NONE20260604071523194Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370106042026393R.EnskatIn the Cartesian tradition of discussing the structure of the micro-judgement “I think” Kant‘s treatment deserves extraordinary attention. Under the idiomatic heading of self-affection he delivers a micro-analysis of this judgment, contributing in a unique way to the clarification of a singular case of self-knowledge: In this case the thinking subject 1. thematises the act of judging “I think” by conferring on this act the specific logical, categorical form, 2. intuits this act under the temporal form of successively using “I ...” as subject and “… think” as predicate, 3. identifies him-/herself — at the same time — with the subject logically structuring this act as well as with the subject intuiting the successively existing subject of this judging act, and 4. recognises him-/herself as identical in these two different cognitive roles. By this very analysis Kant shows that the eminent micro-judgement-act “I think” has the complex, though paradigmatic substructure of each human subject recog­nising his/her identity as thinking / judging and temporally existing while thinking / judging.0604202611Caimi, M., 2002. Selbstbewußtsein und Selbsterkenntnis in Kants transzendentaler Deduktion. In: D. H. Heidemann, Hg. 2002. Probleme der Subjektivität in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Stuttgart und Bad Cannstatt: fromann-holzboog, S. 85-106.Carl, W., 2008. The Highest Point of Transcendental Philosophy. In: J. Stolzenberg und K. Ameriks, Hg. 2008. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Idealismus / International Yearbook of German Idealism 2007. Band 5: Metaphysik / Metaphysics. Berin und Boston: De Gruyter, S. 33-46. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110192438.1.33.Düsing, K., 1987. Cogito, ergo sum? Untersuchungen zu Descartes und Kant. In: H.-D. Klein, Hg. 1987. Wiener Jahrbuch für Philosophie 19, Wien: New Academic Press, S. 95-106.Enskat, R., 2015. Urteil und Erfahrung. Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Erster Teil. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Enskat, R., 2020. Urteil und Erfahrung. Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Zweiter Teil. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Heidegger, M., 1976. Logik. Die Frage nach der Wahrheit (Wintersemester 1925/26). In: M. Heidegger, 1976. Gesamtausgabe, Abteilung II, Band 21. Herausgegeben von W. Biemel. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Heidegger, M., 1977. Phänomenologische Interpretation von Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Wintersemester 1927/28). In: M. Heidegger, 1977. Gesamtausgebabe, Abteilung II, Band 25. Herausgegeben von I. Görland. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Hintikka, J., 1962. Cogito, Ergo Sum: Inference or Performance? Philosophical Review, 71, pp. 3-32.Kemmerling, A., 1987. Eine reflexive Deutung des Cogito. In: K. Cramer, H.-F. Fulda, R.-P. Horstmann und U. Pothast, Hg. 1987. Theorie der Reflexivität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, S. 115-140.Klemme, H., 1996. Kants Philosophie des Subjekts. Systematische und entwicklungs-geschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Selbstbewußtsein und Selbsterkenntnis. Hamburg: Meiner.Reich, K., 1948. Die Vollständigkeit der kantischen Urteilstafel. 2. Auflage. Berlin: Verlagsbuchhandlung von R. Schoetz.Rosefeldt, T., 2000. Das logische Ich. Kant über den Gehalt des Begriffes von sich selbst. Berlin: Philo.I. E.AndriianovKant does not provide clear-cut definitions of apperception, consciousness, and self-consciousness and everywhere uses these terms as synonyms, which creates the problem of the relationship between these faculties. The importance of this problem stems from the colossal significance of each of the above-mentioned faculties which are intimately connected with Kant’s formulation of the key tasks of transcendental philosophy. The prime task is to discover the categories of understanding and to prove the legitimacy of their use, a task that is further complicated by the difference between the editions of the Critique of Pure Reason in terms of the argumentation in the section on the deduction of categories and Kant’s concept of apperception. Accordingly, the author seeks to clarify the purpose of each of the above-mentioned faculties and to establish their inter-relationship. To this end the author analyses the functional roles of consciousness, self-consciousness and apperception in solving the main tasks of the first Critique. It turns out that consciousness is