NONE20260530230439291Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370105302026401MeerR.Both the categories and principles of understanding as well as the ideas and principles of reason build transcendental elements to conceive transcendental philosophy as a philosophical system. Accordingly, in addition to the “Transcendental Analytic”, Kant develops in the “Transcendental Dialectic” an expanded concept of the transcendental. The transcendental ideas do not denote object-constitutive principles but, in a weaker sense, conditions of the possibility of experience. The relation between Division One and Division Two of the “Doctrine of Elements” can be demonstrated exemplarily with regard to Kant’s references to astronomy. Based on the constitutive principles of understanding, which are directed towards the field of possible experience and provide a connection of cognition through reasons and consequences, as well as the regulative principles of reason, which form maxims of research, astronomy is a proper and rational natural science. The analysis of the case studies of astronomy shows that Kant uses the term transcendental within the framework of the “Transcendental Logic” of the Critique of Pure Reason to denote conditions that are constitutive for the possibility of an object in general and for describing necessary regulative conditions of experience. With these reflections, Kant places his transcendental philosophy in a long tradition of philosophical thought in which the celestial bodies are the preferred subject.0530202611Allison, H. E., 2004. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. An Interpretation and Defence, Revised edition. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Anderson, R. L., 2015. The Poverty of Conceptual Truth. Kant’s Analytic/Synthetic Distinction and the Limits of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Angehrn, E., 2004. Kant und die gegenwärtige Geschichtsphilosophie. In: D. Heidemann und K. Engelhard, Hg. 2004. Warum Kant heute? Systematische Bedeutung und Rezeption seiner Philosophie in der Gegenwart. Berlin: De Gruyter, S. 328-351.Brandt, R., 2003. Universität zwischen Selbst- und Fremdbestimmung. Kants „Streit der Fakultäten“. Mit einem Anhang zu Heideggers Rektoratsrede. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Brandt, R., 2007. Die Bestimmung des Menschen bei Kant. Hamburg: Meiner.Buchdahl, G., 1966. The Relation between Understanding and Reason in the Architectonic of Kant’s Philosophy. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 67, S. 209-226.Buchdahl, G., 1971. The Conception of Lawlikeness in Kant’s Philosophy of Science. Synthese, 23, S. 24-46.Caimi, M., 1995. Über eine wenig beachtete Deduktion der regulativen Ideen. Kant-Studien, 86, S. 308-320.Cheneval, F., 2002. Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Bedeutung. Über die Entstehung und die philosophischen Grundlagen des supranationalen und kosmopolitischen Denkens der Moderne. Basel: Schwabe.De Bianchi, S., 2015. Astronomie. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr und S. Bacin, Hg. 2015. Kant-Lexikon. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, S. 178.Despland, M., 1973. Kant on History and Religion. Toronto: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Dohrn, D., 2015. transzendental. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr und S. Bacin, Hg. 2015. Kant-Lexikon. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, S. 2313-2319.Dougherty, F. W. P., 1990. Buffons Bedeutung für die Entwicklung des anthropologischen Denkens in Deutschland der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts. In: G. Mann und F. Dumon, Hg. 1990. Die Natur des Menschen. Problem der physischen Anthropologie und Rassenkunde (1750-1850). Stuttgart & New York: Fischer, S. 221-280.Euler, W., 2013. Kants Philosophiebegriff in der ‚Architektonik der reinen Vernunft‘. In: S. Bacin, A. Ferrarin, C. La Rocca und M. Ruffing, Hg. 2013. Kant und die Philosophie in weltbürgerlicher Absicht: Akten des XI. Kant-Kongresses 2010. Berlin: De Gruyter, S. 517-534.Findlay, J. N., 1981. Kant and the Transcendental Object. A Hermeneutic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Friedman, M., 1992a. Causal Laws and the Foundations of Natural Science. In: P. Guyer, Hg. 1992. The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 161-199.Friedman, M., 1992b. Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.Friedman, M., 1992c. Regulative and Constitutive. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 30, pp. 73-102.Gerhard, V., 2015. Philosophie. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr und S. Bacin, Hg. 2015. Kant-Lexikon. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, S. 1764-1775.Ginsborg, H., 1990. The Role of Taste in Kant’s Theory of Cognition. New York: Routledge.Grier, M., 2001. Kant’s Doctrine of Transcendental Illusion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Guyer, P., 2003. Kant on the Systematicity of Nature: Two Puzzles. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 20, S. 277-295.Hinske, N., 1970. Kants Weg zur Transzendentalphilosophie. Der dreißigjährige Kant. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Heidemann, D., 2017. Kants Vermögensmetaphysik. In: A. Hahmann und B. Ludwig, Hg. 2017. Über die Fortschritte der kritischen Metaphysik. Beiträge zu Systematik und Architektonik der kantischen Philosophie. Hamburg: Meiner, S. 59-78.Henschen, T., 2014. Kant on Causal Laws and Powers. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 48, pp. 20-29.Honnefelder, L., 1995. Die ‚Transzendentalphilosophie der Alten‘: Zur mittelalterlichen Vorgeschichte von Kants Begriff der Transzendentalphilosophie. In: H. Robinson, Hg. 1995. Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress, Milwaukee. Bd. 1, T. 2. Memphis: De Gruyter, S. 393-407.Horstmann, R. -P., 1997. Bausteine kritischer Philosophie. Arbeiten zu Kant. Bodenheim bei Mainz: Philo.Kitcher, Ph., 1986. Projecting the Order of Nature. In: R. E. Butts, Hg. 1986. Kant’s Philosophy of Physical Science. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 201-235.Kitcher, Ph., 1992. Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics. In: C. J. Posy, Hg. 1992. Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics. Modern Essays. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 109-131.Kitcher, Ph., 1994. The Unity of Science and the Unity of Nature. In: P. Parrini, Hg. 1994. Kant and Contemporary Epistemology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 253-272.Kleingeld, P., 1995. Fortschritt und Vernunft: Zur Geschichtsphilosophie Kants. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Klimmek, N., 2005. Kants System der transzendentalen Ideen. Berlin und Boston: De Gruyter.Koriako, D., 1999. Kants Philosophie der Mathematik. Grundlagen — Voraussetzungen — Probleme. Hamburg: Meiner.Kreines, J., 2015. Reason in the World. Hegel’s Metaphysics and its Philosophical Appeal. Oxford: Oxford University Press.La Rocca, C., 2011. Formen des Als Ob bei Kant. In: B. Dörflinger und G. Kruck, Hg. 2011. Über den Nutzen von Illusionen. Die regulativen Ideen in Kants theoretischer Philosophie. Zürich und New York: Olms, S. 29-47.Lemanski, J., 2012. Die Königin der Revolution. Zur Rettung und Erhaltung der Kopernikanischen Wende. Kant-Studien, 103, S. 448-471.Lemanski, J., 2016: Galilei, Torricelli, Stahl — Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Physik in der B-Vorrede zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Kant-Studien, 107, S. 451-484.Maor, E., 1989. Dem Unendlichen auf der Spur. Basel: Birkhäuser.Massimi, M., 2014. Prescribing Laws to Nature. Part I. Newton, the Pre-Critical Kant, and three Problems about the Lawfulness of Nature. Kant-Studien, 105, pp. 491-508.Massimi, M., 2017. What is this Thing Called Scientific Knowledge? — Kant on Imaginary Standpoints and the Regulative Role of Reason. Kant Yearbook, 9, pp. 63-72.McFarland, J. D., 1970. Kant’s Concept of Teleology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.McLaughlin, P., 2014. Transcendental Presuppositions and Ideas of Reason. Kant-Studien, 105, S. 554-572.McNulty, M. B., 2015. Rehabilitating the Regulative Use of Reason: Kant on Empirical and Chemical Laws. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 54, pp. 1-10.Medicus, F., 1902. Kants Philosophie der Geschichte. Kant-Studien, 7, S. 1-22.Meer, R., 2018. Immanuel Kant’s Theory of Objects and its Inherent Link to Natural Science. Open Philosophy, 1/2, S. 342-359.Meer, R., 2019. Der transzendentale Grundsatz der Vernunft. Funktion und Struktur des Anhangs zur Transzendentalen Dialektik der Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Berlin: De Gruyer.Motta, G., 2015. Die Stadt aus Glas. Voltaires parodistischer Entwurf eines ewigen Friedens auf Erden. In: S. Stockhorst, Hg. 2015. Krieg und Frieden im 18. Jahrhundert. Hannover: Wehrhahn, S. 469-482.Newton, I., 1730. Opticks. Or a Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections and Colours of Light. Fourth Edition. London: William Innys.Pilot, H., 1995. Die Vernunftideen als Analoga von Schemata der Sinnlichkeit. In: Ch. Fricke, P. König und T. Petersen, Hg. 1995. Das Recht der Vernunft. Kant und Hegel über Denken, Erkennen und Handeln. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog, S. 155-192.Plaass, P., 1965. Kants Theorie der Naturwissenschaft: Eine Untersuchung zur Vorrede von Kants Metaphysischen Anfangsgründen der Naturwissenschaft. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Platon, 1994. Politeia. In: Platon, 1994. Sämtliche Werke. Band 2. Hg. von U. Wolf. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, S. 195-538.Pollok, K., 2001. Kants „Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft“. Ein kritischer Kommentar. Hamburg: Meiner.Posy, C. 1992. Kant’s Mathematical Realism. In: C. Posy, ed. 1992. Kant’s Philosophy of Mathematics. Modern Essay. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 293-313.Proops, I., 2010. Kant’s First Paralogism. Philosophical Review, 119, pp. 449-495.Rescher, N., 2000. Kant and the Reach of Reason. Studies in Kant’s Theory of Rational Systematization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Rivero, G., 2014. Zur Bedeutung des Begriffs Ontologie bei Kant. Eine entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Berlin: De Gruyter.Rush, F. L., 2000. Reason and Regulation in Kant. Review of Metaphysics, 53, pp. 837-862.Schönecker, D., Schulting, D. und Strobach, N., 2011. Kants kopernikanisch-newtonische Analogie. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, 59, S. 497-518.Stang, Nick F., 2016: Kant’s Modal Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sturm, Th., 2009. Kant und die Wissenschaft vom Menschen. Paderborn: Mentis.Thiel, K., 2008. Kant und die „Eigentliche Methode der Metaphysik“. Zürich: Olms.Thöle, B., 2000. Die Einheit der Erfahrung. Zur Funktion der regulativen Prinzipien bei Kant. In: R. Enskat, Hg. 2000. Erfahrung und Urteilskraft. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, S. 113-148.Van den Berg, H., 2011. Kant’s Conception of Proper Science. Synthese, 183, pp. 7-26.Wartenberg, Th. E., 1979. Order through Reason. Kant’s Transcendental Justification of Science. Kant-Studien, 70, pp. 409-424.Wartenberg, Th. E., 1992. Reason and the Practice of Science. In: P. Guyer, Hg. 1992. The Cambridge Companion to Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, S. 228-248.Watkins, E., 1998. The Argumentative Structure of Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 36, pp. 567-593.Watkins, E., 2014. What is, for Kant, a Law of Nature? Kant-Studien, 105, pp. 471-490.Weyand, K., 1963. Kants Geschichtsphilosophie. Ihre Entwicklung und ihr Verhältnis zur Aufklärung. Köln: Universitätsverlag.Willaschek, M., 2018. Kant on the Sources of Metaphysics. The Dialectic of Pure Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Ypi, L., 2017. The Transcendental Deduction of Ideas in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 117, pp. 163-185.Yovel, Y., 1989. Kant and the Philosophy of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Zocher, R., 1958. Zu Kants transzendentaler Deduktion der Ideen der reinen Vernunft. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 12, S. 43-58.Zöller, G., 1984. Theoretische Gegenstandsbeziehung bei Kant. Berlin: De Gruyter.F. MillerL.Recent years have seen a surge of interest in the question of whether humans should reproduce. Some say human life is too punishing and cruel to impose upon an innocent. Others hold that such harms do not undermine the great and possibly unique value of human life. Tracing these outlooks historically in the debate has barely begun. What might philosophers have said, or what did they say, about human life itself and its value to merit reproduction? Herein it is useful to look to Kant, who wrote much on whether, by reproducing, humans do wrong or right morally. Two main arguments are put forward and assessed: one examining whether perfect or imperfect duties condone reproduction, the other whether Kant’s teleological or, in the opposite sense, his eschatological outlooks can salvage reproduction. These two arguments are essential for building