NONE20260531134519670Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370105312026392V. RoubaMargaritaThe study of the “first wave” of reactions to the Critique of Pure Reason in Germany from the second half of the 1780s until the beginning of the nineteenth century reveals the paradoxical status of the Kantian transcendental subject. While the existence of the transcendental subject, whatever the term means, is not open to question since it arises from the very essence of critical philosophy, the fundamental status of the subject is sometimes questioned in this period. Although the meaning of the concept of transcendental subject seems obvious today (the subject of cognition, bearer of transcendental conditions of experience) it lends itself to various interpretations in the late eighteenth century. To achieve my goal I have undertaken a textological analysis of the works of the earliest opponents and followers of the Kantian critique and a reconstruction of the conceptual field in the midst of which the transcendental subject has been planted. Among others I draw on the works of J. S. Beck, J. A. Eberhard, J. G. Hamann, F. H. Jacobi, S. Maimon, K. L. Reinhold, G. E. Schulze and A. Weishaupt. The authors of the period are grouped depending on the common themes and questions that prompted them to turn to the concept of the transcendental subject, even though the results of their reflections did not always coincide. These authors think of the transcendental subject in its relationship to the transcendental object, or as “something = х”, and in terms of the relationship of representation to the object. It is characterised sometimes as something absolutely hollow, and sometimes as the fullness of true reality. The status ascribed to the transcendental subject is sometimes that of a thing-in-itself and sometimes that of a “mere” idea. Finally, Kant’s transcendental subject was sometimes seen as something to be overcome and sometimes as an infinite challenge to understanding.0531202611Azeri, S., 2010. Transcendental Subject vs. Empirical Self: on Kant’s Account of Subjectivity. Filozofia, 65(3), pp. 269-283.Baumann, Ch., 2017. Kant, Neo-Kantians, and Transcendental Subjectivity. European Journal of Philosophy, 25(3), pp. 595-616.Beck, J. S., 1793. Erläuternder Auszug aus den critischen Schriften des Herrn Prof. Kant: erster Band. Riga: J. F. Hartknoch.Beck, J. S., 1796. Einzig-möglicher Standpunct, aus welchem die critische Philosophie beurtheilt werden muß. Riga: J. F. Hartknoch.Cohen, H., 1885. Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Berlin: Dümmler.Eberhard, J. A., 1789. Ueber das Gebiet des reinen Verstandes. Philosophisches Magazin (Hg. von J. A. Eberhard). Part 3. Volume 1. Halle: J. J. Gebauer, pp. 263-289.Glasersfeld, E., 1981. Einführung in den Radikalen Konstruktivismus. In: P. Watzlawick, ed. 1981. Die Erfundene Wirklichkeit. München: Piper, pp. 16-38.Hamann, J. G., 2007. Metacritique on the Purism of Reason. In: K. Haynes, ed. 2007. Hamann: Writings on Philosophy and Language. Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 205-218.Jacobi, F. H., 1815. Beylage. Ueber den transscendentalen Idealismus. In: F. H. Jacobi, 1815. Werke. In 6 volumes. Volume 2. Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer, pp. 289-310.Jacobi, F. H., 1816. Ueber das Unternehmen des Kriticismus, die Vernunft zu Verstande zu bringen. In: F. H. Jacobi, 1816. Werke. In 6 volumes. Volume 3. Leipzig: Gerhard Fleischer, pp. 58-195.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2002. On a Discovery Whereby Any New Critique of Pure Reason Is to Be Made Superfluous by an Older One. Translated by H. Allison. In: I. Kant, 2002. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Edited by H. Allison and P. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 281-336.Karmin, A. S., 1983. Problem of Subject and Object in Kant’s Theory of Knowledge. Kantian Journal, 8(1), pp. 33-54. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A. N., 2005. Did Kant Have a Transcendental Subject? History of Philosophy Yearbook 2004, pp. 279-295. (In Rus.)Lektorskij, V. A., 1980. Sub’ekt, ob’ekt, poznanie [Subject, Object, Cognition]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Rus.)Lyubutin, K. N., 1980. Kant’s Philosophy and the Problem of Transcendental Subject. Issues of Kant’s Theoretical Heritage, 5(1), pp. 3-18. (In Rus.)Maimon, S., 1912. Versuch einer neuen Logik oder Theorie des Denkens; nebst angehängten Briefen des Philaletes an Aenesidemus. In: S. Maimon, 1912. Neudrucke seltener philosophischer Werke. Volume 3. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Maimon, S., 2010. Essay on Transcendental Philosophy. Translated by N. Midgley, H. Somers-Hall, A. Welchman and M. M. Reglitz. London: Continuum.Nitzan, L., 2014. Jacob Sigismund Beck’s Standpunctslehre and the Kantian Thing-in-itself Debate. Cham: Springer.Reinhold, K. L., 2011. Essay on a New Theory of the Human Capacity for Representation. Translated by T. Mehigan and B. Empson. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Rouba, M. V., 2019. The Problem of the Transcendental Subject and Its Justification in Kant’s Critical Philosophy. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy and Psychology, 2, pp. 9-14. (In Rus.)Schopenhauer, A., 1969. Appendix: Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy. In: A. Schopenhauer, 1969. The World as Will and Representation. In 2 volumes. Volume 1. Translated by E. F. J. Payne. New York: Dover Publications, pp. 413-534.Schulze, G. E., 1801. Kritik der theoretischen Philosophie: in 2 Bänden. Volume 1. Hamburg: C. E. Bohn.Schulze, G. E., 1824. Encyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften zum Gebrauche für seine Vorlesungen. Dritte, sehr verbesserte und vermehrte Ausgabe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Schulze, G. E., 2000. Aenesidemus or Concerning the Foundations of the Philosophy of the Elements Issued by Professor Reinhold in Jena Together with a Defense of Skepticism against the Pretensions of the Critique of Reason. In: G. E. Schulze, 2000. Between Kant and Hegel: Texts in the Development of Post-Kantian Idealism. Translated by G. di Giovanni, H. S. Harris. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, pp. 104-135.Soboleva, M. E., 2018. How Do We Read Kant, or Kant in the Context of Contemporary Epistemological Discussions in Western Analytic Kant-Studies. Voprosy Filosofii, 3, pp. 129-140. (In Rus.)Watzlawick, P., 1992. Wirklichkeitsanpassung oder angepasste “Wirklichkeit”? Konstruktivismus und Psychotherapie. In: H. von Foerster, E. von Glasersfeld, P. M. Hejl, S. J. Schmidt, P. Watzlawick, 1992. Einführung in den Konstruktivismus. München: Piper, pp. 89-107.Weishaupt, A., 1788а. Ueber die Gründe und Gewisheit der menschlichen Erkenntniß. Zur Prüfung der Kantischen Critik der reinen Vernunft. Nürnberg: Grattenauer.Weishaupt, A., 1788b. Ueber die Kantischen Anschauungen und Erscheinungen. Nürnberg: Grattenauer.Zöller, G., 2015. Selbstbewusstsein, reines. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr, S. Bacin, eds. 2015. Kant-Lexikon. Volume 3. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 2070-2071.LewinMichaelI argue that Kant has developed a broad systematic account of the architectonic functionality of pure reason that can be used and advanced in contemporary contexts. Reason, in the narrow sense, is responsible for the picture of a well-ordered universe of science consisting of architectonic ideas of science, sciences and parts of sciences. In the first section (I), I show what Kant means by the architectonic ideas by explaining and interrelating the concepts of (a) the faculty of reason, (b) ideas (as principles), (c) method, and (d) sciences of reason. Thereafter (II), I think through his holistic understanding of science and scientific progress and suggest differentiating