a reflexive cognitive capacity which provides access to representations in our soul and allows us to distinguish them and to connect them. Self-consciousness is the mode of the functioning of consciousness which makes it possible to study three objects of consciousness: internal and external representations of the subject, the synthetic activity of understanding and our soul. Apperception is the Latin synonym of the concept of Selbstbewußtsein and is aimed at studying the unity of our representations. Because Kant distinguishes multiple kinds of unity, there are different names for apperception. Kant uses the concept of Apperzeption as a synonym of self-consciousness because his concept of consciousness follows the Leibniz-Wolffian tradition.0604202611Allison, H., 1983. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Ameriks, K., 2000a. Kant and the Fate of Autonomy: Problems in the Appropriation of the Critical Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ameriks, K., 2000b. Kant’s Theory of Mind. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Brook, A., 1994. Kant and the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Guyer, P., 1987. Kant and the Claims of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Heßbrüggen-Walter, S., 2004. Die Seele und ihre Vermögen. Kants Metaphysik des Mentalen in der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Paderborn: Mentis.Izmailov, G., 2005. Leibniz and Kant: to the Question of Apperception. In: Forum molodykh kantovedov (Po materialam Mezhdunarodnogo kongressa, posvjashhennogo 280-letiju so dnja rozhdenija i 200-letiju so dnja smerti Immanuila Kanta) [Forum of Young Kant Scholars (Collected Papers of the International Congress on the 280th Anniversary of the Birth and 200th Anniversary of the Death of Immanuel Kant)]. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy RAS, pp. 53-59 [online] Available at: https://iphras.ru/page50843406.htm [Accessed 20 March 2020] (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1992. On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and Intelligible World. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical Philosophy, 1755-1770. Translated and edited by D. Walford, in collaboration with R. Meerbote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373-416.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2004. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics that Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science. Translated and edited by G. Hatfield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2005. Notes and Fragments. Edited by P. Guyer, translated by C. Bowman, P. Guyer and F. Rauscher. New York & Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2007. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. In: I. Kant, 2007. Anthropology, History, and Education. Translated and edited by R. B. Louden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kitcher, P., 2015. Bewusstsein. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr, S. Bacin, Hg. 2015. Kant-Lexikon, Band 1. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 281-285.Krouglov, A. N., 2005. Did Kant have a transcendent subject? In: Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik 2004 [History of Philosophy Yearbook 2004]. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 279-295. (In Rus.)Leibniz, G. W., 1989a. On What is Independent of Sense and of Matter (Letter to Queen Sophia Charlotte of Prussia, 1702). In: G. W. Leibniz, 1989. Philosophical Papers and Letters. A Selection. Translated and edited, with an Introduction, by L. E. Loemker, 2nd Edition. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 547-554.Leibniz, G. W., 1989b. The Principles of Nature and of Grace, based on Reason (1714). In: G. W. Leibniz, 1989. Philosophical Papers and Letters. A Selection. Translated and edited, with an Introduction, by L. E. Loemker, 2nd Edition. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 636-643.Mayorov, G. G., 1973. Teoreticheskaya filosofiya Gotfrida W. Leibniza [Theoretical Philosophy of Gottfried W. Leibniz]. Moscow: Moscow State University Press. (In Rus.)Rosefeldt, T., 2000. Das logische Ich. Kant über den Gehalt des Begriffes von sich selbst. Berlin: Philo.Serck-Hanssen, С., 2008. Kant on Consciousness. In: S. Heinämaa and M. Reuter, eds. 2008. Psychology and Philosophy. Inquiries into the Soul from Late Scholasticism to Contemporary Thought. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 139-157.