the entire argument. I find that, although Kant’s arguments against reproducing are strong, some of his writing seems to support reproduction as a good. Yet, must we assume an author, even one who strove for systematicity, is consistent over an entire life’s work on every issue, especially if it is not handled directly in a single work? I conclude that Kant does not sufficiently, systematically support anti-natalism as more moral than pro-natalism. It is best for the current debate to grapple with the very dilemma that daunted Kant.0530202611Allison, H. E., 1986. Morality and Freedom: Kant’s Reciprocity Thesis. Philosophical Review, 95(3), pp. 393-425.Anscombe, G. E. M., 1989. Why Have Children? In: Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 63, pp. 48-53.Benatar, D., 2006. Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Benatar, D. and Wasserman, D., 2015. Debating Procreation: Is It Wrong to Reproduce? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Bojanowski, J., 2018. Thinking About Cases. The European Journal of Philosophy, 26(4), pp. 1253-1268.Carson, R., 1962. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Chalmers, D., 2020. The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17(9-10), pp. 7-65.Conly, S., 2016. One Child: Do We Have a Right to More? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Dawkins, R., 1975. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hannan, S., Brennan, S. and Vernon, R. eds. 2016. Permissible Progeny? The Morality of Procreation and Parenting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kant, I., 1997. Moral Philosophy: Collins’s Lecture Notes. In: I. Kant, 1997. Lectures on Ethics. Edited by P. Heath and J. B. Schneewind; translated by P. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37-222.Kant, I., 1993. Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by J. W. Ellington. Indianapolis: Hackett.Kant, I., 1996. Metaphysics of Morals. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Translated by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353-604.Kant, I., 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Edited by P. Guyer, translated by P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kleingeld, P., 2017. Contradiction and Kant’s Formula of Universal Law. Kant-Studien, 108(1), pp. 89-115.Mill, J. S., 1859. On Liberty. In: R. M. Hutchins, ed. 1952. Great Books of the Western World 43: American State Papers. The Federalist. J. S. Mill. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, pp. 265-323.Miller, L. F., 2017. No Longer as Free as the Wind: Human Reproduction and Parenting Enter the Scope of Morality. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(3), pp. 657-664.Nyholm, S., 2015. Kant’s Universal Law Formula Revisited. Metaphilosophy, 46(2), pp. 280-299.O’Neill, O., 1988. Consistency in Action. In: P. Guyer, ed. 1988. Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Critical Essays. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 105-132.Overall, C., 2012. Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate. Cambridge: MIT Press.Parfit, D., 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon.Parfit, D., 2011. On What Matters, Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Puls, H., 2016. Kant’s Justification of Parental Duties. Kantian Review, 21(1), pp. 53-75.Rumbaugh, D. and Washburn, D., 2003. Intelligence of Apes and Other Rational Beings. New Haven: Yale University Press.Scheffler, S., 2011. Introduction. In: D. Parfit, 2011. On What Matters. Volume 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. XIX-XXXII.Shiffrin, S., 1999. Wrongful Life, Procreative Responsibility, and the Significance of Harm. Legal Theory, 5(2), pp. 117-148.Singer, P. and Cavalieri, P., eds. 1993. The Great Ape Project: Equality Beyond Humanity. London: Fourth Estate.Weinberg, R., 2016. The Risk of a Lifetime: How, When, and Why Procreation May Be Permissible. Oxford: Oxford University Press.O. RozhinD.Kant’s views on space and time as well as his doctrine of the categories of understanding attracted the attention of thinkers belonging to the Russian spiritual-academic philosophical tradition of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A prominent representative of these was Fyodor Golubinsky. He was among the first to react to Kant’s “Copernican turn”. He did not merely study the epistemological ideas of Kant