NONE20260605032231563Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370106052026412E.GörgKant’s natural philosophy in the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science is heavily influenced by Newton’s Principia. However, a closer look makes it clear that Kant’s project has also been influenced by other thinkers. One of these thinkers is Leonard Euler. His work was of great influence for Kant, not only with regards to his view on space and inertia but on the relation between metaphysics and natural science in general. Even though Euler’s Physics built on Newton’s work, he differs from him in fundamental regards, leading to crucial developments inside classical mechanics. Here I will discuss the influence of Euler on the work of Kant and focus on Euler’s view on the two entangled problems of inertia and space. It will become clear that both Euler and Kant went through a development concerning these fundamental notions. After shortly highlighting the differences between Kant and Newton (1), I shall go through the development of important parts of Euler’s natural philosophy concerning the above mentioned themes. I intend to demonstrate that he, through his refutation of Wolffianism, became an advocate for the necessity of absolute space but also denied the existence of an internal force of inertia (2). After that I will show how Kant’s reading of Euler lead to crucial changes of his natural philosophy in particular and his philosophical enterprise in general. I therefore analyze Kant’s revision of his theory of space and inertia in his precritical writings. Building upon that, I will show the influence of these thoughts on his Metaphysical Foundations (3).0605202611Carrier, M., 1992. Kant’s Relational Theory of Absolute Space. Kant-Studien, 83(4), S. 399-416.Carrier, M., 2009. Raum-Zeit. Berlin: De Gruyter.Cassirer, E., 1999. Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit. In: E. Cassirer, 1999. Gesammelte Werke. 3.2. Hg. von B. Recki. Hamburg: Meiner.Euler, L., 1746a. A solution to the problem of whether or not the faculty of thought can be attributed to matter, based on principles of mechanics. Übersetzt von J. McAlhany, 2018. Available at: The Euler ArchiveEuler, L., 1746b. Gedancken von den Elementen der Cörper, in welchem das Lehr-Gebäude von den einfachen Dingen und Monaden geprüft, und das wahre Wesen der Cörper entdeckt wird. In: Leonhardi Euleri оpera omnia sub auspiciis societatis scientiarum naturalium helveticae. Series 3: Opera physica, miscellanea, epistolae, Volume 2: Rechenkunst. Ed. E. Hoppe, K. Matter, J. J. Burckhardt, Genevae 1942. Lipsiae et Berolini: B. G. Teubner; Turici et Lipsiae: Orell Füssli, pp. 347-366.Euler, L., 1763. Vernünftige Gedanken von dem Raume, dem Orth, der Dauer und der Zeit. Übers. von G. H. Schwan. Quedlinburg: bey G. H. Schwans Wittwe.Euler, L., 1848. Mechanik oder analytische Darstellung der Wissenschaft von der Bewegung. Erste Theil. Hg. von J. P. Wolfers. Greifswald: Koch’s Verlagshandlung.Euler, L., 1853. Mechanik oder analytische Darstellung der Wissenschaft von der Bewegung. Dritter Theil: Theorie der Bewegung fester und starrer Körper. Hg. von J. P. Wolfers. Greifswald: Koch’s Verlagshandlung.Euler, L., 1862. Anleitung zur Natur-Lehre, worin die Gründe zu Erklärung aller in der Natur sich ereignenden Begebenheiten und Veränderungen festegesetzt werden. In: Leonhardi Euleri opera postuma mathematica et physica. Tomus Alter, quae Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae obtulerunt ejusque auspiciis ediderunt auctoris pronepotes P. H. Fuss et N. Fuss. Petropoli: Eggers et Socios; Lipsiae: Voss.Euler, L., 1986. Briefe an eine deutsche Prinzessin über verschiedene Gegenstände aus der Physik und Philosophie. Hg. von A. Speiser. Braunschweig: Vieweg.Fischer, H.-P., 1985. Kant an Euler. Kant-Studien, 76(2), S. 214-219.Friedman, M., 1992. Kant and the Exact Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Goldenbaum, U., 2004. Appell an das Publikum. Die öffentliche Debatte in der deutschen Aufklärung 1687—1796. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Kant, I., 1968. Der Gebrauch der Metaphysik, sofern sie mit der Geometrie verbunden ist, in der Naturphilosophie, dessen erste Probe die physische Monadologie enthält. In: Immanuel Kant: Werke in zehn Bänden. Bd. 1 : Vorkritische Schriften bis 1768. Erster Teil. Übers. und hg. von W. Weischedel. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, S. 511-568.Kühn, M., 2007. Kant. Eine Biografie. München: dtv.Kutschmann, W., 1983. Die Newtonsche Kraft. Metamorphose eines wissenschaftlichen Begriffs. Wiesbaden: Steiner.Newton, I., 1999. Die mathematischen Prinzipien der Physik. Übers. und hg. von V. Schüller. Berlin: De Gruyter.Pollok K., 1997. Anmerkung des Herausgebers. In: I. Kant. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft. Hamburg: Meiner, S. 127—149.Pollok, K., 2000. Kants Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft. Ein kritischer Kommentar. Hamburg, Meiner.Pulte, H., 1989. Das Prinzip der kleinsten Wirkung und die Kraftkonzeption der rationalen Mechanik: Eine Untersuchung zur Grundlegungsproblematik bei Leonhard Euler, Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis und Joseph Louis Lagrange. Stuttgart: Steiner.Pulte, H., 1993. Die Newton-Rezeption in der rationalen Mechanik des 18. Jahrhunderts. Wissenschaftstheoretische, -historische und -historiographische Reflexionen zu einem kontroversen Thema. In: K. Steinbock, Hg. 1993. Beiträge zur Geschichte von Technik und technischer Bildung. Folge 7. Leipzig: Hochschule für Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur, S. 