NONE20260529213449140Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370105292026394E.GörgKant’s ‘Newtonianism’ has been rightly highlighted by figures like Friedman. The follow-up debates led to a more adequate view on Kant’s natural philosophy and in particular his relation towards Newton. But the discussion that evolved did not point to the asynchronicity that takes place in Kant’s struggle with the central Newtonian concepts. Newtonian space and gravity, in revised form, are of central concern to Kant’s critical philosophy. But Kant adapted and re-evaluated these two concepts in an asynchronous way. While Kant tries to integrate a notion of gravity into his theory of matter in his very first published writing, he has at this stage no adequate notion of space. At this time, as in regard to space, he can neither be called a Newtonian nor a proper Leibnizian and misconceives the necessity of an independent space for the foundations of physics. This perspective changes under the influence of Euler at the end of the fifties of the eighteenth century and finally leads to his writing of 1768 and the adoption of transcendental idealism in 1770. In the following, I depict this asynchronicity by taking central pre-critical writings into account while discussing Kant’s concept of space and gravity. This sharpens the picture of Kant’s work and the different stages his philosophy of nature went through. Further, it helps to understand the influence of Euler on Kant’s development in natural philosophy and his critical philosophy in general, as Kant under the influence of Euler formed deeper-going reflections on Newton’s theory of space and these mark turning points of his development.0529202611Biener, Z. and Schliesser, E., 2014. Introduction. In: Z. Biener and E. Schliesser, eds. 2014. Newton and Empiricism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-11.Bradley, J., 1727. A Letter from the Reverend Mr. James Bradley Savilian Professor of Astronomy at Oxford, and F. R. S. to Dr. Edmond Halley Astronom. Reg. &c. Giving an Account of a New Discovered Motion of the Fix’d Stars. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 35, pp. 637-661.Carrier, M., 1992. Kant’s Relational Theory of Absolute Space. Kant-Studien, 83(4), pp. 399-416.Clarke, S., 1717. A Collection of Papers, Which passed between the late Learned Mr. Leibnitz, and Dr. Clarke, In the Years 1715 and 1716. London.Euler, L., 1802. Letters of Euler to a German Princess, on Different Subjects in Physics and Philosophy. New York: Murray and Highley.Euler, L., 2015. Reflections on Space and Time. In: Euler Archiv [E 149]. Translated by M. Saclolo & P. Wake. [online] Available at: [Accessed 26 August 2019).Fischer, H. -P., 1985. Kant an Euler. Kant-Studien, 76, pp. 214-220.Friedman, M., 1994. Kant and the Exact Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Görg, E. 2015. Zum Gravitationsgesetz bei Newton, Kant und Fries. Kant-Studien, 106(2), pp. 259-275.Hyder, D. 2019. Kant on Time I: The Kinematics of the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Kant-Studien, 110(3), pp. 477-497.Jammer, M., 1993. Concepts of Space. New York: Dover Publications.Janiak, A., 2015. Newton. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell.Kant, I., 1992a. A New Elucidation of the First Principles of Metaphysical Cognition. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770. Translated & edited by D. Walford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-45.Kant, I., 1992b. Concerning the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Directions in Space. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770. Translated & edited by D. Walford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 361-372.Kant, I., 1992c. On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and the Intelligible World. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical Philosophy 1755-1770. Translated & edited by D. Walford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373-416.Kant, I., 1999. Correspondence. Translated & edited by A. Zweig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2012a. Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces. In: I. Kant, 2012. Natural Science. Translated by J. B. Edwards and M. Schönfeld, edited by E. Watkins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-155.Kant, I., 2012b. 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. In: I. Kant, 2012. Natural Science. Translated by J. B. Edwards and M. Schönfeld, edited by E. Watkins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 182-308.Kant, I., 2012c. New Doctrine of Motion and Rest and the Conclusions Associated with It in the Fundamental Principles of Natural Science While at the Same Time his Lectures for this Half-Year are Announced. In: I. Kant, 2012. Natural Science. Translated by J. B. Edwards and M. Schönfeld, edited by E. Watkins. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 396-408.Keill, J., 1725. Introductiones ad veram Physicam et veram Astronomiam. Leiden: Joh. et Herm. Verbeek.Keill, J., 1745. Introduction to Natural Philosophy. Or Philosophicl Lectures Read in the University of Oxford Anno Dom. 1700. Translated from the last Edition of the Latin. London: M. Senex, W. Innys, T. Longman and T. Shewell.Koyré, A., 1965: Newtonian Studies. London: De Gruyter.Masterman, M., 1970: The Nature of a Paradigm. In: I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, eds. 1970. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Newton, I., 1961. The Correspondence of Isaac Newton. Volume III. Edited by H. Turnbull, J. Scott, A. Hall [a.o.]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Newton, I., 1999. The Principia. Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Translated by I. B. Cohen and A. Whitman. Berkeley: University of California Press.Newton, I., 2004. De Gravitatione. In: I. Newton, 2004. Philosophical Writings. Edited by A. Janiak. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 12-39.Speiser, A., 1986. Einleitung. In: L. Euler, 1986. Briefe an eine deutsche Prinzessin, edited by R. Sexl and K. von Meyenn. Braunschweig: Vieweg & Sohn, pp. XXI-XLV.A. N.KrioukovThis study aims, first, to delimit the seemingly synonymous concepts of “phenomenon” and “appearance” and second, to trace the functions of each in Kant’s philosophy and the phenomenological tradition. The analy­sis is based on Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and the central works of Edmund Husserl and Eugen Fink. Kant does not explicitly distinguish the two terms and only speaks about phenomena when he deals with the categorial application of reason. With Husserl, appearance is linked with the area of the natural attitude while the phenomenon is absolute. Fink’s position is interesting in that it differs from the views of the main representatives of transcendental philosophy, Kant and Husserl. According to Fink, appearing is the foundation of the fact that what exists is and that appearing is being. Fink takes a different approach to the meanings of appearance as opposing the thing in itself which possesses true but unknowable being (Kant) and appearance as taking place in the “relative” sphere of the natural attitude (Husserl): with Fink, appearance (or, as Fink constantly writes, “appearing”) turns out to be the condition of the existence of objects. Appearance, understood through the prism of the human being which perceives something as Vorschein, implies an inherently open world. Following Fink, I analyse these provisions and examine, first, light as the metaphysical source of cognition, second, the human being as a special kind of being, third, the pre-Socratic treatment of being and, fourth, the formation of a distinct phenomenological idiom. I come to the conclusion that the metaphysical-ontological method of phenomenological analysis of appearance proposed by Fink affords a new insight into the a priori principle and the nature of Kant’s “thing in itself” and proposes a new grounding of Husserl’s thesis which questions Kant’s agnosticism.0529202611Burkhanov, R. A., 2016. Thing in itself and a Phenomenon, Noumenon and Phenomenon, Transcendental, Immanent and Transcendent in the Theoretical Philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Historical, Philosophical, Political and Legal Sciences, Culturology and Art History. Issues of Theory and Practice, 3(65): in 2 Parts, Part 2, pp. 34-36.Descartes, R., 1985. The Principles of Philosophy. Translated by J. Cottingham. In: R. Descartes, 1985. The Philosophical Writings. Volume 1. Cambridge, London, New York et al.