<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<doi_batch xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.crossref.org/schema/5.3.1" xmlns:jats="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/JATS1" xmlns:fr="http://www.crossref.org/fundref.xsd" xmlns:ai="http://www.crossref.org/AccessIndicators.xsd" version="5.3.1"><head><doi_batch_id>NONE</doi_batch_id><timestamp>20260602114949916</timestamp><depositor><depositor_name>Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University</depositor_name><email_address>no-reply@journals.kantiana.ru</email_address></depositor><registrant>Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University</registrant></head><body><journal><journal_metadata><full_title>Kantian Journal</full_title><issn media_type="print">0207-6918</issn><issn media_type="electronic">2310-3701</issn></journal_metadata><journal_issue><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><journal_volume><volume>1</volume></journal_volume><issue>1</issue></journal_issue><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Message from the editors</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>Board</given_name><surname>Editorial</surname></person_name></contributors><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Vladimir Zhuchkov</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>Board</given_name><surname>Editorial</surname></person_name></contributors><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Joseph Kohnen</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>Board</given_name><surname>Editorial</surname></person_name></contributors><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Intellektuelle Anschauung und philosophische Schwärmerei. Kant und die Aufklärung des philosophierenden Subjekts</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>S.</given_name><surname>Klingner</surname></person_name></contributors><jats:abstract><jats:p>The article broaches the issue of Kant’s claim of the enlightenment of the philosophizing subject by tracing his criticism of philosophical enthusiasm (“Schwärmerei”). For Kant intellectual intuition (“intellektuelle Anschauung”) serves in case of philosophical enthusiasm as a reason for the justification of philosophical knowledge. This determination is a threat for his project of enlightenment, because it entices the philosophizing subject to contradict the maxim of self-thinking. In order to show the link between Kant’s criticism of the concept of intellectual intuition and his claim of the enlightenment of the philosophizing subject, the article gives an analysis of Kant’s usage of the concepts ‘intellectual intuition’ and ‘enthusiasm’ in his critical works. Subsequently Kant’s criticism of the philosophical enthusiasm is rendered more precisely in the context of his criticism of the philosophers of intuition (“Philosophen der Anschauung”) and his criticism of rationalistic metaphysics. Both positions refer — explicitly or implicitly — to intellectual intuition in order to justify philosophical knowledge. As the concept of intellectual intuition is invalid for Kant but central for enthusiastic philosophical positions, philosophical enthusiasm is not merely a threat for his project of enlightenment — it is the ‘death of all philosophy’ (“Tod aller Philosophie”).</jats:p></jats:abstract><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages><citation_list><citation key="1"><unstructured_citation>1. Christ, K. 1988, Jacobi und Mendelssohn. Eine Analyse des Spinozastreits, Würzburg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="2"><unstructured_citation>2. Cramer, K. 1985, Nicht-reine synthetische Urteile a priori. Ein Problem der Transzendentalphilosophie Immanuel Kants, Heidelberg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="3"><unstructured_citation>3. Dörflinger, B. 1988, Die Realität des Schönen in Kants Theorie rein ästhetischer Urteilskraft. Zur Gegenstandsbedeutung formaler und subjektiver Ästhetik, Bonn.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="4"><unstructured_citation>4. Dörflinger, B. 1991, „Zum Status der Empfindung als der materialen Bedingung der Erfahrung“, in: Akten des Siebenten Internationalen Kant-Kongresses. Hg. G. Funke, Bonn/Berlin. Bd. II.1, S. 101—117.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="5"><unstructured_citation>5. Düsing, K. 1968, Die Teleologie in Kants Weltbegriff, Bonn.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="6"><unstructured_citation>6. Förster, E. 2002, „Die Bedeutung von §§ 76, 77 der Kritik der Urteilskraft für die Entwicklung der nachkantischen Philosophie“, in: Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 56, Teil I. S. 169—190.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="7"><unstructured_citation>7. Gawlina, M. 1996, Das Medusenhaupt der Kritik. Die Kontroverse zwischen Immanuel Kant und Johann August Eberhard, Berlin/New York.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="8"><unstructured_citation>8. Giordanetti, P. 1995, „Das Verhältnis von Genie, Künstler und Wissenschaftler in der Kantischen Philosophie“, in: Kant-Studien 86, S. 406—430.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="9"><unstructured_citation>9. Heidemann, D. H. 1998, Kant und das Problem des metaphysischen Idealismus, Berlin/ New York.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="10"><unstructured_citation>10. Hiltscher, R. 2006a, „Endliche Vernunft als Stifterin von Partialwirklichkeit“, in: Die Vollendung der Transzendentalphilosophie in Kants „Kritik der Urteilskraft“, Hg. R. Hiltscher, S. Klingner und D. Süß, Berlin, S. 279—311.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="11"><unstructured_citation>11. Hiltscher, R. 2006b, „Rekonstruktion von Kants Kontextualismus der theoretischen Wissensformen“, in: ders., Der ontologische Gottesbeweis als kryptognoseologischer Traktat. Acht Vorlesungen mit Anhang zu einem systematischen Problem der Philosophie, Hildesheim u. a. S. 255—285,</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="12"><unstructured_citation>12. Hinske, N. 1988a, „Die Aufklärung und die Schwärmer — Sinn und Funktionen einer Kampfidee“, in: Die Aufklärung und die Schwärmer, Hg. N. Hinske, Hamburg. S. 3—6.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="13"><unstructured_citation>13. Hinske, N. 1988b, „Zur Verwendung der Wörter ‚schwärmen‘, ‚Schwärmer‘, ‚Schwärmerei‘, ‚schwärmerisch‘ im Kontext von Kants Anthropologiekolleg. Eine Konkordanz“, in: Die Aufklärung und die Schwärmer. Hg. N. Hinske, Hamburg. S. 73—81.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="14"><unstructured_citation>14. Klingner, S. 2012, Technische Vernunft. Kants Zweckbegriff und das Problem einer Philosophie der technischen Kultur. Berlin/Boston.