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.)Strawson, P., 1966. The Bounds of Sense. An Essay on the Critique of Pure Reason. London: Routledge.Vasilyev, V. V., 1998. Podvaly kantovskoi metafiziki (deduktsiia kategorii) [Basements of Kant’s Metaphysics: Deduction of the Categories]. Moscow: Nasledie. (In Rus.)Vasilyev, V. V., 2005. Kant’s Transcendentalism and Wolfian Psychology. In: Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik 2004 [History of Philosophy Yearbook 2004]. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 238-249. (In Rus.)Vasilyev, V. V., 2010. Filosofskaia psikhologiia v epokhu Prosveshcheniya [Philosophical Psychology in the Age of Enlightenment]. Moscow: “Kanon+” ROOI Reabilitatsiya. (In Rus.)Vasilyeva, M. Y., 2009. Kant and Berkeley: Similarity or Difference? Kantian Journal, 1(29), pp. 30-38. (In Rus.)Wolff, C., 1725. Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, Auch allen Dingen überhaupt. 3. Auflage. Halle: Renger.Wunderlich, F., 2005. Kant und die Bewußtseinstheorien des 18. Jahrhunderts. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Zöller, G., 2015a. Selbstbewusstsein. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr, S. Bacin, Hg. 2015. Kant-Lexikon, Band 3. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 2065-2070.Zöller, G., 2015b. Apperzeption. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr, S. Bacin, Hg. 2015. Kant-Lexikon, Band 1. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 145-150.V. N.BelovThe philosophy of religion as presented by Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp, the founders and main representatives of the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism, is an important and at the same time controversial part of their philosophical systems. The discussion around the problems of religion began within the Marburg School and still continues among those who study that School. The reason for this is that “fitting” philosophical thinking about the phenomenon of religion into the classical triad of any system of philosophy, i. e. effectively formulating that phenomenon in logical concepts, ethical postulates and aesthetic principles touched the very foundations of that system. Drawing mainly on the rough notes and correspondence of Cohen and Natorp I argue that, in spite of internal and quite important differences over the problems of religion and its place in philosophical constructions, Cohen and Natorp, first, retained their commitment to critical idealism and remained loyal to their philosophical school to the end and, second, followed the principle of mutual respect, preserving their professional and human sympathy for each other. Besides, I substantiate my assertion that Marburg Neo-Kantians had different concepts of the special place of religion in the system of philosophy. The specific nature of this difference warrants the discussion not only of the boundary of reason and rationality but adds new dimensions to that boundary, filling it with content and thus broadening the very sphere of critical idealism. In the course of the discussion of the problems of religion, Paul Natorp (in a more immediate and extended fashion) and Hermann Cohen (largely potentially) stake a claim to projects for the serious transformation of philosophy which they tried to implement in their later works.0604202611Adelmann, D., 2010. “Reinige dein Denken”. Über den jüdischen Hintergrund der Philosophie von Hermann Cohen. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Andriaanse, H., 1998. ‘Menschheit’ und ‘Individuum’. Cohen und Herrmann über die Religion. In: Ch. Krijnen and E. W. Orth, eds. 1998. Sinn, Geltung, Wert: neukantianische Motive in der modernen Kulturphilosophie. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 121-137.Belov, V. N., 2015a. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. Judaica Petropolitana. Research on Jewish philosophy and intellectual traditions of Judaism, 3, pp. 211-218. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2015b. Is Hermann Cohen a Neo-Kantian? Kantian Journal, 3(53), pp. 38-46. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2018a. Autonomy of Reason and the Religion of Revelation in the Philosophy of the Religion of Hermann Cohen. Philosophy of Religion: Analytic Researches, 2(2), pp. 51-64. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2018b. Concept of Religion in the System of Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Judaica Petropolitana. Research on Jewish philosophy and intellectual traditions of Judaism, 9, pp. 97-102. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2018c. The Philosophy of the Religion of Hermann Cohen and Its Evaluation by Russian-Jewish Thinkers. In: J. Dobieszewski, S. Krajewski and J. Mach, eds. 2018. Epistemologia doświadczenia religijnego w XX-wiecznej filozofii rosyjskiej i żydowskiej. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, pp. 219-237. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2019. Modern Jewish Philosophy in Search of a (Self-)Definition. RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 23(4), pp. 391-398. (In Rus.)Cohen, H., 1910. Die Bedeutung des Judentums für den religiösen Fortschritt der Menschheit. Vortrag von Dr. Hermann Cohen. Sonderausgabe aus dem Protokoll des 5. Weltkongresses für Freies Christentum und Religiösen Fortschritt. Zweite Auflage. Berlin: Protestantischer Schriftenvertrieb.Cohen, H., 1972. Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism. Translated, with an Introduction, by S. Kaplan. Introductory Essay by L. Strauss. New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.Cohen, H., 1996. Der Begriff der Religion im System der Philosophie. In: H. Cohen. Werke. Band 10. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 1-164.Dmitrieva, N. A., 2008. Religion within the Limits of Humanity. On the History of the Problem of Religion in the Philosophy of Paul Natorp. In: D. N. Razeev, ed. 2008. Vera i znanie. K sootnosheniyu ponyatij v klassicheskoj nemeckoj filosofii [Faith and Knowledge. On the Relation of Concepts in Classical German Philosophy]. Saint Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press, pp. 260-270. (In Rus.)Holzhey, H., 1986. Cohen und Natorp. Band 2: Der Marburger Neukantianismus in Quellen. Basel & Stuttgart: Schwabe & Co.Jegelka, N., 1992. Paul Natorp. Philosophie. Pädagogik. Politik. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Korsch, D., 1996. Dialektische Theologie nach Karl Barth. Tübingen: Mohr.Lohmann, J. F., 1995. Karl Barth und Neukantianismus. Berlin: De Gruyter.Natorp, P., 1908. Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der Humanität. Ein Kapitel zur Grundlegung der Sozialpädagogik. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Natorp, P., 1958. Philosophische Systematik. Aus dem Nachlaß herausgegeben von H. Natorp. Mit der Gedenkrede zum 100. Geburtstag am 24.1.1954 von H.-G. Gadamer. Einleitung und Anmerkungen von H. Knittermeyer. Hamburg: F. Meiner.Poma, A., 1996. Einleitung. In: H. Cohen. Werke. Band 10. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 7-49.Poma, A., 1997. The Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. New York: State University of New York.Rosenzweig, F., 1924. Einleitung. In: H. Cohen. Jüdische Schriften. Band 1. Berlin: C. A. Schwetschke & Sohn, pp. 13-64.Saltzman, J. D., 1981. Paul Natorp’s Philosophy of religion within the Marburg Neo-Kantian tradition. Hildesheim: Olms.Ucko, S., 1927. Der Gottesbegriff in der Philosophie Hermann Cohens. Berlin: S. Scholem.M. Yu.ZagirnyakThe early decades of the last century saw European philosophical thought becoming increasingly interested in the sociological extension of the idea of law. From the viewpoint of the sociology of law, law is formed in the process of social interactions and is not sanctioned by the state. Sergey Hessen and Georges Gurvitch base their conceptions of social law on the sociology of law in the 1920s and 1930s. They start a polemic in the pages of the journal Sovremenniye zapiski (Contemporary Notes). Although they differ radically in their definitions of the status of the state they concur in defining society as a set of social institutions and communities existing as instruments for expressing personal freedom. The social regulations they propose are already legal situations. Hessen and Gurvitch believe that the individual can fully exercise his/her freedom only in conditions of such legal pluralism. However, the concept of legal pluralism involves an inherent problem of preserving social unity: why is it that society does not fall into a range of autonomous social entities, each offering the individual its own legal order for actualising freedom? To solve this problem the philosophers use the concept of “the general will”. General will is an instrument of correlation between individual freedom and the development of society and culture as a whole. The object of philosophical dispute is how the general will is formed: 1) in the process of social self-organisation according to Gurvitch; 2) in the operation of the suprafunctional organisation (the state) according to Hessen. The difference in the grounding of the general will leads to a difference in the concepts of social unity: 1) sobornost according to Gurvitch and 2) solidarity according to Hessen. Analysis of the dispute between Gurvitch and Hessen brings out not only the differences in the interpretation of social unity but also the fundamental problems with the conceptions of social law.0604202611Antonov, M. V., 2014. Portraits of Legal Scholars. G. D. Gurvich: the Project of the Sociology of Law. Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 4, pp. 63-74. (In Rus.)Bitcilli, P. M., 1927. [Rev.] M. A. Zimmerman, United States in Human History. 1776—1926, Prague: Plamya, 1926. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 33, pp. 553-554. (In Rus.)Bitcilli, P. M., 1935. [Rev.] G. Gurvitch, L’expérience juridique et la philosophie pluraliste du droit, Paris, 1935. Novy Grad, 10, pp. 139-142. (In Rus.)Dmitrieva, N. A., 2016. Back to Kant, or Forward to Enlightenment: The Particularities and Issues of Russian Neo-Kantianism. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 54(5), pp. 378-394. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2016.1290414.Duguit, L., 1921. Objective Law. II. Columbia Law Review, 21(1), pp. 17-34.Durkheim, E., 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method. In: E. Durkheim, 1982. The Rules of Sociological Method: And Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method. New York, London et al.: Free Press, pp. 1-163.Durkheim, E., 2013. Division of Labour in Society. 2nd Edition. Edited and with a new introduction by S. Lukes. Translation by W. D. Halls. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Ehrlich, E., 1913. Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law. Translated by W. L. Moll; with an introduction by R. Pound; with a new introduction by K. A. Ziegert, 2017. New York: Routledge.Gergilov, R. E., 2005. Law as a Social Control: George Gurvitch’s Conception. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 8(3), pp. 71-78. (In Rus.)Gurvitch, G., 1918. Rousseau and the Declaration of Rights: The Idea of the Inalienable Rights of an Individual in the Political Doctrine of Rousseau. Petrograd: Wolf Printing House. (In Rus.).Gurvitch, G., 1924. The Ideology of Socialism in the Light of Recent German Literature. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 18, pp. 404-419. (In Rus.).Gurvitch, G., 1925. State and Socialism. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 25, pp. 508-523. (In Rus.).Gurvitch, G., 1927. The Future of Democracy. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 32, pp. 326-355. (In Rus.)Gurvitch, G., 1928. Socialism and Property. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 36, pp. 346-382. (In Rus.).Gurvitch, G., 1929. Property and Socialism (Regarding the Socialist Construction of S. I. Hessen). Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 38, pp. 508-520. (In Russ.).Gurvitch, G., 1932. L’idée du droit social. Notion et système du droit social: histoire doctrinale depuis le 17e siècle jusqu’à la fin du 19e siècle. Avec préface de L. Le Fur. Réimpression 1972. Aalen: Scientia.Gurvitch, G., 1937. La théorie des valeurs de Heinrich Rickert. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, 124(9/10), pp. 80-88.Gurvitch, G., 1941. The Problem of Social Law. Ethics, 52(1), pp. 17-40.Gurvitch, G., 1945. Social Control. In: G. Gurvitch and W. Moore, eds. 1945. Twentieth Century Sociology. New York: The Philosophical Library, pp. 267-269.Gurvitch, G., 1949. Groupement Social et Classe Sociale. Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, 7, pp. 3-42.Hessen, S., 1912. Mystik und Metaphysik. Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur, 2(1), pp. 92-113.Hessen, S., 1915. Die Philosophie der Strafe. Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur, 5(2), pp. 173-218.Hessen, S. I., 1924-1927. The Problem of Legal Socialism (Evolution of Liberalism). Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 22, pp. 257-293; 23, pp. 313-342; 27, pp. 382-430; 28, pp. 299-345; 29, pp. 308-342; 30, pp. 380-409; 31, pp. 328-358. (In Rus.)Hessen, S. I., 1932. The Idea of Social Right. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales Contemporaines, 49, pp. 421-435.Hessen, S., 1935a. Worldview and Ideology. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 57, pp. 316-329 (In Rus.)Hessen, S., 1935b. Truth of Democracy. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 58, pp. 361-377 (In Rus.)Hessen, S., 1939. O sprzecznościach i jedności wychowania: zagadnienia pedagogiki personalistycznej. Lwów & Warszawa: Książnica-Atlas.Hessen, S. I., 1999. State of Law and Socialism. In: S. I. Hessen, 1999. Izbrannye sochineniya [Selected Writings]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 147-542. (In Rus.)Hessen, S. I., 2012. Modern Democracy (translated by N. V. Danilkina). Kantian Journal, 1(39), pp. 75-84. (In Rus.)Kornilaev, L. Yu., 2019. The Specifics of Criticism on E. Lask’s Philosophy in Russia. Voprosy Filosofii, 12, pp. 132-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.31857/S004287440007532-0.Lask, E., 1923. Die Logik der Philosophie und die Kategorienlehre. In: E. Lask, 1923. Gesammelte Schriften. Band 2. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 1-282.Le Goff, J., 2013. Gurvitch and Social Law. Pravovedenie, 5(310), pp. 97-111. (In Rus.)Lossky, N. O., 1935. Freedom and Economic Democracy. Novy Grad, 3, pp. 51-59 (In Rus.).Lossky, N. O., 1951. History of Russian Philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin.Rickert, H., 1926. Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Rousseau, J. -J., 2002. The Social Contract. In: J.-J. Rousseau, 2002. The Social Contract and The First and Second Discourses. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 149-254.Stepun, F. A., 1928. Thoughts on Russia. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 35, pp. 364-402 (In Rus.).Sztobryn, S., 1983. Dialektyka swobody i przymusu w pedagogice S. Hessena. Studia Filozoficzne, 11-12, pp. 203-212.Vishniak, M. V., 1925. Socialist State or Social Law. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 25, pp. 523-529 (In Rus.)Vishniak, M. V., 1936. Bloom’s Expirience. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 62, pp. 344-357 (In Rus.)Vishniak, M. V., 1957. Sovremennye zapiski. Vospominaniya redaktora [Annales contemporaines. Editor’s Memoirs]. Bloomington: Indiana University Publications. (In Rus.)Vorobiev, M. V., 2017. The Philosophical and Legal Content of Sergey Hessen’s Concept of Personality. Kantian Journal, 2(36), pp. 73-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2017-2-6. (In Rus.)Vysheslavtsev, B. P., 1934. [Rev.:] Georges Gurvitch. L’Ideé du Droit Social, Paris, 1932. Put / La Voie. Revue religieuse russe (Paris), 43, pp. 78-82. (In Rus.)Walicki, A., 1987. The Legal Philosophies of Russian Liberalism. New York: Clarendon Press of Oxford University Press.Weber, M., 2019. Economy and Society: A New Translation. Edited and translated by K. Tribe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Windelband, W., 1907. Vom Prinzip der Moral. In: W. Windelband, 1907. Präludien. Aufsätze und Reden zur Einleitung in die Philosophie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, pp. 380-413.Woytinsky, W., 1935. Planned Economy and Modern Labor Movement. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 25, pp. 361-380 (In Rus.)Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2017. Hegel’s Dialectic in Political Philosophy of Sergius Hessen. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 37, pp. 30-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/37/3. (In Rus.)Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2018. The Notion of Free Will in Sergey Hessen’s Conception of Culture. Kantian Journal, 37(4), pp. 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2018-4-3.Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2019. Solidarity as an Instrument of the Institutionalization of Freedom in Sergius Hessen’s Philosophy. Tomsk State University Journal of Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, 47, pp. 121-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.17223/1998863Х/47/13. (In Rus.)Zilber, A., 2016a. “Compelling to Confess”: Kant About Truth, Happiness and Publicity // Con-Textos Kantianos. International Journal of Philosophy, 4, pp. 70-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.163990.Zilber, A. S., 2016b. Knowing Humanity without Knowing the Human Being: the Structure of Polemic in Kant’s Political Argumentation. Kantian Journal, 3(57), pp. 28-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2016-3-3 (In Rus.).R.Pasquarè0604202611Brandom, R., 1994. Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Ehrsam, R., 2016. Le problème du langage chez Kant. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2007. Anthropology, History and Education. Edited by G. Zöller and R. B. Louden. Cambridge, New York et al.: Cambridge University Press.Kitcher, P., 1990. Kant’s Transcendental Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Lütterfelds, W., 2004. Kant in der gegenwärtigen Sprachphilosophie. In: D. H. Heidemann and K. Engelhard, eds. 2004. Warum Kant heute? New York & Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 150-176.Strawson, P., 1966. The Bounds of Sense. An Essay on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. London & New York: Routledge.