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 177-291.Descartes, R., 1998. Discourse on Method. In: R. Descartes, 1998. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by D. A. Cress. 4th Edition. Cambridge and Indianapolis: Hackett, pp. 1-44.Figal, G., 2010. Erscheinungsdinge: Ästhetik als Phänomenologie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Fink, E., 1957. Zur ontologischen Frühgeschichte von Raum — Zeit — Bewegung. Dordrecht: Springer.Fink, E., 1958. Sein, Wahrheit, Welt. Vor-Fragen zum Problem des Phänomen-Begriffs. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.Fink, E., 1959. Alles und Nichts. Ein Umweg zur Philosophie. Dordrecht: Springer.Giubilato, G. J., 2017. Freiheit und Reduktion. Grundzüge einer phänomenologischen Meontik bei Eugen Fink (1927–1946). Nordhausen: Traugott Bautz.Heidegger, M. and Fink, E., 1979. Heraclitus Seminar 1966/67. Translated by C. H. Seibert. Alabama: The University of Alabama Press.Held K. Husserls Rückgang auf das phainómenon und die geschichtliche Stellung der Phänomenologie. In: Dialektik und Genesis in der Phänomenologie. Edited by E. W. Orth. Freiburg & München: Alber, 1980. S. 89-145.Held, K., 2012. Phänomenologie der natürlichen Lebenswelt. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Husserl, E., 1983. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. Translated by F. Kersten. The Hague, Boston and Lancaster: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1983.Husserl, E., 1999. The Idea of Phenomenology. Translated by L. Hardy. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Husserl, E., 2002. Einleitung in die Philosophie. Vorlesungen 1922/23. In: B. Goossens, ed. 2002. Husserliana XXXV. Dordrecht and Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Ikeda, Y., 2015. Eugen Fink’s Kant-Interpretation. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 4(2), pp. 154-185.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2002. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science. In: Kant, I., 2002. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Edited by H. Allison and P. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-169.Katrechko, S. L., 2018. The Nature of Appearance in Kant’s Transcendentalism: A Semantico-Cognitive Analysis. Kantian Journal, 37(3), pp. 31-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2018-3-2.Komarov, S. V., 2006. The Concept of Appearance in Kant: Meaning and Significance. Vestnik of Kostroma State University, 12(4), pp. 165-175. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A. N., 2005. Did Kant Have a Transcendental Subject? In: History of Philosophy Yearbook 2004. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 279-295. (In Rus.)Marshall, C., 2013. Kant’s One Self and the Appearance / Thing-in-itself Distinction. Kant-Studien, 104(4), pp. 421-441.Motroshilova, N. V., 2010. “Phenomenon”, “Appearance”, “Gestalt”: Terminological and Substantive Problems of Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit” in Relation to Kant’s Philosophy. In: N. V. Motroshilova, ed. 2010. “Phenomenologiya dukha” Gegelya v kontekste sovremennogo gegelevedeniya [Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit” in the Context of Contemporary Hegel Studies]. Moscow: Kanon+, pp. 73-101. (In Rus.)Motroshilova, N. V., 2017. I. Kant: Between “Appearance” (Erscheinung) and “Phenomenon” — from early works to the Critique of Pure Reason. In: S. L. Katrechko, ed. 2017. Transtesndentalny povorot v sovremennoy filosofii (2): Kantovskoe yavleniye, ego ontologicheskiy i epistemicheskiy status. Sbornik materialov mezhdunarodnogo nauchnogo seminara [Transcendental Turn in Contemporary Philosophy (2): Kant’s Appearance, Its Ontological and Epistemic Status. Proceedings of an International Research Workshop]. Moscow: TsGI, pp. 12-15. (In Rus.)Oizerman, T. I., 2002. The Concept of Appearance in Kant’s System. In: History of Philosophy Yearbook 2000. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 196-208. (In Rus.)Pinkard, T., 2002. German Philosophy 1760–1860. The Legacy of Idealism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Razeev, D. N., 1997. “Appearance” and “Phenomenon” in the Theoretical Philosophy of Kant. In: Thought. Yearbook of Petersburg Philosophical Association. St.-Petersburg: St.-Petersburg University Press, pp. 200-208. (In Rus.)Rozhanskii, I. D., 1979. Razvitiye estestvoznaniya v epokhu Antichnosti. Rannyaya grecheskaya nauka “o prirode” [The Development of Natural Sciences in the Age of Antiquity. Early Greek Science “about Nature”]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Rus.)Schnell, A., 2015. Wirklichkeitsbilder. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Seel, M., 2003. Ästhetik des Erscheinens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Soentgen, J., 2010. Erscheinung und Phänomen. In: H. R. Sepp, A. Wildermuth, eds. 2010. Konzepte des Phänomenalen. Henrich Barth — Eugen Fink — Jan Patočka. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 49-67.I.DvorkinMy aim is to prove that Hermann Cohen was not only a philosopher of dialogue but has played an exceedingly important role in the history of that current of thought. His books Ethics of Pure Will (1904) and Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism (1919) offer a detailed analysis of the relationships between I and Thou, I and It, I and We. In the first book these relationships are considered from the ethical-legal point of view and in the second from the viewpoint of religious anthropology. However, Cohen considers the problem of inter-personal relationships not in isolation, but as an important component of his entire philosophical system. Deduction of the concept of personality in Ethics of Pure Will is based on Cohen’s logic of the origin expounded in the first part of his system in The Logic of Pure Cognition. Cohen explains that the origin of the self-consciousness of I as a personality is not the external world, but another person, i.e. Thou. In turn, the partnership relationships between I and Thou create the community We which forms the basis of the law-governed state. The process of artistic creation in the framework of inter-personal relationship is explored in Aesthetics of Pure Feeling. Finally, Religion of Reason out of the Sources of Judaism formulates the conception of religion as the most complete realisation of inter-personal relationship. Thus, dialogism became an important dimension of Cohen’s entire philosophical system, a fact noted by Martin Buber. Franz Rosenzweig, in unfolding dialogical thinking, expressly appeals to all the elements of Cohen’s system. There are signs of his influence on Bakhtin’s doctrine. Thus, examining Cohen’s doctrine as part of the philosophy of dialogue gives insights into this entire trend as a coherent whole.0529202611Bakhtin, M. M., 2003. Sobranie sochinenij [Collected Works]. Volume 1. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kultur. (In Rus.)Bakhtin, M. M. and Duvakin, V. D., 1996. Besedy V. D. Duvakina s M. M. Bakhtinym [Conversations of V. Duvakin with M. Bakhtin]. Introduction by S. G. Bocharov and V. V. Radzishevsky; Afterword by V. V. Kozhinov. Moscow: Progress. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2000. Neokantianstvo. Part 1: Vozniknovenie neokantianstva. Marburgskaya shkola. German Kogen [Neo-Kantianism. The Rise of Neo-Kantianism. Marburg School. Hermann Cohen]. Saratov: “Nauchnaya kniga”. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2004. Philosophy of Hermann Cohen and Russian Neo-Kantianism. In: History of Philosophy Yearbook — 2003. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 333-353. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2015. Is Hermann Cohen a Neo-Kantian? Kantian Journal, 1, pp. 38-45. (In Rus.)Bibler, V.S., 1991. Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, ili Poetika kul’tury [Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin, or Poetics of Culture]. Moscow: Progress; Gnozis. (In Rus.)Bienenstock, M., ed. 2011. Hermann Cohen: l’idéalisme critique aux prises avec le matérialisme. Revue de métaphysique et de morale, 1.Bienenstock, M., 2018. Cohen und Rosenzweig: ihre Auseinandersetzung mit dem deutschen Idealismus. Freiburg: Verlag Karl Alber.Buber, M., 1923. Ich und Du. In: M. Buber, 1997. Das dialogische Prinzip. Heidelberg: Schneider, pp. 7-138.Buber, M., 1937. I and Thou. Translated by R. Gregor Smith. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.Buber, M., 2002. The History of the Dialogical Principle. In: M. Buber, 2002. Between Man and Man. Translated by R. Gregor-Smith. With an introduction by M. Friedman. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 249-264.Cassirer, E., 1922. The Form of the Concept in Mythical Thinking. In: E. Cassirer, 2013. The Warburg Years (1919–1933): Essays on Language, Art, Myth, and Technology. Translated and with an Introduction by S. G. Lofts with A. Calcagno. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, pp. 1-71.Casper, B., 1967. Das dialogische Denken: Eine Untersuchung der religionsphilosophischen Bedeutung Franz Rosenzweigs, Ferdinand Ebners und Martin Bubers. Freiburg, Basel & Wien: Herder.Cohen, H., 1871. Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Berlin: Dümmler.Cohen, H., 1902. Logik der reinen Erkenntnis. Berlin: Cassirer.Cohen, H., 1904. Ethik des reinen Willens. Berlin: Cassirer.Cohen, H., 1912. Ästhetik des reinen Gefühls. In 2 Volumes. Berlin: Cassirer.Cohen, H., 1919. Die Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums. Leipzig: Fock.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: F. Ungar.Cristaudo, W., 2006. Rosenzweig and Rosenstock’s Critiques of Idealism: The Common Front of Contrary Allegiances. In: Franz Rosenzweigs “Neues Denken”. Band 2: Erfahrene Offenbarung — in theologos. Edited by W. Schmied-Kowarzik. Freiburg: Karl Alber,pp. 1121-1140.Dmitrieva, N. A., 2013. Neo-Kantian Motifs in Boris Pasternak’s World View. In: A. S. Sergeeva-Klyatis, O. A. Lekmanov, eds. 2013. “Ob’yatie v tysyachu okhvatov”: sbornik materialov, posvyashennyi pamyati Evgeniya Borisovicha Pasternaka i ego 90-letiyu [“A Hug in a Thousand Embraces”: a Collection of Papers in Memory of Evgeny Pasternak and His Ninetieth Birthday]. St. Petersburg: RChGA, pp. 59-80. (In Rus.)Dmitrieva, N., 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.Dvorkin, I. S., 2002. The Thou and the It: Following of Buber and Freud. Voprosy Filosofii, 4, pp. 141-158. (In Rus.).Dvorkin, I., 2013. Towards a Philosophy of Dialogue. In: V. A. Malakhov and G. P. Kovadlo. Filosofski dialogi’2013. Tolerantnost’ ta dialog v suchasnomu sviti [Philosophical Dialogues. Tolerance and Dialogue in Everyday Life]: Collected papers. Volume 7. Kiev: Stilos, pp. 112-171. (In Rus.)Dvorkin I., 2019. Hermann Cohen and the Philosophy of Dialogue. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and Humanities (ICCESSH 2019). Amsterdam and Paris: Atlantis Press, pp. 164-169. Avalable at: https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/iccessh-19/125911798 (Accessed: 01.06.2020).Ebner, F., 1921. Das Wort und die geistigen Realitäten. Pneumatologische Fragmente. Innsbruck: Brenner Verlag.Gadamer, H. -G, 1994. Heidegger’s Ways. Translated by J. W. Stanley. Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 95-109.Gibbs, R., 1999. Correlations in Rosenzweig and Levinas. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Gordin, J., 1929. Untersuchungen zur Theorie des unendlichen Urteils. Berlin: Akademie.Gordon, P. E., 2010. Continental Divide: Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Feuerbach, L., 1986. Principles of the Philosophy of the Future. Translated by M. Vogel with an Introduction by T. E. Wartenberg, Indianapolis: Hackett.Hegel, G. W. F., 1991. Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Edited by A. W. Wood, translated by H. B. Nisbet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hegel, G. W. F., 2010a. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline. Part 1: Logic. Translated and edited by K. Brinkmann and D. O. Dahlstrom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hegel, G. W. F., 2010b. The Science of Logic. Translated by G. di Giovanni. New York: Cambridge University Press.Hegel, G. W. F., 2017. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by T. Pinkard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Heidegger, M., 1960. Der Ursprung des Kunstwerks. Stuttgart: Reclam.Kagan, M. I., 2004. O hode istorii [On the Course of History]. Moscow: Yazyki slavyanskikh kultur. (In Rus.)Kajon, I., 1989. Ebraismo e sistema di filosofia in Hermann Cohen. Padova: CEDAM.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Edited by P. Guyer, translated by P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2005. Notes and Fragments. Edited by P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Katsman, R., 2013а. Love and Bewilderment: Matvei Kagan’s Literary Critical Concepts. Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas, 11(1), pp. 9-28.Katsman, R., 2013b. Matvei Kagan: Judaism and the European Cultural Crisis. Journal of Jewish Thought & Philosophy. 21(1), pp. 73-103.Levinas, E., 1974. Autrement qu’être ou Au-delà de l’essence. The Hague: Martinus Nijhott & La Haye.Makhlin, V. L., 1997. Ya i Drugoj: K istorii dialogicheskogo principa v filosofii XX v. [I and the Other: Towards the History of the Dialogical Principle in the Philosophy of the Twentieth Century]. Moscow: Labirint. (In Rus.)Munk, R., ed. 2005. Hermann Cohen’s Critical Idealism. Dordrecht: Springer.Neuhold, K., 2014. Franz Rosenzweig und die idealistische Philosophie. Berlin: LIT.Pasternak, B., 1958. Safe Conduct. In: B. Pasternak, 1958. Safe Conduct. An Autobiography and Other Writings. New York: New American Library, pp. 13-116.Poma, A., 1997. The Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Translated by J. Denton. Albany: SUNY Press.Popov, P. S., 1960. Istoriya logiki novogo vremeni [The History of Modern Logic]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo MGU. (In Rus.)Rosenzweig, F., 1925. Das neue Denken. Eine nachträgliche Bemerkung zum „Stern der Erlösung“. Der Morgen: Monatsschrift der Juden in Deutschland, 4, pp. 426-451.Rosenzweig, F., 1921. Der Stern der Erlösung. Reprint 2002. With Introduction by B. Casper, edited by A. Raffelt. [e-book] Freiburg im Breisgau: Universitätsbibliothek. Available at: Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg [Accessed 28 May 2020].Rosenzweig, F., 2005. The Star of Redemption. Translated by B. E. Galli. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Sokuler, Z. A., 2008. German Kogen i filosofiya dialoga [Hermann Cohen and the Philosophy of Dialogue]. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. (In Rus.)Zank, M., 2008. New Literature on Hermann Cohen. Jewish Quarterly Review, 98(4), pp. 566-573.P. R.BonadysevaAt the beginning of the twentieth century in the Russian-speaking philosophical space philosophical projects emerged which brought ontology and gnoseology closer together. One can observe this process, for example, in the philosophical doctrines of the Russian intuitivists Nikolay Lossky and Semyon Frank. I demonstrate that the emergence of these doctrines and the development of their onto-gnoseological categorial apparatus were mainly connected with the criticism of the Neo-Kantian theory of cognition and the possibility of transcendent knowledge as such. The main sources of my study are The Intuitive Basis of Knowledge and The World as an Organic Whole by N. O. Lossky and The Object of Knowledge and The Unknowable by S. L. Frank. My investigation makes it possible to treat Lossky’s categorial framework as the representation of a system of levels of the universe each of which is characterised by two aspects: the ontological, i.e. it is part of the unity of the world, and the gnoseological, i.e. it has an independent cognitive significance. Frank considers categories to be an organic part of the ontological proof of intuitivism. A common trend in the construction of categorial schemes by Lossky and Frank is their striving to combine gnoseological and ontological descriptions of categories. The key difference is the way an onto-gnoseological system as a whole is justified. In revealing the contradictions in Lossky’s conception, I proceed from the critical remarks of S. A. Askoldov (Alexeyev), pointing out that these contradictions stem from an absolutisation of intuition in cognition, the renunciation of the idea of gnoseological