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="15"><unstructured_citation>15. Klingner, S. 2013, „Zum Problem der objektiven Realität von Kants Naturzweckbegriff“, in: Das Leben der Vernunft. Beiträge zur Philosophie Kants und zu ihrem Umfeld. Hg. D. Hüning, S. Klingner und C. Olk, Berlin/Boston. S. 238—262.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="16"><unstructured_citation>16. Martin, G. 1969, Immanuel Kant. Ontologie und Wissenschaftstheorie, 4. Aufl., Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="17"><unstructured_citation>17. Prauss, G. 1989, Kant und das Problem der Dinge an sich, 3. Aufl. Bonn.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="18"><unstructured_citation>18. Zedler, J. H. 1743, Grosses vollständiges Universal Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste, Leipzig/Halle. Bd. 35 (Schle—Schwa).</unstructured_citation></citation></citation_list></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>The Green Meadow. Kant´s new Definition of the Modal Concept of Existence in the First Moment of the “Analytic of the Beautiful”</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>G.</given_name><surname>Motta</surname></person_name></contributors><jats:abstract><jats:p>Contrary to the standard view in the Kant literature, I argue that the concept of “existence” is the real focus of Kant’s investigation in the “First Moment” of the “Analytic of the Beautiful” in the Critique of the Power of Judgment. That is, “existence” is not a secondary or subordinate part of a more general discourse concerning the “disinterestedness of aesthetic judgment”. Rather, the whole characterization of the judgment of taste as a “judgment of an object grounded on a delight in it which is without any interest” shall be considered here as a means to constructing a new definition of the modal concept of “existence”. More generally, the four moments of the “Analytic of the Beautiful” contain preliminary work on the modal concepts of existence, possibility, necessity — and, of course, contingency, which is very important because it is required for the definition of the very special modal status of the “maxims of judgment”.</jats:p></jats:abstract><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages><citation_list><citation key="1"><unstructured_citation>1. Allison, H. E. 2001, Kant´s Theory of Taste. A Reading of the “Critique of Aesthetic Judgement”, Cambridge.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="2"><unstructured_citation>2. Dumouchel, D. 1999, Kant et la genèse de la subjectivité esthétique. Esthétique et philosophie avant la Critique de la faculté de juger, Paris.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="3"><unstructured_citation>3. Guyer, P. 1979, Kant and the Claims of Taste, Harvard.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="4"><unstructured_citation>4. Kant, I. 2000, Critique of the Power of Judgment, ed. and trans. by P. Guyer and E. Matthews, New York.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="5"><unstructured_citation>5. Motta, G. 2013, Kants Begriff der "exemplarischen Notwendigkeit" innerhalb der modalen Architektur der Analytik des Schönen, in: Hüning D., Klingner S., C. Olk (ed.), Das Leben der Vernunft. Beiträge zur Philosophie Kants, Berlin / Boston, p. 219—237.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="6"><unstructured_citation>6. Tonelli, G. 1954, La formazione del testo filosofico della Kritik der Urteilskraft, in: Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 8, p. 423—448.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="7"><unstructured_citation>7. Zammito, J. H. 1992, The Genesis of Kant´s Critique of Judgement, Chicago / London.</unstructured_citation></citation></citation_list></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Kants Begriff der Verbindlichkeit und die neuzeitliche Naturrechtslehre</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>D.</given_name><surname>Hüning</surname></person_name></contributors><jats:abstract><jats:p>My article is devoted to one of the main concepts of early modern natural law, i. e. the concept of obligation. Starting with Pufendorf's concept of obligation, it will be demonstrated that the natural law is grounded on the will of God. In contrast, the concept of obligation in Christian Wolff's Philosophia practica universalis has no need to found the validity of obligation of natural law in God's will. Instead he developed a concept which was based on the idea of a free self-binding moral subject. Therefore, Wolff's Philosophy has a great impact on Kant's own moral philosophy and especially on his concept of obligation. I will conclude by showing to what extent Kant was going beyond the early modern concept of the natural law tradition.</jats:p></jats:abstract><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages><citation_list><citation key="1"><unstructured_citation>1. Baum, M. 2007, Recht und Ethik in Kants praktischer Philosophie, in: J. Stolzenberg (Hrsg.), Kant in der Gegenwart, Berlin/New York.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="2"><unstructured_citation>2. Bayle, P. 1966, Pensées diverses, écrites à un docteur de Sorbonne, à l’occasion de la comète qui parut au mois de Décembre MDCLXXX, in: Bayle, P. OEuvres diverses, tome troisième, Den Haag 1727, Reprint Hildesheim.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="3"><unstructured_citation>3. Beutel, A. 2007, Causa Wolffiana. Die Vertreibung Christian Wolffs aus Preußen 1723 als Kulminationspunkt des theologisch-politischen Konflikts zwischen Halleschem Pietismus und Aufklärungsphilosophie, in: Ders., Reflektierte Religion. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Protestanismus, Tübingen, S. 125-169.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="4"><unstructured_citation>4. Crowe, M. B. 1976, The ‘Impious Hypothesis’: A Paradox in Hugo Grotius? in: Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 38.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="5"><unstructured_citation>5. Ebbinghaus, J. 1986, Über die Idee der Toleranz. Eine staatsrechtliche und religionsphilosophische Untersuchung, in: Ebbinghaus, J. Gesammelte Schriften. Bd. 1: Sittlichkeit und Recht, hrsg. von H. Oberer und G. Geismann, Bonn.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="6"><unstructured_citation>6. Ebbinghaus, J. 1990, Mensch und Ratio im Europa der Neuzeit, in: Ebbinghaus, J. Gesammelte Schriften. Bd. 3: Interpretation und Kritik, hrsg. von H. Oberer und G. Geismann, Bonn.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="7"><unstructured_citation>7. Garve, C. 1798, Uebersicht der vornehmsten Principien der Sittenlehre von dem Zeitalter des Aristoteles an bis auf unsere Zeit, Breslau, in: Garve, C. Gesammelte Werke, hrsg. von K. Wölfel, Bd. 8.