-Philosophical Essays]. Moscow.13. Martin-Löf Per. 2011, Logika segodnya. Analiticheskie i sinteticheskie suzhdeniya v teorii tipov [Logic today. Analytical and synthetic judgments in the theory of types] In: Logiko-filosofskie shtudii [Logical and philosophical studies]. T. 9, (№ 1), St. Petersburg, рр. 5—17.14. Poincare A. 2007, Matematika i logika [Mathematics and Logic] In: Poincare A., Couturat L. Matematika i logika [Mathematics and Logic]. Moscow, рр. 116—148.15. Popova V. S. 2010, Spor o logike v universitetskoj filosofii Sankt-Peterburga nachala XX veka [The debate about logic in the university philosophy of St. Petersburg early XX century]. Kaliningrad.16. Pushkarsky A. G. 2011, Metodologiya istorii logiki: sinteticheskij podhod [Methodology of the History of Logic: A Synthetic Approach] In: Vestnik Baltijskogo federal'nogo universiteta im. Immanuila Kanta. Vyp 6 [IKBFU's Vestnik, 2011 Issue № 06]. Kalinigrad, рр. 25—34.17. Pushkarsky A. G. Problema analiticheskih i sinteticheskih suzhdenij v istorii i filosofii logiki [The problem of analytical and synthetic judgments in the history and philosophy of logic] In: Ratio.ru. 2012. № 8. Kalinigrad, рр. 160—185.18. Chaitin G. J. 1999, The Unknowable. Singapore.19. Copi I. 1949, 'Modem Logic and the Synthetic A Priori', in: The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 46, p. 243—245.20. Castonguay, Ch. 1976, Church's Theorem and the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction in Mathematics, In: Philosophica, vol. 18, no. 2, p. 77—89.21. DeLong, H. 1970, A Profile of Mathematical Logic, Addison-Wesley Reading, Mass.22. Gödel K. 1995, Is mathematics syntax of language? In: Gödel K. Collected Works, V.3. Feferman, S., Dawson, J., Kleene, S., Moore, G., Solovay, R., and van Heijenoort, J. (eds.). Oxford — New — York: Oxford University Press. pp. 334—362.23. Goldfarb W. 1995, Godel *1953/9: Introductory note to *1953/9. (1995), In: Gödel K. Collected Works, V.3. Feferman, S., Dawson, J., Kleene, S., Moore, G., Solovay, R., and van Heijenoort, J. (eds.). Oxford — New — York: Oxford University Press, рp. 324—334.24. Turquette A. R. 1950, Gödel and the Synthetic a priori, in: The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 47, no. 5 (Mar. 2, 1950), p. 125—129.25. Vasyukov V. L. 2017, On Antilogicism In: Desyatye Smirnovskie chteniya: materialy Mezhdunar. nauch. konf., Moskva, 15—17 iyunya 2017 [The Tenth Smirnov Readings in Logic to be held on 15—17 June 2017]. Moscow, pp. 65—67.26. Wang Hao. 1987, A Logical Joinery: From Gödel to Philosophy. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.27. Wolenski J. 2004, Analytic vs. Synthetic and A Priori vs. A Posteriori In: Handbook Of Epistemology. Springer, pp. 781—839.28. Wolniewicz, B.: 1994, On the Synthetic A Priori In: J. Woleilski (ed.), Philosophical Logic in Poland, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 327—335.A. V.LavrukhinThis article focuses on the problem of reconciling a priori and empirical dimensions of freedom, will, and action as the crucial point for understanding the relationship between theoretical and practical reason in Kant’s and Husserl’s practical philosophy. Relying on the explanation of the relationship between transcendental and practical freedom given in Kant's practical philosophy, the author problematizes Kant’s thesis about the primacy of practical reason. This is the starting point and leitmotif in analysing the nature of revision of Kant’s ideas, premises, and problems in the first draft of Husserl’s