between four levels of use of architectonic ideas, drawing on the metaphor of a well-structured universe as imagined by Kant in his work on the Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens. I also claim that each possible idea of reason can be (apart from its primary function) additionally regarded as a fourth-level architectonic concept when explicitly conceived as an object of (e. g. philosophical) studies, i. e. from a mere methodological perspective. In the final section (III), I unveil the potential of Kant’s theory by pointing out how this architectonic methodological function of pure reason is tacitly used in Karl-Otto Apel’s contemporary philosophical research programme.0531202611Apel, K.-O., 1988. Diskurs und Verantwortung. Das Problem des Übergangs zur postkonventionellen Moral. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Apel, K.-O., 1994a. Selected Essays, Volume 1: Towards a Transcendental Semiotics. Edited by E. Mendieta. New Jersey: Humanities Press.Apel, K.-O., 1994b. From a Transcendental-Semiotic Point of View. Edited by M. Papastephanou. Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press.Apel, K.-O., 1996. Selected Essays, Volume 2: Ethics and the Theory of Rationality. Edited by E. Mendieta. New Jersey: Humanities Press.Bunte, M., 2016. Erkenntnis und Funktion. Zur Vollständigkeit der Urteilstafel und Einheit des kantischen Systems. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.Förster, E., 2015. Transzendentalphilosophie. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr and S. Bacin, eds. 2015. Kant-Lexikon. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter, pp. 2319-2325.Friedman, M., 1992. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Gava, G., 2014. Kant’s Definition of Science in the Architectonic of Pure Reason and the Essential Ends of Reason. In: Kant-Studien, 105(3), pp. 372-393.Habermas, J., 2003. Truth and Justification. Translated by B. Fultner. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Kant, I., 1991. The Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 1992. The Jäsche Logic, in: Lectures on logic. Translated by J. M. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 521-640.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgement. Translated by P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2002. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by W. S. Pluhar. Introduction by S. Engstrom. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett.Kant, I., 2015. Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens or Essay on the Constitution and the Mechanical Origin of the Whole Universe According to Newtonian Principles. Translated by O. Reinhardt. In: E. Watkins, ed. 2015. Kant: Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182-308.Kitcher, P., 1983. Kant’s Philosophy of Science. In: P. French, T. Uehling and H. Wettstein, eds. 1983. Midwest Studies in Philosophy VIII: Contemporary Perspectives on the History of Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 387-408.Klimmek, N.F., 2005. Kants System der transzendentalen Ideen. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Lewin, M., 2018. Ist die theoretische Vernunft selbst eine Idee? Fichtes Umgang mit Kantischen Ideen um 1810. In: Fichte-Studien, 46, pp. 288-307.Lewin, M., 2020. Reason, Ideas and Their Functions in Classical German Philosophy. Vestnik of Saint-Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 36(1), pp. 4-23. (In Rus.)Lewin, M., (in press) Das System der Ideen. Die Begründung der Vernunft und das Problem der unterschiedlichen Ansprüche. Freiburg & München: Alber.Manchester, P., 2008. Kant’s Conception of Architectonic in its Philosophical Context. In: Kant-Studien, 99(2), pp. 187-207.McRae, R., 1957. Kant’s Conception of the Unity of the Sciences. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 18, pp. 1-17.Meer, R., 2019. Der transzendentale Grundsatz der Vernunft. Funktion und Struktur des Anhangs zur transzendentalen Dialektik der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.Nuzzo, A., 1995. ‚Idee‘ bei Kant und Hegel. In: C. Fricke, P. König and T. Petersen, eds. 1995. Das Recht der Vernunft. Kant und Hegel über Denken, Erkennen und Handeln. Stuttgart: frommann-holzboog, pp. 81-120.Pissis, J., 2012. Kants transzendentale Dialektik. Zu ihrer systematischen Bedeutung. Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.Sturm, T., 2009. Kant und die Wissenschaften vom Menschen. Paderborn: mentis.Sturm, T., 2020. Kant on the Ends of the Sciences. Kant-Studien, 111(1), pp. 1-28.Switzer, A., 2014. The Traditional Form of a Complete Science: Baumgarten’s Metaphysica in Kant’s Architectonic of Pure Reason. In: Philosophica, 44, pp. 149-164.Watkins, E., ed. 2001. Kant and the Sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.Willaschek, M., 2018. Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics. The Dialectic of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.LangthalerRudolfNumerous passages in the context of Kant’s philosophy of religion show without doubt his acquaintance with Lessing. But apart from the obvious affinity and agreement between Kant and Lessing with regard to many substantial questions, serious differences cannot be overlooked; the frequently diagnosed closeness and widely suspected “harmony” between the two is probably also the primary reason why important factual differences and controversial aspects have so far usually been neglected or ignored in research, although they still continue to raise problems and controversies in the context of the Enlightenment and the philosophy of religion. Although Lessing and Kant are both committed to the ideas of the Enlightenment and also appear as “related in essence”, above all with regard to religio-philosophical questions, Kant’s “moral determined monotheism” also contains an obvious criticism of Lessing’s religio-philosophical doctrines. This is also obvious in Kant’s — direct and indirect — confrontation with the “Ring Parable” in Lessing’s drama Nathan the Wise. The criticism that becomes apparent there concerns above all the question of “principles” left unclarified by Lessing, the “equal rank” of the monotheistic religions which he claimed, and the asserted “competition of religions.” I investigate some of the main points of this criticism.0531202611Allison, H. E., 2011. Reason, Revelation, and History in Lessing and Kant. In: F. Rush und J. Stolzenberg, Hg. 2011. Internationales Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus 2009, Band 7. Berlin und New York: De Gryuter, S. 35-57.Arnoldt, E., 1908. Gesammelte Schriften. Band 4: Kritische Exkurse im Gebiete der Kantforschung. Teil 1. Herausgegeben von O. Schöndörffer. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Bohatec, J., 1938. Die Religionsphilosophie Kants in der „Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft“. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung ihrer theologisch-dogmatischen Quellen. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.Cunico, G., 2015. Lessing: die Religionen im Gespräch und die Religion der Zukunft. In: G. Cunico, 2015. Wege dorthin — Perspektiven des religiösen Gesprächs der Menschheit. Regensburg: S. Roderer, S. 42-59.Fick, M., 2010. Lessing-Handbuch. Leben — Werk — Wirkung. 3. Auflage. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.Fischer, K., 1881. G. E. Lessing als Reformator der deutschen Literatur. Teil 2: Nathan der Weise. 3., neu bearbeitete Auflage. Stuttgart: Verlag der J. G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung.Fischer, K., 1910. Geschichte der neuern Philosophie. 5. Band: Immanuel Kant und seine Lehre. 2. Teil: Das Vernunftsystem auf der Grundlage der Vernunftkritik. 5. Auflage. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Glasenapp, H. v., 1954. Kant und die Religionen des Ostens. Kitzingen am Main: Holzner.Henrich, D., 1966. Zu Kants Begriff der Philosophie. Eine Edition und eine Fragestellung. In: F. Kaulbach und J. Ritter, Hg. 1966. Kritik und Metaphysik. Studien. Heinz Heimsoeth zum 80. Geburtstag. Berlin: De Gruyter, S. 40-59.Hume, D., 2007. Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, and Other Writings. Edited by N. Coleman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Irrlitz, G., 2002. Kant-Handbuch. Leben und Werk. Stuttgart und Weimar: J. B. Metzler.Kant, I., 1924. Die philosophischen Hauptvorlesungen Immanuel Kants: nach den neu aufgefundenen Kollegheften des Grafen Heinrich zu Dohna-Wundlacken. Herausgegeben von A. Kowalewski. München und Leipzig: Rösl.Langthaler, R. (im Erscheinen). Kant — ein Kritiker Lessings? Unübersehbare Übereinstimmungen, vielfältige Differenzen. Berlin: De Gruyter.Leibniz, G. W., 1879. Die Theodicee. Übersetzung durch J. H. von Kirchmann. Leipzig: Dürr.Lessing, G. E., 1750. Gedanken über die Herrnhuter. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1898. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 14. Leipzig: G. J. Göschen, S. 154-163.Lessing, G. E., 1751. Göttingen. Joachim Oporin: Die Religion und Hoffnung im Tode... Aus: Critischen Nachrichten aus dem Reiche der Gelehrsamkeit. Auf das Jahr 1951. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1889. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 4. Stuttgart: G. J. Göschen, S. 276-278.Lessing, G. E., 1777a. Gegensätze des Herausgebers. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1897. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 12. Leipzig: G. J. Göschen, S. 428-450.Lessing, G. E., 1777b. Über den Beweis des Geistes und der Kraft. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1897. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 13. Leipzig: G. J. Göschen, S. 1-8.Lessing, G. E., 1778a. Anti-Goeze. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1897. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 13. Leipzig: G. J. Göschen, S. 141-216.Lessing, G. E., 1778b. Axiomata, wenn es deren in dergleichen Dingen gibt. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1897. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 13. Leipzig: G. J. Göschen, S. 107-140.Lessing, G. E., 1778c. Brief an Karl Lessing. Wolfenbüttel, den 20.10.1778 [Nr. 615]. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1907. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 18. Leipzig: G. J. Göschen, S. 289-290.Lessing, G. E., 1779a. Brief an Karl Lessing. Wolfenbüttel, den 18.04.1779 [Nr. 642]. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1907. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 18. Leipzig: G. J. Göschen, S. 314-315.Lessing, G. E., 1779b. Vorrede und Abhandlungen zu Nathan dem Weisen. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1902. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 16. Leipzig: G. J. Göschen, S. 444-445.Lessing, G. E., 1780. Die Erziehung des Menschengeschlechts. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1897. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 13. Leipzig: G. J. Göschen, S. 415-436.Lessing, G.E., 1795. Daß mehr als fünf Sinne für den Menschen seyn können. In: K. Lachmann, Hg. 1902. Lessings sämtliche Schriften. 3. aufs neue durchgesehene und vermehrte Auflage besorgt durch F. Müncker [in 23 Bänden], Band 16. Stuttgart und Leipzig: G. J. Göschen, S. 522-525.Lessing, G. E., 1983. Nathan der Weise. Ein dramatisches Gedicht in fünf Aufzügen. Stuttgart: Reclam.Jaspers, K., 1981. Die großen Philosophen. Nachlass 2. Fragmente, Anmerkungen, Invertar. Hg. von H. Saner. München: Piper.Malter, R., Hg. 1990. Immanuel Kant in Rede und Gespräch. Hamburg: F. Meiner.Mendelssohn, M., 1781. Brief an Karl Gotthelf Lessing. Februar 1781. In: M. Mendelssohn, 1977. Gesammelte Schriften. Jubiläumsausgabe. Hg. von A. Altmann, M. Brocke u. a., Band 13: Briefwechsel III. 1781—1785. Stuttgart und Bad Canstatt: frommann-holzboog, S. 6-7.Nisbet, H. B., Lessing. Eine Biographie. Aus dem Englischen übersetzt von K. S. Guthke. München: C. H. Beck, 2008.Rohrmoser, G., 1970. Emanzipation und Freiheit. München: Goldmann.Timm, H., 1983. Der dreieinige Ring. Lessings parabolischer Gottesbeweis mit der Ringparabel des Nathan. Euphorion. Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte, 77, S. 113-126.Vollhardt, F., 2013. Aufklärerische Religionskritik und historische Reflexion im Werk G. E. Lessings. In: H. Feger, Hg. 2013. The Fate of Reason. Contemporary Understanding of Enlightenment. Würzburg: Könighausen & Neumann, S. 85-93.Vorländer, K., 1977. Immanuel Kant. Der Mann und das Werk. 2., erweiterte Auflage. Mit einem Beitrag „Kants Opus postumum“ von W. Ritzel. [2 Bände in einem Band]. Unter Mitarbeit von K. Kopper, herausgegeben von R. Malter. Hamburg: Meiner.Warda, A., 1922. Immanuel Kants Bücher. Berlin: M. Breslauer.A. KolerovModest0531202611Borisova, I.V., Davydova, L.S., 1998. Questions of Philosophy and Psychology (1889—1918). Index of the Content. In: Studies in Russian Intellectual History. Yearbook for 1998, 2. Moscow: OGI, pp. 427-523. (In Rus.)Bulgakov, S.N., 2007. On the Need to Introduce Social Sciences in the Program of the Theological School (1906). In: M. A. Kolerov, ed. 2007. Studies in Russian Intellectual History. Yearbook for 2004/2005, 7. Moscow: Modest Kolerov, pp. 265-277. (In Rus.)Ermichev, A.A., ed. 2001. Filosofskoe soderzhanie russkih zhurnalov nachala XX v. Stat’i, zametki i recenzii v literaturno-obshchestvennyh i filosofskih izdaniyah 1901—1922 gg.: bibliograficheskij ukazatel’ [Philosophical Content of Russian Journals of the Beginning of the XX century. Articles, Notes and Reviews in the Literary, Social and Philosophical Publications of 1901—1922: Bibliographic Index]. Saint Petersburg: RHGA. (In Rus.)Ermichev, A.A., ed. 2006. Filosofskoe soderzhanie russkih zhurnalov nachala XX v. Vypusk 2: Stat’i, zametki i recenzii v izdaniyah duhovnyh i svetskih uchebnyh zavedenij, obshchenauchnyh, kritiko-bibliograficheskih, obshchestvenno-politicheskih i inyh zhurnalah: bibliograficheskij ukazatel’ [Philosophical Content of Russian Journals of the Beginning of the 20th Century. Issue 2: Articles, Notes and Reviews in Publications of Spiritual and Secular Educational Institutions, Scientific, Critical-bibliographic, Socio-political and Other Journals: Bibliographic Index]. Saint Petersburg: RHGA. (In Rus.)Frank, S.L., 1909. Pan-Ideal. In: M. A. Kolerov, ed. 2018. Arheologiya Russkogo Politicheskogo Idealizma: 1904—1927. Ocherki i Dokumenty. [Archeology of Russian Political Idealism: 1904—1927. Essays and Documents]. Moscow: Common Place, pp. 288-291. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M.A., 1993. Philosophy in the Critical Review (1907—1909) [Index]. Logos, 4, pp. 309-313. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M.A., 2004a. Social Sciences in the Journal “Narodnoye Khozyaistvo” (1900—1905). Index. In: Studies in Russian Intellectual History. Yearbook for 2003, 6. Moscow: Modest Kolerov, pp. 802-810. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M.A., 2004b. “Mysl’” (1922). Index of the Content. In: Studies in Russian Intellectual History. Yearbook for 2003, 6. Moscow: Modest Kolerov, pp. 811-814. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M.A., 2009. N. O. Lossky: Lipps and Høffding. Two Reviews from the Journal “Kniga” (1906—1907). In: Studies in Russian Intellectual History. Yearbook for 2006/2007, 8. Moscow: Modest Kolerov, pp. 367-372. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M.A., 2016. Notes on the Archeology of Russian Thought: (…) Kareev on Sorokin, Askoldov on Lapshin (...). In: Studies in Russian Intellectual History. Yearbook for 2015, 12. Moscow: Modest Kolerov, pp. 277-282. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M.A., 2017. Reviews of Bulgakov and Berdyaev in the Journal “Kniga” (1906—1907). In: M. A. Kolerov, ed. 2017. Ot marksisma k idealismu i tserkvi (1897—1927): issledobaniya, materialy, ukazateli. [From Marxism to Idealism and the Church (1897—1927): Research, Materials, Indexes]. Moscow: Tsiolkovsky Bookstore Publishing, pp. 125-144. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M.A., 2018a. New Editions and Texts of Sources on the History of Russian Thought. Part 1: (...) S. Bulgakov. German Science on Morozov’s Interpretation of the Apocalypse (1912) (...). In: History. Scientific Review OSTKRAFT, 1. Moscow: Modest Kolerov, pp. 109-111. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M.A., 2018b. “Ispovednichestvo” V. V. Zenkovskogo v Gazete “Narod” (1906) [“Confessionalism” by V. V. Zenkovsky in the Newspaper “Narod” (1906)]. In: M. A. Kolerov, ed. 2018. Arheologiya russkogo politicheskogo idealizma: 1904—1927. Ocherki i dokumenty. [Archeology of Russian Political Idealism: 1904—1927. Essays and Documents]. Moscow: Common Place, pp. 260-277. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M.A., 2019a. New Evidence of a Contemporary about Vladimir Solovyov. Appendix: L. E. Obolensky. My Personal Memories of V. S. Solovyov (1900). In: Studies in Russian Intellectual History. Yearbook for 2019, 15. Moscow: Modest Kolerov, pp. 9-23. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M.A., 2019b. New Publications of Documents on the History of Russian Thought. Part 3: “Russkiye Vedomosti” in 1918: (...) Peter Struve. [Review:] A. A. Manuilov. Political Economy. Lectures. Issue 1. Moscow, 1918; Peter Struve. [Review:] B. E. Budde. Fundamentals of the Concept of Normal Economy. Kazan, 1918. In: History. Scientific Review OSTKRAFT, 4(10). Moscow: Modest Kolerov, pp. 100-104. (In Rus.)Lossky, N.O., 2007. Philosophy at the University: (On the Question of the Charter) (1915). In: M. A. Kolerov, ed. 2007. Studies in Russian Intellectual History. Yearbook for 2004/2005, 7. Moscow: Modest Kolerov, pp. 278-282. (In Rus.)Mezhuev, B.V., 1998. To the Problem of V. S. Solovyov’s Late “Aesthetics” (Experience of Reading Newspaper Obituaries). In: Studies in Russian Intellectual History. Yearbook for 1998, 2. Moscow: OGI, pp. 257-284. (In Rus.)P. BesedinArtem0531202611Kant, I., 1991. Conjectures on the Beginning of Human History. In: I. Kant, 1991. Political Writings. Edited by H. Reiss, translated by H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221-235.Korsgaard, C.M., 1996a. Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Korsgaard, C.M., 1996b. The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Korsgaard, C.M., 2004. Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals. In: G. B. Peterson, ed. 2004. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Volume 25/26. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, pp. 77-110.Korsgaard, C.M., 2008. The Constitution of Agency: Essays on Practical Reason and Moral Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Korsgaard, C.M., 2009. Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Korsgaard, C.M., 2018. Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Regan, T., 1985. The Case for Animal Rights. In: P. Singer, ed. 1985. In Defense of Animals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 13-26.Vasilyev, V.V., ed. 2005. 100 etiudov o Kante [100 Sketches on Kant]. Moscow: KDU, 2005. (In Rus.)A. ChalyVadimA murder of an Afro-American detainee by a policeman at the end of May 2020 caused a public outrage in the United States, which led to a campaign against the monuments to historical figures whose reputation, according to the protesters, was marred by racism. Some German publicists, impressed by the campaign, initiated an analogous search for racists among the national thinkers and politicians of the past. Suddenly Kant emerged as a ‘scapegoat’. This statement is an attempt to assess such reactions from the perspective of Russia’s experience.0531202611