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="8"><unstructured_citation>8. Geismann, G. 2001, Sittlichkeit, Religion und Geschichte in der Philosophie Kants, in: Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/ Annual Review of Law and Ethics, hrsg. von B. S. Byrd, J. Hruschka und J. C. Joerden, Bd. 8, (2000), Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="9"><unstructured_citation>9. Gerlach, H.-M. 1997, Christian Wolffs „Rede von der Sittenlehre der Sineser“ (1721) oder vom wahren philosophischen Erkennen zum rechten moralischen Handeln, in: Europa in der Frühen Neuzeit. Festschrift für Günter Mühlpfordt. Bd. 2: Frühmoderne, hrsg. von E. Donnert, Weimar, Köln, Wien.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="10"><unstructured_citation>10. Grotius, H. 1919, De iure belli ac pacis libri tres, ed. P. C. Molhuysen, Leiden.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="11"><unstructured_citation>11. Grunert, F. 2000, Normbegründung und politische Legitimität. Zur Rechts- und Staatsphilosophie der deutschen Frühaufklärung, Tübingen.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="12"><unstructured_citation>12. Haggenmacher, P. 1983, Grotius et la doctrine de la guerre juste, Paris.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="13"><unstructured_citation>13. Hartung, G. 1999, Die Naturrechtsdebatte. Geschichte der obligatio vom 17. bis 20. Jahrhundert, Freiburg/München2.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="14"><unstructured_citation>14. Hegel, G. W. F. 1970, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, in: Hegel, G. W. F., Werke in zwanzig Bänden, hrsg. von E. Moldenhauer und K. M. Michel, Frankfurt/M.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="15"><unstructured_citation>15. Hervada, J. 1983, The Old and the New in the Hypothesis „Etiamsi daremus“ of Grotius, in: Grotiana IV.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="16"><unstructured_citation>16. Hinrichs, C. 1971, Preußentum und Pietismus. Der Pietismus in Brandenburg-Preußen als religiös-soziale Reformbewegung, Göttingen.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="17"><unstructured_citation>17. Horn, C. 2014, Nichtideale Normativität. Ein neuer Blick auf Kants politische Philosophie, Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="18"><unstructured_citation>18. Joesten, C. 1931, Wolffs Grundlegung der praktischen Philosophie, Leipzig.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="19"><unstructured_citation>19. Leger, J. S. 1962, The ‘Etiamsi daremus’ of Hugo Grotius. A Study in the Origins of International Law, Rom.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="20"><unstructured_citation>20. Locke, J. 1966, Ein Brief über Toleranz, hrsg. von J. Ebbinghaus, Hamburg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="21"><unstructured_citation>21. Locke, J. 1975, An Essay concerning Human Understanding, ed. by Peter H. Nidditch, Oxford.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="22"><unstructured_citation>22. Ludwig, B. 2001, Auf dem Wege zu einer säkularen Moralwissenschaft: Von Hugo Grotius’ De Jure Belli ac Pacis zu Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, in: Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik, hrsg. von B. Sharon Byrd, Joachim Hruschka, Jan C. Joerden, Bd. 8 (2000), Berlin, S. 3—31.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="23"><unstructured_citation>23. Negro, P. 1998, A Topos in Hugo Grotius: „Etiamsi daremus non esse Deum“, in: Grotiana 19.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="24"><unstructured_citation>24. Pott, M. 1992, Aufklärung und Aberglaube. Die deutsche Frühaufklärung im Spiegel ihrer Aberglaubenskritik, Tübingen.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="25"><unstructured_citation>25. Pufendorf, S. 1994, Über die Pflicht des Menschen und des Bürgers nach dem Gesetz der Natur, hrsg. von Klaus Luig, Frankfurt/M.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="26"><unstructured_citation>26. Pufendorf, S. 1998, De jure naturae et gentium, hrsg. von Frank Böhling, in: Pufendorf, S. Gesammelte Werke, hrsg. von Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann, Bd. 4.1, Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="27"><unstructured_citation>27. Reich, K. 1989, Kant und Rousseau, in: Neue Hefte für Philosophie. Heft 29.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="28"><unstructured_citation>28. Röd, W. 1984, Die deutsche Philosophie im Zeitalter der Aufklärung: I. Christian Wolff, in: Geschichte der Philosophie Bd. VIII: Die Philosophie der Neuzeit 2. Von Newton bis Rousseau, hrsg. von Wolfgang Röd, München.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="29"><unstructured_citation>29. Sauder, G. 1988, Vollkommenheit. Christian Wolffs Rede über die Sittenlehre der Sineser, in: Aufklärung als praktische Philosophie. Werner Schneiders zum 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. von F. Grunert/F. Vollhardt, Tübingen.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="30"><unstructured_citation>30. Schmucker, J. 1961, Die Ursprünge der Ethik Kants in seinen vorkritischen Schriften und Reflexionen, Meisenheim am Glan.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="31"><unstructured_citation>31. Schneewind, J. B. 1998, The Invention of Autonomy. A History of Modern Moral Philosophy, Cambridge.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="32"><unstructured_citation>32. Schreiber, H.-L. 1966, Der Begriff der Rechtspflicht. Quellenstudien zu seiner Geschichte, Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="33"><unstructured_citation>33. Schröer, C. 1988, Naturbegriff und Moralbegründung. Die Grundlegung der Ethik bei Christian Wolff und deren Kritik durch Immanuel Kant, Stuttgart u. a.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="34"><unstructured_citation>34. Schwaiger, C. 2001a, Ein ‘missing link’ auf dem Weg der Ethik von Wolff zu Kant. Zur Quellen- und Wirkungsgeschichte der praktischen Philosophie von Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, in: Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik/Annual Review of Law and Ethics, hrsg. von B. S. Byrd, J. Hruschka, J. C. Joerden, Bd. 8 (2000), Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="35"><unstructured_citation>35. Schwaiger, C. 2001b, Vollkommenheit als Moralprinzip bei Wolff, Baumgarten und Kant, in: Vernunftkritik und Aufklärung. Studien zur Philosophie Kants und seines Jahrhunderts, hrsg. von Michael Oberhausen, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="36"><unstructured_citation>36. Winiger, B. 1992, Das rationale Pflichtenrecht Christian Wolffs. Bedeutung und Funktion der transzendentalen, logischen und moralischen Wahrheit im systematischen und theistischen Naturrecht Wolffs, Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="37"><unstructured_citation>37. Wolff, C. 1740, Der Vernünfftigen Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dingen überhaupt, anderer Theil, bestehend in ausführlichen Anmerckungen, Frankfurt/M., 4. Aufl.