practical philosophy (scientific ethics). Comparative analysis reveals terminological and conceptual similarities and differences between Kant’s and Husserl’s practical philosophies. Another important result is identifying the principles and departure point ideas for both thinkers. These are a shared understanding of the relationship between theoretical and practical reason, the principle of the ‘purity’ of moral motives and compulsoriness of the a priori, the idea of parallelism between logic and ethics, the interaction between will and mind, and the determining role of the categorical imperative. The author stresses that an adequate understanding of the thinkers’ positions requires distinguishing between Kant’s transcendentalist perspective and Husserl’s phenomenological descriptive perspective, between the a priori of pure reason and the material a priori, between good will as a duty and the thetic acts of will, and between the absolute and relative compulsoriness of the categorical imperative. At the same time, the possibility of reconciling the obligatory and a priori greatest good with a concrete, practical situation of choice remains an open question.06042026111. Gulyga, A. V. 1977, Kant [Kant], Moscow, 304 p.2. Gulyga, A. V. 1986, Nemezkaja klassicheskaja filosophija [German classical philosophy], Moscow, 334 p.3. Gusejnov, A. A. 2003, Istorija eticheskih uchenij [History of ethical doctrines], Moscow, 911 p.4. Gusejnov, A. A. 2004, Etika Kanta v istoricheskom kontekste [Kant’s Ethics in historical context], Moscow, Materiali konferenzii RAGS pri Presidente RF “Folosifija Kanta” [Materials of the RAGS conference by the President of the Russian Federation "Philosophy of Kant"], available at: http://www.guseinov.ru/conf/kant2.html (accessed 14 May 2017).5. Gusserl, E. 2001, Logicheskie issledovanija. Issledovanija po fenomenologii i teorii posnanija [Logical Investigations, called Investigations in Phenomenology and Knowledge], Moscow, 470 p.6. Kant, I. 2006, Kritika chistogo rasuma, in: Kant I. Sochinenija na nemezkom i russkom jazikah [Critique of Pure Reason. In: Kant I. Works in German and Russian], Moscow. Volume II, Ch.1.7. Kant, I. 1997, Osnovopolozenie k metafisike nravov, in: Kant I. Sochinenija na nemezkom i russkom jazikah [Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals]. In: Kant I. Works in German and Russian], Moscow. Volume III.8. Kant, I. 1997a, Kritika prakticheskogo rasuma, in: Kant I. Sochinenija na nemezkom i russkom jazikah [Critique of Practical Reason. In: Kant I. Works in German and Russian], Moscow. Volume III.9. Kant, I. 2014, Metafizika nravov. Metafizicheskie nachala uchenija o prave, in: Kant I. Sochinenija na nemezkom i russkom jazikah [The Metaphysics of Morals. Doctrine of Right. In: Kant I. Works in German and Russian], Moscow. Volume V. Part I.10. Kjung, G. Brentano, Gusserl I Ingarden ob ozenivajuchih aktah i posnanii zennostej [Brentano, Husserl and Ingarden about evaluating acts and knowledge of values], Filosofsko-literaturnij zurnal “Logos” [Philosophical and literary journal “Logos”], no. 6, p. 117—123.11. Lavruhin, A. V. 2004, K voprosu o vlijanii filosofii Kanta na gusserlevskuju modelj konstituzii [To the question about the influence of Kant's philosophy on the Husserl model of the constitution], Materiali konferencii “Filosofija Kanta I sovremennostj” [Materials of the conference "Kant's Philosophy and Modernity"], Moscow, p. 11—21.12. Lavruhin, A. V. 2007, Prakticheskaja filosofija Edmunda Gusserlja: project nauchnoj etiki [Practical Philosophy by Edmund Husserl: a project of scientific Ethics], Vestnik RGGU. Serija “Folosifija. Soziologija” [Bulletin of the RSUH. Series "Philosophy. Sociology"], Moscow, no. 2—3/07, p. 24—41.13. Mehed, G. N. 2014, Moralj kak absolutnij predel rasuma v etike I. Kanta [Morality as the absolute limit of reason in the ethics of I. Kant], NB: Filosofskie issledovanija [NB: Philosophical Investigation], Moscow, no. 5, p. 17—44.14. Molchanov, V. I. 1998, Vremja i soznanie. Kritika fenomenologicheskoj filosofii. [Time and consciousness. Сritique of the phenomenological philosophy, Moscow.15. Pisarchik, L. U. 2011, Problema posnanija zennostej I konzepzija nauki v fenomenologii E. Gusserla [The problem of knowledge of values and the concept of science in the phenomenology by E. Husserl], Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Bulletin of the Orenburg State University], Orenburg, no. 1(120)/January, p. 71—80.16. Riker, P. 1998, Kant i Gusserlj. Intenzionalnostj i tekstualjnostj. Folosofskaja mislj Franzii XX veka. [Kant and Husserl. Intentionality and textuality. Philosophical thought in France in the XX century] Tomsk.17. Stolovich, L. N. 2009, I. Kant I problema zennosti [I. Kant and the problem of value], Kantovskij sbornik [Kant’s collection], no. 2, p. 20—30, available at: https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/350/ (accessed 15 May 2017).18. Cobet, T. 2003, Husserl, Kant und die praktische Philosophie. Analysen zu Moralität und Freiheit. Würzburg.19. Funke, G. 1983, Kant und Husserl. Vom Primat der praktischen Vernunft, Teil III (Husserl). In: Perspektiven der Philosophie, Bd. 9, S. 199—215.20. Grondin, J. 2000, Zur Phänomenologie des moralischen ‘Gesetzes’. Das contemplative Moment der Erhebung in Kants praktischer Metaphysik. In: Kant-Studien 91 (2000), S. 385—394.21. Heimsoeth, H. 1966, Zum kosmologischen Ursprung der Kantischen Freiheitsantinomie, Kant-Studien, no. 57, p. 206—229.22. Husserl, E., 1974. Formale und transzendentale Logik. Versuch einer Kritik der logischen Vernunft. In: P. Janssen, ed. 1974. Husserliana 17. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.23. Husserl, E., 1975. Logische Untersuchungen. Erster Teil. In: E. Holenstein, ed. 1975. Husserliana 18. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.24. Husserl, E., 1985. Einleitung in die Logik und Erkenntnistheorie. Vorlesungen 1906/07. In: U. Melle, ed. 1985. Husserliana 24. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.25. Husserl, E., 1986. Aufsätze und Vorträge (1911-1921). In: T. Nenon and H. R. Sepp, eds. 1986. Husserliana 25. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.26. Husserl, E., 1988. Vorlesungen über Ethik und Wertlehre (1908-1914). In: U. Melle, ed. 1988. Husserliana 28. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.27. Kern, I. 1964, Husserl und Kant. Eine Untersuchung über Husserls Verhältnis zu Kant und zum Neukantianismus. Den Haag.28. Melle, U., 1988. Einleitung des Herausgebers. In: U. Melle, ed. 1988. Husserliana 28. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.29. Morrison, R. Р. 1978, Kant, Husserl and Heidegger on time and the unity of «consciousness », in: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Buffalo, vol. XXXIX, no. 2.30. Patzig, G., 1971. Die logischen Formen praktischer Sätze in Kants Ethik. In: Ethik ohne Metaphysik, Göttingen, p. 101—127.31. Rinofner-Kreidl, S. 2010, Hussel's critique of Kant's categotrical imperative. In: P. Vandevelde & S. Luft (eds.) Epistemology, Archeology, Ethics: Current Investigations of Husserl's Corpus. London/New York. S. 188—210.32. Schuhmann, K., 1981. Husserl-Chronik: Denk- und Lebensweg Edmund Husserls. In: Husserliana: Edmund Husserl Dokumente 1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.33. Spahn, Ch., 1996. Phänomenologische Handlungstheorie. Edmund Husserls Untersuchungen zur Ethik, Würzburg.L. E. (translated from the German)Kryshtop0604202611V. Kh.Gilmanov06042026111. Асмус В. Ф. Религиозно-философские трактаты Л. Н. Толстого // Толстой Л. Н. Полн. собр. соч. Репринт. воспроизведение изд. 1928—1958 гг. М., 1992. Т. 23. С. V—XXXI.2. Бердяев Н. А. Русская идея // Вопросы философии. 1990. № 2. С. 87—154.3. Бердяев Н. А. Новое Средневековье. Размышление о судьбе России и Европы // Философия творчества, культуры и искусства : в 2 т. М., 1994. Т. 1. С. 406—464.4. Булгаков С. Н. Свет невечерний. М., 1994.5. Гадамер Х.-Г. Истина и метод. Основы философской герменевтики. М., 1988.6. Гильманов В. Х. И. Г. Гаман и И. Кант: битва за чистый разум. Калининград, 2013.7. Гулыга А. В. Русская идея и ее творцы. М., 1995.8. Зеньковский В. В. История русской философии. Л., 1991. Т. 1, ч. 2.9. Ильин И. А. О сопротивлению злу силою // Сочинения : в 2 т. М., 1993а. Т. 1.10. Ильин И. А. Религиозный смысл философии. Три речи // Там же. 1993б. Т. 2.11. Кант И. Критика чистого разума // Собр. соч. : в 8 т. М., 1994а. Т. 3.12. Кант И. Критика практического разума // Там же. 1994б. Т. 4.13. Кант И. Критика способности суждения // Там же. 1994в. Т. 5.14. Кант И. Религия в пределах только разума // Там же. 1994г. Т. 6.15. Кант И. Избранные письма // Там же. 1994д. Т. 8.16. Кожемякин В., Писаренко Д., Тутина Ю., Шигарева Ю. Апокалипсис по-научному // Аргументы и факты. 2017. 25 янв. С. 6—7.17. Ленин В. И. Лев Толстой как зеркало русской революции // Полн. собр. соч. : в 55 т. 5-е изд. М., 1980. Т. 17. С. 206—213.18. Лосский Н. О. Свобода воли // Избранное. М., 1991. С. 484—597.19. Соловьев В. С. Критика отвлеченных начал // Соч. : в 2 т. М., 1990а. Т. 1.20. Соловьев В. С. Три разговора о войне, прогрессе и конце всемирной истории // Соч. : в 2 т. М., 1990б. Т. 2.21. Толстой Л. Н. Война и мир. Эпилог // Полн. собр. соч. : в 90 т. Репринт. вос- произведение изд. 1928—1958 гг. М., 1992а. Т. 12.22. Толстой Л. Н. Исповедь // Там же. 1992б. Т. 23.23. Толстой Л. Н. Исследование догматического богословия // Там же. 1992в.24. Толстой Л. Н. В чем моя вера? // Там же. 1992г.25. Толстой Л. Н. Соединение и перевод четырех евангелий // Там же. 1992д. Т. 24.26. Толстой Л. Н. Царство божие внутри нас // Там же. 1992е. Т. 28.27. Толстой Л. Н. Путь жизни // Там же. 1992ж. Т. 45.28. Толстой Л. Н. Дневники // Там же. 1992з. Т. 56. С. 3—176.29. Толстой Л. Н. Записные книжки и отдельные записи 1907—1908 гг. // Там же. 1992и. Т. 56. С. 177—383.30. Фуко М. Воля к истине. М., 1996.31. Эрн В. Ф. Сочинения. М., 1991.32. Helferich Сh. Geschichte der Philosophie. Stuttgart, 1992.33. Hösle V. Die Krise der Gegenwart und die Verantwortung der Philosophie: Transzendentalpragmatik, Letztbegründung, Ethik. München, 1994.34. Marquard O. Skeptische Methode im Blick auf Kant. Freiburg ; München, 1958.35. Negt O. Nur noch Utopien sind realistisch. Politische Interventionen. Göttingen, 2012.36. Tolstoj L. N. Gedanken Immanuel Kants / Übertr., eing. u. hrsg. von Krouglov A. N. Stuttgart ; Bad Cannstatt, 2016.37. Schadel E. Kants «Tantalischer Schmertz». Versuch einer konstruktiven Kritizismus-Kritik in ontotriadischer Perspektive. Frankfurt a/M, 1998.V. N.BelovL. I.Tetyev0604202611