but embraced them and modified them in the framework of his own philosophical teaching. To determine why Golubinsky turned to Kant’s ideas, to what extent he shared them and with what he disagreed and why, I propose to reconstruct Kant’s and Golubinsky’s ideas on space and time and to compare their doctrines of the categories of understanding. I come to the conclusion that Golubinsky borrowed some propositions of Kant’s theory of space and time, specifically, the procedure of identifying forms of sensibility — space and time — their a priori character, their being part of sensible intuitions and, finally, their definition as essential properties of sense perception. Golubinsky, unlike Kant, considers space and time to be objective. In his doctrine of the categories of understanding Golubinsky follows Kant in that the foundation of the categories of understanding is the unity of self-consciousness but he attributes the unity of self-consciousness to reason’s idea of the Infinite, whereas Kant sees it in the understanding. With some reservations, it can be said that Golubinsky adopts Kant’s table of categories but changes their order. As for the meaning of the categories, for Golubinsky they are not merely laws of cognising things, but laws of their being. In conclusion, I show that Golubinsky forms his epistemological concept in polemics with Kant, borrowing from him only those propositions which fit his metaphysics or modifying them to that end.0530202611Abramov, A. I., 1994. Kant in Russian Spiritual-Academic Philosophy. In: Z. A. Kamensky and V. A. Zhuchkov, eds., 1994. Kant i filosofia v Rossii [Kant and Philosophy in Russia]. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 81-113. (In Rus.)Baumeister, F. C., 1830. Metafizika [The Metaphysics]. Translated from Latin by Ya. Tolmachev. Saint Petersburg: Printing office of the Medical Department of the Internal Affairs Ministry. (In Rus.)Gavryushin, N. K., 2012. “Pillar of the Church”: Archpriest F. A. Golubinsky and His School. In: M. A. Kolerov and N. S. Plotnikov, eds., 2012. Studies in Russian intellectual history [9]. Yearbook 2008-2009. Moscow: REGNUM, pp. 7-51. (In Rus.)Golubinsky, F. A., 1884a. Lektsii filosofii professora Moskovskoy dukhovnoy akademii F. A. Golubinskogo [Lectures of Philosophy by Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy F. A. Golubinsky]. Volume 1. Moscow: L. F. Snegirev. (In Rus.)Golubinsky, F. A., 1884b. Lektsii filosofii professora Moskovskoy dukhovnoy akademii F. A. Golubinskogo [Lectures of Philosophy by Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy F. A. Golubinsky]. Volume 2. Moscow: L. F. Snegirev. (In Rus.)Golubinsky, F. A., 1884c. Lektsii filosofii professora Moskovskoy dukhovnoy akademii F. A. Golubinskogo [Lectures of Philosophy by Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy F. A. Golubinsky]. Volume 3. Moscow: L. F. Snegirev. (In Rus.)Golubinsky, F. A., 1886. Lektsii filosofii professora Moskovskoy dukhovnoy akademii F. A. Golubinskogo [Lectures of Philosophy by Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy F. A. Golubinsky]. Volume 4. Moscow: L. F. Snegirev. (In Rus.)Golubinsky, F. A., 1871. Umozritel’naya psihologiya. Chteniya pokojnogo professora Moskovskoj duhovnoj akademii, protoiereya Fedora Aleksandrovicha Golubinskogo [The Speculative Psychology. Readings of the Late Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Fyodor Alexandrovich Golubinsky]. Moscow: Katkov and Co. (In Rus.)Zadornov, A., 2006. Golubinsky Fyodor Aleksandrovich. In: Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, ed. Pravoslavnaya enciklopediya [The Orthodox Encyclopedia], Volume 11. Moscow: Church Research Centre “Orthodox Encyclopaedia”, pp. 721-724. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kornilov, S. V., 2016. Towards the Comprehension of the Infinite: the Believers’ Mind F. A. Golubinsky. Space and Time, 1-2 (23-24), pp. 63-72. (In Rus.)Kotsyuba, V. I., 2013. Lectures by Archpriest Fyodor Golubinsky as a Subject of Historical and Philosophical Analysis]. St. Tikhon’s University Review. Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies, 5 (49), pp. 43-59. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A. N., 2008. Tetens, Kant i diskussiya o metafizike v Germanii vtoroj poloviny XVIII veka [Tetens, Kant and the Discussion of Metaphysics in Germany in the Second Half of the 18th Century]. Moscow: “Phenomenology — Hermeneutics”. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A. N., 2009. Filosofiya Kanta v Rossii v konce XVIII — pervoj polovine XIX vekov [Kant’s Philosophy in Russia at the End of the 18th and the First Half of the 19th Centuries]. Moscow: Kanon+. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A., 2016. Krug, Wilhelm Traugott (1770—1842). In: H. F. Klemme and M. Kuehn, eds. 2016. The Bloomsbury Dictionary of Eighteenth-Century German Philosophers. London & New York: Bloomsbury, pp. 441-442.Krug, W. T., 1828. Handbuch der Philosophie und der philosophischen Literatur: in 2 Volumes. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Machkarina, O. D., 2011a. The Problem of Subjectivity in the Philosophy of F. A. Golubinsky: Critical Perception of the Ideas of I. Kant. Vestnik of Murmansk State Technical University, 14 (1), pp. 161-169. (In Rus.)Machkarina, O. D., 2011b. Recepciya kriticheskoj filosofii I. Kanta v Rossii XIX veka [Reception of the Critical Philosophy of I. Kant in Russia of the XIX Century]. Dissertation. Saint Petersburg: s. n. (In Rus.)Romanko, Yu. I., 2012. Religiozno-filosofskaya sistema F. A. Golubinskogo [The Religious and Philosophical System of F. A. Golubinsky]. Dissertation. Blagoveshchensk: s. n. (In Rus.)Tsvyk, I. V., 2002. Duhovno-akademicheskaya filosofiya v Rossii XIX v.: Istoriko-filosofskij analiz [Spiritual and Academic Philosophy in Russia in the 19th Century: Historical and Philosophical Analysis]. Dissertation. Moscow: s. n. (In Rus.)Tsvyk, I. V., 2013. Philosophy in the Moscow Ecclesiastical Academy in the 19th Century. RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 1, pp. 44-57. (In Rus.)Wolff, C., 1725. Vernünfftige Gedancken von Gott, Der Welt Und der Seele des Menschen, Auch allen Dingen überhaupt, den Liebhabern der Wahrheit mitgetheilet. Die dritte Auflage hin und wieder vermehret. Halle: Renger.HladeJ.Das vorliegende Buch greift mit dem Vermögen der Einbildungskraft ein Thema auf, das in eine lebhafte Forschungsdiskussion eingebettet ist (vgl. zuletzt etwa Schäfer, 2019; Fliethmann, 2019; Mühlbacher, 2019; Moeller und Whitehead, 2019; Horstmann, 2018; Costelloe, 2018; Altschuler, 2018; Sommadossi, 2018). Dem Band gelingt es, namhafte Forscherinnen und Forscher aus verschiedenen Disziplinen — der Philosophie, der Wissenschaftsgeschichte und den Kunstwissenschaften — zu diesem Thema zu versammeln. Aus diesem Grund ist das Buch für Aufklärungsforscherinnen und Aufklärungsforscher unterschiedlicher Richtungen von großem Interesse.0530202611Altschuler, S., 2018. The Medical Imagination. Literature and Health in the Early United States. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.Buchenau, S. and Lo Presti, R., eds. 2017. Human and Animal Cognition in Early Modern Philosophy and Medicine. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Costelloe, T., 2018. The Imagination in Hume’s Philosophy: The Canvas of the Mind. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Fliethmann, A., 2019. Gefährdet / Gefährlich: Die Einbildungskraft zwischen Theologie und Medizin in der Frühen Neuzeit. In: G. Mein and H. Christians, eds. 2019. Gefahr oder Risiko. Zur Geschichte von Kalkül und Einbildungskraft. Leiden: Brill, pp. 27-40.Horstmann, R.-P., 2018. Kant’s Power of Imagination. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Krahn, V., 2016. Canova und der Tanz. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.Meer, R., Motta G. und Stiening, G., Hg., 2019. Konzepte der Einbildungskraft in der Philosophie, den Wissenschaften und den Künsten des 18. Jahrhunderts: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Udo Thiel. Berlin und Boston: De Gruyter.Mühlbacher, M., 2019. Die Kraft der Figuren. Darstellungsformen der Imagination bei Shaftesbury, Condillac und Diderot. München: Fink.Moeller, H.-G. and Whitehead, A., eds. 2019. Imagination: Cross-Cultural Philosophical Analyses. Bloomsbury: Bloomsbury University Press.Schäfer, R., 2019. Die Zeit der Einbildungskraft — Die Rolle des Schematismus in Kants Erkenntnistheorie. Kant-Studien, 110(3), pp. 437-462.Sommadossi, T., 2018. ‚Polytheismus der Einbildungskraft‘: Wechselspiele von Literatur und Religion von der Aufklärung bis zur Gegenwart. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Thiel, U., 2014. The Early Modern Subject: Self-Consciousness and Personal Identity From Descartes to Hume. Oxford: Oxford University Press.