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="38"><unstructured_citation>38. Wolff, C. 1971, Philosophia practica universalis methodo scientifica pertractata I, Frankfurt/Leipzig 1738, in.: Wolff, C. Gesammelte Werke, II. Abt., Bd. 10, Hildesheim/New York.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="39"><unstructured_citation>39. Wolff, C. 1985, Oratio de sinarum philosophia practica/Rede über die praktische Philosophie der Chinesen, lateinisch-deutsch, hrsg. von Michael Albrecht, Hamburg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="40"><unstructured_citation>40. Wolff, C. 1996a, Ausführliche Nachricht von seinen eigenen Schriften, Frankfurt/M. 1733 (Reprint Hildesheim).</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="41"><unstructured_citation>41. Wolff, C. 1996b, Vernünftige Gedancken von der Menschen Thun und Lassen, in: Wolff, C. Gesammelte Schriften I. Abt., Bd. 4, Hildesheim.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="42"><unstructured_citation>42. Wolff, H. M. 1949, Die Anschauung der deutschen Aufklärung in geschichtlicher Entwicklung, Bern.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="43"><unstructured_citation>43. Zurbuchen, S. 1991, Naturrecht und natürliche Religion. Zur Geschichte des Toleranzbegriffs von Samuel Pufendorf bis Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Würzburg.</unstructured_citation></citation></citation_list></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Arguments against Redistributive Justice based on Kant’s Doctrine of Private Right</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>A.</given_name><surname>Faggion</surname></person_name></contributors><jats:abstract><jats:p>According to Kant, “right in a state of nature is called private right” (MS, AA VI, S. 242). It is my claim that there is no room for a right to enforce the offer of benefits in the private right. Firstly, I will show how the concept of an innate right to freedom provides no conceptual foundation for a right to enforcement of alleged duties of cooperation. Since my argument is much more conceptual than hermeneutical, Isaiah Berlin’s analysis of negative liberty in “Two Concepts of Liberty” will be helpful here. Secondly, I will argue that the concepts of original acquisition and voluntary transfers are also at odds with the idea of a redistributive justice. At this point, it will be very useful to notice that the first two principles of justice in holdings of Robert Nozick roughly corresponds to the first two sections of Kant’s theory of acquisition of external things in the private right. Finally, I will sketch an objection against political uses of a principle of historical rectification of acquisitions. The principle of rectification is the third and last principle of Nozick’s entitlement theory of justice in distribution, and it should be of concern to Kantians too, since it is a mere principle of rectification of the two first principles. Due to the points I am going to make, I conclude that, if somewhere, redistributivism should make its case in Kant’s doctrine of public right, as a right of a State.</jats:p></jats:abstract><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages><citation_list><citation key="1"><unstructured_citation>1. Berlin, I. 2002, Two Concepts of Liberty, in: Berlin, I. Liberty: Incorporating Four Essays on Liberty, ed. by H. Hardy, Oxford, pp. 166—217.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="2"><unstructured_citation>2. Byrd, B. S. 2010, Intelligible Possession of Objects of Choice, in: Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide, ed. by L. Denis, Cambridge, pp. 93—110.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="3"><unstructured_citation>3. Höffe, O. 2010, Kant’s Innate Right as a Rational Criterion for Human Rights, in: Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide, ed. by L. Denis, Cambridge, pp. 71—92.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="4"><unstructured_citation>4. Kant, I. 2005, On the Common Saying, that May be Correct in Theory, but is of no Use in Practice, in: Practical Philosophy, trans. by M. J. Gregor, Cambridge.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="5"><unstructured_citation>5. Kant, I. 1996, The Metaphysics of Morals. transl. and ed. by M. J. Gregor, Cambridge.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="6"><unstructured_citation>6. Nozick, R., 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, NY.</unstructured_citation></citation></citation_list></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Duty and Coercion in Kant’s Republican Cosmopolitanism</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>Madrid N.</given_name><surname>Sánchez</surname></person_name></contributors><jats:abstract><jats:p>This paper argues whether Kant’s cosmopolitanism entails a specific theory of coercion. I will especially tackle Kant’s account of international political order. First, I claim that Kant attributes a systematic role to the cosmopolitan right, what justifies considering this part of the doctrine of law as a necessary rational conclusion of the legal system, although its institutional embodiment differs from that required by the rights of states. I highlight that according to Kant states may not behave as individual citizens do, since they do not recognize any higher authority than themselves. Second, cosmopolitan law shows that coercion is not an insurmountable condition to fulfill legal obligations, since the cosmopolitan order depends on the moral equality among states, far from involving a hierarchy over governmental structure. Third, I will discuss that the only reason to perform an active role in the political sphere according to Kant stems from the statehood, so that to help other needy and less developed peoples and societies in order to boost that they achieve their autonomy as a state would not belong to the duties that a republic should abide to. Thus, the transformation of a human society into a republican civil union means according to Kant’s account of right the greatest contribution that a state could offer to enhance the cosmopolitan order.</jats:p></jats:abstract><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages><citation_list><citation key="1"><unstructured_citation>1. Beck, V., Culp, J. 2013, Interview of K. Flikschuh, R. Forst and D. Moellendorf, in: Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric 6, pp. 40—53.