transcendence, incompleteness of the theory of immanence and discordance between onto-gnoseological categories. Askoldov’s critical comments clarify the substantive features of Lossky’s theory and the essence of the transformations carried out in Frank’s absolute ideal-realism.0529202611Alekseyev (Askoldov), S. A., 1914. Mysl i deistvitelnost’ [The Thought and the Reality]. Moscow: Put’. (In Rus.)Berdnikova, A. Yu., 2017. ‘Back To Kant’ or ‘Back To Leibnitz’? A Critical View from the History of Russian Metaphysical Personalism. Kantian Journal, 36(2), pp. 33-45. (In Rus.)Beshkareva, I. Yu., 2016. Intuitionism in Russian philosophy: Lossky and Frank. In: V. P. Filatov, ed., 2016. Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky. Moscow: Politicheskaya enciklopediya, pp. 147-155. (In Rus.)Cohen, H., 1922. Logik der reinen Erkenntnis. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Dmitrieva, N. А., 2007. Russkoe neokantianstvo: “Marburg” v Rossii. Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki [Russian Neo-Kantianism: “Marburg” in Russia. Historical and Philosophical Essays]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Rus.)Dmitrieva, N. А., 2016. The Conception of History by Nikolai Boldyrev: Neo-Kantian Perspectives. History of Philosophy, 21(2), pp. 45-58. (In Rus.)Frank, S. L., 1983. The Unknowable: An Ontological Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Translated by Boris Jakim. London & Athens & Ohio: Ohio University Press.Frank, S. L., 1995. Obekt znaniya: ob osnovakh i predelakh otvlechennogo znaniya [The Object of Knowledge: Principles and Limitations of Conceptual Knowledge]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka. (In Rus.)Kolerov, M. A., 2020. Sergey Askoldov’s Reviews concerning Kant and Others Published in the Russian Press in Early Twentieth Century. Kantian Journal, 39(2), pp. 80-93.Kornilaev, L. Yu., 2019a. “The Turn towards Ontology” in Russian Neo-Kantianism in the Late 1910s and Early 1920s (Lev Salagov and Nikolai Boldyrev). Kantian Journal, 38(4), pp. 81-100.Kornilaev, L. Yu., 2019b. The Specifics of Criticism on E. Lask’s Philosophy in Russia, Voprosy Filosofii, 12, pp. 132-144. (In Rus.)Lossky, N. O., 1919. The Intuitive Basis of Knowledge. Translated by N. A. Duddington, with a preface by G. D. Hickes. London: Macmillan & Co.Lossky, N. O., 1928. The World as an Organic Whole. Translated by N. Duddington. Oxford: Humphrey Milford.Lossky, N. O., 1935. Value and Existence. Translated by S. Vinokooroff. London: George Allen & Unwin.Lossky, N. O., 1952. History of Russian Philosophy. London: Allen & Unwin.Lossky, N. O., 1954. About the Creation of the World by God. Put’, 54, pp. 3-22. (In Rus.)Lossky, N. O., 1968. Vospominaniya [Memories]. Munich: Wilhelm Fink. (In Rus.)Lossky, N. O., 1971. An Outline of My Own Philosophy. Le Messager périodique de l’Action Chrétienne des Etudiants Russes, 2(100), pp. 98-115. (In Rus.)Lossky, N. O., 1995. Ideal-Realism (From Public Introduction to Philosophy). In: Chuvstvennaya, intellektualnaya i misticheskaya intuiciya [Sensual, Intellectual and Mystical Intuition]. 1995. Moscow: Respublika, pp. 290-348. (In Rus.)Obolevitch, T., 2012. W stronę ontologizmu. Ewolucja twórcza Siemiona Franka. Estetyka i Krytyka, 4(26), pp. 259-274.Obolevitch, T., 2014. From Neo-Kantianism to Ontologism. Thought, 16, pp. 62-69. (In Rus.)Prokhorov, M. M., 2018. From Ontology and Gnoseology to Ontognoseology. In: M. Prokhorov, ed., 2018. World Outlook Paradigm in Philosophy: the Fundamentals of Ontognoseology. Nizhny Novgorod: NNGASU, pp. 16-34. (In Rus.)Rickert, H., 1896–1902. Die Grenzen der naturwissenschaftlichen Begriffsbildung. Eine logische Einleitung in die historischen Wissenschaften. Freiburg im Breisgau und Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).Savincev, V. I. and Popova, V. S. 2019. Transformation of the Concept of “Conciliarity” / “All-Unity” in Intuitivism of N. O. Lossky (Gnoseological Aspect). Philosophical Thought, 10, pp. 41-48. (In Rus.)Semenyuk, A. P., 2012. Ontognoseology of S. L. Frank. Uchenye Zapiski Kazanskogo Universiteta. Seriya Gumanitarnye Nauki, 154(1), pp. 153-165. (In Rus.)V. N.BelovP. A.Vladimirov0529202611