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="2"><unstructured_citation>2. Bernstein, A. R. 2008, Kant on Rights and Coercion in International Law: Implications for Humanitarian Military Intervention”, in: Jahrbuch für Recht und Ethik 16, pp. 57—100.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="3"><unstructured_citation>3. Bernstein, A. R. 2014, The Right of States, the Rule of Law, and Coercion: Reflections on Pauline Kleingeld’s Kant and Cosmopolitanism, in: Kantian Review 19/2, pp. 233—249.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="4"><unstructured_citation>4. Byrd, S., Hruschka, J. 2010, Kant’s Doctrine of Right. A Commentary, Cambridge.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="5"><unstructured_citation>5. Flikschuh, K. 2007, Duty, Nature, Right: Kant’s Response to Mendelssohn in Theory and Practice III, in: Journal of Moral Philosophy 4/2, pp. 223—241.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="6"><unstructured_citation>6. Flikschuh, K. 2010, Kant’s Sovereignty Dilemma, in: The Journal of Political Philosophy 18/4, pp. 469—493.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="7"><unstructured_citation>7. Flikschuh, K. 2011, On the Cogency of Human Rights, in: Jurisprudence 2011, 2/1, pp. 17—36.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="8"><unstructured_citation>8. Hirsch, J.-A. 2012, Legalization of International Politics: On the (Im)Possibility of a Constitutionalization ot International Law from a Kantian point of view, in: Göttingen Journal of International Law 4/2 (2012), pp. 479—518.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="9"><unstructured_citation>9. Kleingeld, P. 2004, Approaching Perpetual Peace. Kant’s Defence of a League of States and His Idea, in: European Journal of Philosophy 12/3 (2004), pp. 304—325.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="10"><unstructured_citation>10. Kleingeld, P. 2012a, Kant and Cosmopolitanism. The Philosophical Idea of World Citizenship, Cambridge.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="11"><unstructured_citation>11. Kleingeld, P. 2012b, Kant’s changing cosmopolitanism, in: Rorty, A. O., Schmidt J. (ed.), Kant’s Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Aim. A Critical Guide, Cambridge, pp. 171—186.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="12"><unstructured_citation>12. Kleingeld, P. 2014, Patriotism, Peace and Poverty: Reply to Bernstein and Varden, in: Kantian Review 19/2 (2014), pp. 267—284.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="13"><unstructured_citation>13. Lafont, C. 2010, Accountability and global governance: challenging the state-centric conception of human rights, in: Ethics &amp; Global Politics 3/3, pp. 193—215.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="14"><unstructured_citation>14. Maus, I. 2004, Kant’s Reasons against a Global State: Popular Sovereignty as a Principle of International Law, in: Filozofski Godisnuak 17, pp. 81—97.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="15"><unstructured_citation>15. Mertens, T. 2007, Kant’s Cosmopolitan Values and Supreme Emergencies, in: Journal of Social Philosophy 38/2, pp. 222—241.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="16"><unstructured_citation>16. Mikalsen, K. K. 2011, In defense of Kant’s league of states, in: Law and Philosophy 30, pp. 291—317.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="17"><unstructured_citation>17. O’Neill, O. 2005, The dark side of human rights, in: International Affairs 81/2, pp. 427—439.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="18"><unstructured_citation>18. Pogge, T. 1994, An Egalitarian Law of Peoples, in: Philosophy and Public Affairs 23, pp. 195—224.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="19"><unstructured_citation>19. Rawls, J. 2001, The Law of Peoples, Harvard.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="20"><unstructured_citation>20. Ronzoni, M. 2014, Two conceptions of state sovereignty and their implications for global institutional design. In: Macdonald T., Ronzoni M. (ed.), Global Political Justice, New York, pp. 53—71.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="21"><unstructured_citation>21. Ronzoni, M. 2009, The Global Order: A Case of Background Injustice? in: Philosophy &amp; Public Affairs 37/3, pp. 229—256.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="22"><unstructured_citation>22. Sánchez Madrid, 2013, Private property and a priori general united will in Kant’s Rechtslehre. Some troubles with Kant’s alleged foundation of liberalism, in: Studia Kantiana 15, pp. 103—120.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="23"><unstructured_citation>23. Sánchez Madrid, N. 2014. Has social justice legitimacy in Kant’s theory of right? The empirical conditions of the rightful State as a civil union, in: Revista Trans/Form/Açâo 37/1, pp. 127—146.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="24"><unstructured_citation>24. Valentini, L. 2012. Human Rights, Freedom, and Political Authority, in: Political Theory 40/5, pp. 573—601.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="25"><unstructured_citation>25. Varden, H. 2011, A Kantian conception of global justice, in: Review of International Studies 37, pp. 2043—2057.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="26"><unstructured_citation>26. Verdross, A., Simma, B. 2012, Universelles Völkerrecht: Theorie und Praxis, Berlin, 11984.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="27"><unstructured_citation>27. Wenar, L., Milanovic, B. 2009, Are Liberal People Peaceful? in: The Journal of Political Philosophy 17/4, pp. 462—486.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="28"><unstructured_citation>28. Williams, H. 2014, Kantian Underpinnings for a Theory of Multirights», in: A. Follesdal/R. Maliks (ed.)., Kantian Theory and Human Rights. New York: Routledge, pp. 8— 26.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="29"><unstructured_citation>29. Williams, H. 2007, Kant’s Cosmopolitan Right, in: Journal of International Political Theory 3, pp. 57—72.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="30"><unstructured_citation>30. Ypi, L. 2012a, A permissive theory of territorial rights, in: European Journal of Philosophy 22/2, pp. 288—312.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="31"><unstructured_citation>31. Ypi, L. 2012b, Global Justice and Avant-Garde Political Agency, Oxford.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="32"><unstructured_citation>32. Ypi, L. 2013, Cosmopolitism Without If and Without But, in: Brock, G. (ed.), Cosmopolitanism versus Non-Cosmopolitanism. Critiques, Defenses, Reconceptualizations, Oxford, pp. 75—91.</unstructured_citation></citation></citation_list></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Kant’s Perpetual Peace Project and the Project of the European Union</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>A.</given_name><surname>Salikov</surname></person_name></contributors><jats:abstract><jats:p>The article examines the following problems: 1) How well-founded is the comparison of the ideas of Kant’s essay «Towards Perpetual Peace», written in late XVIII century, with the implementation of nowadays project of European Union 2) If such parallels are possible, to what extent the structure of the EU corresponds to Kant’s vision? 3) Which Kantian ideas are of the foremost importance to future development of the EU? Basing on the analysis of Kant’s treatise and of the current structure of the EU, the author arrives to the conclusion that the two projects can suitably be compared. However, such comparison requires viewing the EU as an intermediate stage in the establishment of global peace union. The comparative analysis of Kant’s theory and the European project, the EU in its current form suits Kant’s definition of a federation of sovereign states, united for the purpose of securing peace, and in some respects went even further. The process of European integration has transformed Europe’s regional buildup from the arena of regular war conflicts into the society of peace, prosperity, liberty and right. It is obvious that it its development the EU will undergo difficulties and crises. However, the general direction, chosen by the union of European states, aiming at the development of rights and liberties, at good-will and cooperation between individuals, societies and states perfectly corresponds to the spirit of Kant’s philosophy and should guarantee of success in establishing global peace in the future.</jats:p></jats:abstract><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages><citation_list><citation key="1"><unstructured_citation>1. Kant, I. 1996, Toward Perpetual Peace, in: Kant, I. Practical Philosophy, ed. by M. J. Gregor (The Cambridge Edition), Cambridge.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="2"><unstructured_citation>2. Burgess, M. 2000, Federalism and the European Union: the Building of Europe. 1950—2000. N. Y.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="3"><unstructured_citation>3. Cappeletti M., Secombe M., Weiler J. 1986, Integration Through Law. N. Y.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="4"><unstructured_citation>4. Gerhardt, V. 1995, Immanuel Kants Entwurf „Zum ewigen Frieden“: eine Theorie der Politik. Darmstadt.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="5"><unstructured_citation>5. Habermas, J. 1996, Kants Idee des ewigen Friedens — aus dem historischen Abstand von zweihundert Jahren, in: Lutz-Bachman, M., Bohman, J. (Hg.), Frieden durch Recht. Kants Friedensidee und das Problem einer neuen Weltordnung. Frankfurt a. M. S. 7—24.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="6"><unstructured_citation>6. Hӧffe, O. 1995, Ausblick: Die Vereinten Nationen im Lichte Kants, in: Hӧffe, O. (Hg.), Immanuel Kant. Zum Ewigen Frieden, Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="7"><unstructured_citation>7. Hӧntzsch, F. 2007, Europa auf dem Weg „Zum ewigen Frieden“? Kants Friedensschrift und die Wirklichkeit der Europäischen Union. München.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="8"><unstructured_citation>8. Kouba, P. 2000, Endlichkeit des Friedens, in: Politisches Denken. Jahrbuch 2000, Stuttgart, Weimar, S.119—129.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="9"><unstructured_citation>9. Seidelmann, R. 1998, Kants “Ewiger Friede” und die Neuordnung des Europӓischen Sicherheitssystems, in: Dicke K., Kodalle, K.-M. (Hg.), Republik und Weltbürgerrecht: Kanntische Anregungen zur Theorie politischer Ordnung nach dem Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts, Kӧln. S. 133—180.</unstructured_citation></citation></citation_list></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Hermann Cohens Konzept der Anthropodizee in der Sicht Jacob Gordins</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>N.</given_name><surname>Dmitrieva</surname></person_name></contributors><jats:abstract><jats:p>The paper focuses on the problem of anthropodicy in the philosophical system of Hermann Cohen and its interpretation by Jacob Gordin (1896—1947). Gordin was one of the last followers of Cohen in Russia. He developes his interpretation in the lecture “Anthropodicy”, which was given in the Philosophical Circle at the Petrograd University in December 1921. For the study of the problem of anthropodicy he was apparently inspired by the discussions at the Free Philosophical Association in 1919—1921. Gordin places Cohen’s concept of man in the wide intellectual context given by the ideas of the Russian religious philosophy, German classical philosophy, Neo-Kantianism, and the West European and Jewish mysticism (cabbala). Gordin compares Cohen’s anthropodicy with Vladimir Soloviev’s one and shows that there is a similarity in their approaches. Both philosophers point out that the justification of man is possible only in form of the justification of humanity and not as for Berdyaiev in form of the justification of personality. But Gordin uses Soloviev’s concept of all-unity and Berdyaiev’s concept of creativity in order to “improve” Cohen’s conception and to reveal the contribution of a person to the justification of humanity. Stronger as Cohen Gordin connects the programm of anthropodicy with individuality and underlines the participation of the individual in creating culture.</jats:p></jats:abstract><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages><citation_list><citation key="1"><unstructured_citation>1. AIU (L’Alliance Israélite Universelle) France. AP 13 Fonds Rachel et Jacob Gordin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="2"><unstructured_citation>2. Belous, W. G. 1995, „Rekonstrukcija ‚Antropodiceji‘, ili Samooprawdanije Iwanowa-Rasumnika [Die Rekonstruktion der Anthropodizee, oder die Selbstrechtfertigung Iwanow- Rasumniks]“, in: Russkaja mysl’ [Der Russische Gedanke] (Paris), Nr. 4102, 23.—29. November, S. 10; Nr. 4103, 30. November — 6. Dezember, S. 10.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="3"><unstructured_citation>3. Belous, W. G. 2005a, WOLFILA (Petrogradskaja Wol’naja Filosofskaja Assoziazija) 1919—1924 [Freie Philosophische Assoziation zu Petrograd]. Bd. 1: Predystorija. Zasedanija [Vorgeschichte. Sitzungen]. Moskau.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="4"><unstructured_citation>4. Belous, W. G. 2005b, WOLFILA (Petrogradskaja Wol’naja Filosofskaja Assoziazija) 1919—1924 [Freie Philosophische Assoziation zu Petrograd]. Bd. 2: Khronika. Portrety[Chronik. Porträts]. Moskau.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="5"><unstructured_citation>5. Berdiajew, N. 1927, Der Sinn des Schaffens. Versuch einer Rechtfertigung des Menschen. Übers. R. von Walter. Tübingen.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="6"><unstructured_citation>6. Blok, A. 1921, „Kruschenije gumanisma [Scheitern des Humanismus’]“, in: ders., 1962, Sobranije sotschinenij: W 8 tomach [Sämtliche Werke in 8 Bänden]. Moskau/Leningrad, Bd. 6, S. 93—115.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="7"><unstructured_citation>7. Cohen, H. 1907, „Ethik des reinen Willens“, in: ders., Werke. Hg. Hermann-Cohen- Archiv. Bd. 7: System der Philosophie, 2. T., 6. Aufl., Einleitung von P. A. Schmid. Hildesheim/ Zürich/New York.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="8"><unstructured_citation>8. Cohen, H. 1877, Kants Begründung der Ethik. Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="9"><unstructured_citation>9. Cohen, H. 1910, „Kants Begründung der Ethik“, 2. verbess. und erweit. Aufl., in: ders., Werke. Hg. Hermann-Cohen-Archiv. Bd. 2, 3. Aufl., Einleitung von P. Müller und P. A. Schmid. Hildesheim/Zürich/New York.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="10"><unstructured_citation>10. Cohen, H. 2003, „Reflexionen und Notizen“, in: ders., Werke. Supplementa. Hg. Hermann-Cohen-Archiv. Bd. 1. Hg. H. Wiedebach. Hildesheim/Zürich/New York.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="11"><unstructured_citation>11. Dmitrieva, N. A. 2013, „Geschichtskonzepte im russischen Neukantianismus: Nikolai Boldyrev und Jacob Gordin“, in: Der Begriff der Geschichte im Marburger und Südwestdeutschen Neukantianismus. Hg. Ch. Krijnen und M. de Launay. Würzburg, S. 173—193.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="12"><unstructured_citation>12. Gordin, J. 1995, Écrit. Le renouveau de la pensée juive en France. Textes réunis et présentés par M. Goldmann, avec préface de L. Askénazi. Paris.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="13"><unstructured_citation>13. Gordin, J. 1929, Untersuchungen zur Theorie des unendlichen Urteils. Berlin. (Veröffentlichungen der Hermann Cohen-Stiftung bei der Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums).</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="14"><unstructured_citation>14. Gurljand-Eljaschewa, E. S. 1921, „Ideja twortscheskogo sosnanija w dramach Ibsena [Die Idee des schöpferischen Bewußtseins in den Dramen Ibsens]“, in: Iskusstvo staroje i nowoje. Sbornik [Alte und neue Kunst. Sammelband]. Hg. K. Erberg. Petersburg, S. 149—186.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="15"><unstructured_citation>15. Holzhey, H. 2006, „Ethik als Lehre vom Menschen. Eine Einführung in Hermann Cohens ‚Ethik des reinen Willens‘“, in: Hermann Cohen’s Ethics. Hg. R. Gibbs. Leiden/Boston, S. 17—36.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="16"><unstructured_citation>16. Iwanowa, E. W. 1996. „Wol’naja Filosofskaja Assoziazija. Trudy i dni [Freie Philosophische Assoziation. Werke und Tage]“, in: Jezhegodnik Rukopisnogo otdela Puschkinskogo doma na 1992 god [Jahrbuch der Handschriftenabteilung des Puschkin-Hauses]. Sankt-Petersburg, S. 3—77.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="17"><unstructured_citation>17. Iwanowa, E. W., Mestergasi, E. G. (Hg.) 2010, Wol’naja Filosofskaja Assoziazija [Freie Philosophische Assoziation]. 1919—1924. Moskau.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="18"><unstructured_citation>18. Solowjew, W. 1976. „Die Rechtfertigung des Guten. Eine Moralphilosophie“. Übers. P. Rossbacher und L. Müller, in: ders., Deutsche Gesamtausgabe der Werke. Hg. W. Szyłkarski, W. Lettenbauer und L. Müller. Bd. 5. München.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="19"><unstructured_citation>19. Steinberg, A. 1936, Die Idee der Freiheit. Ein Dostojewskij-Buch. Luzern.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="20"><unstructured_citation>20. Steinberg, A. 2011, Filosofskije sotschinenija [Philosophische Werke]. Hg. W. G. Belous, Kommentare von W. G. Belous und L. N. Stolowitsch. Sankt-Petersburg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="21"><unstructured_citation>21. Windelband, W. 1920, Einleitung in die Philosophie. 2. Aufl. Tübingen. (Grundriss der philosophischen Wissenschaften, Hg. F. Medicus).</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="22"><unstructured_citation>22. Zank, M. 2000. The Idea of Atonement in the Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Providence, Rhode Island. (Brown Judaic studies; no. 324).</unstructured_citation></citation></citation_list></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Königsberger Kant-Forschung: Allgemeine Aufgaben und Popularisierung</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>A.</given_name><surname>Zilber</surname></person_name></contributors><jats:abstract><jats:p>The first part of the article describes general development of Kant studies in Königsberg as a local movement (not a school) with some special traits, which has significantly contributed to the culture of the town. Core activities were formed by the Society of Kant’s Friends, as well as by archival studies, i. e. collecting, annotating and publishing Kant’s manuscripts, correspondence, and lecture notes. In view of primary and secondary sources we would suggest to structure this movement in four lines: popularization; biographical research; collection and publication of manuscripts, letters and lecture notes; interpretation and reception of Kant's ideas. A more detailed description is given for the first line — an activity of persons of different occupations, which was more or less popularizing. It began during Kant’s lifetime and concluded with the last echoes of Königsberg culture while the town was no more part of Germany. It was an important part of the whole philosophical culture of East Prussia, and, in some sense, even a factor of self-identification. This process, with a large variety of tasks and solutions in its interlacing and intermittent threads, has played an important role at the beginnings and development of other lines of the local Kant studies. Successes and failures are shown not only in our description, but also lively and emotional from the own standpoint of heroes of this history. Prospects for in-depth research are also outlined.</jats:p></jats:abstract><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages><citation_list><citation key="1"><unstructured_citation>1. Brückmann, R. 1919, Immanuel Kant. Sein Leben und seine Lehre. Volkstümlich dargestellt, Königsberg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="2"><unstructured_citation>2. Brückmann, R. 1925, Kants Leben und Wirken. Dem deutschen Volke und seiner Jugend gewidmet, Königsberg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="3"><unstructured_citation>3. Butzlaff, J. 2005, Rosenkranz, Johann Karl Friedrich, in Neue Deutsche Biographie, Bd. 22, pp. 70—71.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="4"><unstructured_citation>4. Dietzsch, S. 1986, Karl Rozenkranс i ego «Istorija Kantowoj Filosofii» [Karl Rosenkranz und seine „Geschichte der Kantischen Philosophie“], in Kantovskij Sbornik [Kant Collection], no. 11, pp. 98—106.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="5"><unstructured_citation>5. Dietzsch, S. 2005, Karl Rosenkranz und die Entdeckung des Deutschen Idealismus. Vortrag am Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Gesellschaft am 19 Mai 2005. URL: http://www.gottfried- wilhelm-leibniz-gesellschaft.de/fileadmin/user_upload/user_upload/Textarchiv/ Dietzsch2005.doc</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="6"><unstructured_citation>6. Gause, F. 1936, Schulz, Johann, in Altpreußische Biographie, Königsberg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="7"><unstructured_citation>7. Hinske, N. 2013, Verschenkte Jahre. Noch einmal zu den Leistungen, Problemen und Mängeln der Kant’s Akademie-Ausgabe, in Lexicon Philosophicum, 2013, no.1.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="8"><unstructured_citation>8. Jachmann, R. B. 1974, Immanuel Kant geschildert in Briefen an einen Freund. Sechster Brief, in S. Drescher, ed. 1974, Wer war Kant? Drei zeitgenössische Biographien, Pfullingen.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="9"><unstructured_citation>9. Kopper, J. and Malter, R. eds., 1974, Immanuel Kant zu ehren, Frankfurt a. M.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="10"><unstructured_citation>10. Krollmann, C. 1936, Brückmann, August Rudolf, in Altpreußische Biographie, Königsberg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="11"><unstructured_citation>11. Malter, R. ed. 1992, „Denken wir uns aber als verpflichtet...“ Königsberger Kant-Ansprachen 1804—1945, Erlangen.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="12"><unstructured_citation>12. Malter, R. 1993, Geselligkeit — Philosophie — Humanität. 180 Jahre „Gesellschaft der Freunde Kants“, in Jahrbuch der Albertus-Universität Königsberg, Bd. 28, pp. 81—98.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="13"><unstructured_citation>13. Metz, A. 1802, Darstellung der Hauptmomente der Elementarlehre der Kantischen Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Bamberg; Würzburg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="14"><unstructured_citation>14. Rosenkranz, K. 1840, Geschichte der Kantischen Philosophie, in K. Rosenkranz and W. Schubert, eds. 1840, Kant I., Sämtliche Werke, Leipzig, Bd. 12.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="15"><unstructured_citation>15. Rosenkranz, K. 1844, Über die Entwicklung der philosophischen Naturwissenschaft von Kant bis Hegel, in Studien, Leipzig. Tl. 2. S. 1—41.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="16"><unstructured_citation>16. Rosenkranz, K. 1838, Vorrede zur gesamten Ausgabe, in K. Rosenkranz and W. Schubert, eds. 1838, Kant I., Sämtliche Werke, Leipzig, Bd. 1.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="17"><unstructured_citation>17. [Rosikat, A.] 1914, Das Kant-Bohnenmahl 1914, in Königsberger Hartungsche Zeitung, no. 188, 23.4.1914, Abendausgabe, 2. Blatt.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="18"><unstructured_citation>18. Schöndörffer, D. 1936, Schöndörffer, Otto Konrad, in Altpreußische Biographie, Königsberg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="19"><unstructured_citation>19. Schöndörffer, O. 1924, Die Fundamente der kantischen Philosophie, Königsberg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="20"><unstructured_citation>20. Schröpfer, H. 2003, Kants Weg in die Öffentlichkeit, Stuttgart—Bad Cannstatt.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="21"><unstructured_citation>21. Schubert, F. W. 1840, Immanuel Kant's Biographie: zum grossen Theil nach handschriftlichen Nachrichten, in K. Rosenkranz and W. Schubert, eds. 1840, Kant I., Sämtliche Werke, Leipzig, Bd. 11, Abt. 2.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="22"><unstructured_citation>22. Schultz, J. 1789, Prüfung der Kantischen Critik der reinen Vernunft, in 2. Tln., Königsberg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="23"><unstructured_citation>23. Schulze, J. 1791, Erläuterungen über des Herrn Professor Kant Critik der reinen Vernunft, Königsberg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="24"><unstructured_citation>24. Schütz, C. G. 1785, Königsberg, bey Dengel: Erläuterungen über des Herrn Professor Kant Critik der reinen Vernunft von Johann Schulze, Königl. Preussischem Hofprediger (Rezension), in Jenaische Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, no. 162, pp. 41—44; no. 164, pp. 53—56; no.178, no. 179, pp. 121—128.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="25"><unstructured_citation>25. Stark, W. 1993, Nachforschungen zu Briefen und Handschriften Immanuel Kants, Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="26"><unstructured_citation>26. Stavenhagen, K. 1949, Kant und Königsberg, Göttingen.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="27"><unstructured_citation>27. Tilitzki, C. 2004, Zur königsberger Kant-Tradition im 20. Jahrhundert, in Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands, Bd. 50, pp. 191—87.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="28"><unstructured_citation>28. Vorländer, K. 1918, Die ältesten Kant-Biographien. Eine kritische Studie, Berlin.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="29"><unstructured_citation>29. Vorländer, K. 1992, Immanuel Kant: Der Mann und das Werk, 3. Aufl, Hamburg.</unstructured_citation></citation><citation key="30"><unstructured_citation>30. Zilber, A. 2014, Kantovedenie v Kenigsberge: 1784—1948 [Kant Studies in Königsberg: 1784—1948], in Kantovskij Sbornik [Kant Collection], no. 49, pp. 92—122.</unstructured_citation></citation></citation_list></journal_article><journal_article publication_type="full_text"><titles><title>Neukantianismus-Forschung heute. Ein Literaturbericht</title></titles><contributors><person_name sequence="first" contributor_role="author"><given_name>Ch.</given_name><surname>Krijnen</surname></person_name></contributors><publication_date media_type="print"><month>06</month><day>02</day><year>2026</year></publication_date><pages><first_page>1</first_page><last_page>1</last_page></pages></journal_article></journal></body></doi_batch>