33-59.Speiser, A., 1986. Einleitung. In: Briefe an eine deutsche Prinzessin über verschiedene Gegenstände aus der Physik und Philosophie. In: L. Euler, 1986. Briefe an eine deutsche Prinzessin über verschiedene Gegenstände aus der Physik und Philosophie. Hg. von A. Speiser. Braunschweig: Vieweg, S. XXI-XLV.Watkins, E., 1997. The Laws of Motion from Newton to Kant. Perspectives on Science, 5(3), pp. 311-348.Watkins, E., 1998, Kant’s Justification of the Laws of Mechanics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29(4), pp. 539-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3681(98)00042-9Watkins, E., 2012. The Early Kant’s (anti-) Newtonianism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44(3), pp. 429-437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.10.015Westfall, R., 1971. Force in Newton’s Physics: The Science of Dynamics in the Seventeenth Century. London: American Elsevier.G.StieningIn the mid-1760s, Johann Heinrich Lambert wrote a letter to Kant who offered cooperation with a view to reforming metaphysics. Based on the short correspondence between the two philosophers, it can be shown that this cooperation could never really come about. Nevertheless the thesis was sometimes put forward in research that Lambert had a defining influence on Kant’s Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, also, and above all, with regard to the Newton-critical moments of this natur­al theory. However, this thesis can only be confirmed in relation to individual theorems, such as the relationship between attraction and repulsion force, even though the reasons for Lambert and Kant’s deviation from Newton’s theory of gravity also differ. For in its main features the transcendental metaphysics of Kant’s nature is substantially different from the mathematical methodology of Lambert’s theory of nature. In addition, Lambert stuck throughout his life to a theonomous natural teleology in the succession of Wolff, which was fundamentally made impossible by the Critique of Pure Reason: because the wise “intention of the creator”, which Lambert’s empirical-rationalistic cosmology could not and did not want to do without, could no longer be referred to in a rational context according to the Critique of Pure Reason. Even if Lambert certainly had moments of the Kantian theory of matter or — as Kant himself admitted — elements of the spatial theory of the first Critique, there is no way from his mathematisation of metaphysics and his natural teleology to the fundamental innovation of the Metaphysical Foundations.0605202611Baensch, O., 1902. Johann Heinrich Lamberts Philosophie und seine Stellung zu Kant. Tübingen & Leipzig: Mohr.Blumenberg, H., 1975. Die Genesis der kopernikanischen Welt. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Carrier, M., 1991. Kraft und Wirklichkeit. Kants späte Theorie der Materie. In: Forum für Philosophie Bad Homburg, Hg. 1991. Übergänge. Untersuchungen zum Spätwerk Kants. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, S. 208-230.Carl, W., 1992. Die Transzendentale Deduktion der Kategorien in der ersten Auflage der ‚Kritik der reinen Vernunft‘. Ein Kommentar. Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann.Falkenburg, B., 2000. Kants Kosmologie. Die wissenschaftliche Revolution der Naturphilosophie im 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt a. M.: Klostermann.Kleist, H. von, 1987. Über die allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden. In: H. von Kleist, 1987. Sämtliche Werke und Briefe. Hg. von H. Sembdner. In 2 Bänden. Band 2. München: dtv, S. 319-324.Klingner, S., 2022. Lambert über natürliche Theologie und christliche Religion. In: H.-P. Nowitzki, E. Pasini, P. Rumore und G. Stiening (Hg.): Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728-1777). Wege zur Mathematisierung der Aufklärung. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. (Im Druck).Kuliniak, R., 2014. Johann Heinrich Lambert und Kants Reform der Metaphysik. Dresden: Neisse.Lambert, J. H., 1761. Cosmologische Briefe über die Einrichtung des Weltbaus. Augspurg: Kletts Wittib.Lambert, J. H., 1771. Anlage zur Architectonik oder Theorie des Ersten und des Einfachen in der philosophischen und mathematischen Erkenntnis. In 2 Bänden. Band 1. Riga: Hartknoch.Lambert, J. H., [1781]. Johann Heinrich Lamberts deutscher gelehrter Briefwechsel. Hg. von J. Bernoulli. Band 1. Berlin & Dessau: Buchhandlung des Gelehrten.Lambert, J. H., 1990. Neues Organon oder Gedanken über die Erforschung des Wahren und dessen Unterscheidung in Irrtum und Wahrheit. In 3 Bänden. Band 1. Hg. von G. Schenk. Berlin: Akademie.Lorenz, A., 2003. Kant und Newton. Klassische Natur- und Transzendentalphilosophie. Wroclaw: Arboretum; Wyddział Nauk Społecznych.Newton, I., 1726. Philosophiae naturalis Principia mathematica. Editio tertia auctor et emendata. London: Guil. & Joh. Innys.Pollok, K., 2001. Kants „Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft“. Ein kritischer Kommentar. Hamburg: Meiner.Reinhard, F.C., 1779. Johann Heinrich Lambert. In: Leben der berühmtesten vier Gelehrten unsers Philosophischen Jahrhunderts, Rousseau’s, Lambert’s, Hallers’s und Voltaire’s. Frankfurt, Leipzig: o.V., S. 27-53.Röd, W., 2006. Die Philosophie der Neuzeit 3.1: Kritische Philosophie von Kant bis Schopenhauer. München: Beck.Seide, A., 2020. Die Notwendigkeit empirischer Naturgesetze bei Kant. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.Stiening, G. und Thiel, U., 2014. Einleitung: Johann Nikolaus Tetens und die Tradition des europäischen Empirismus. In: G. Stiening und U. Thiel, Hg. 2014. Johann Nikolaus Tetens (1736-1807). Philosophie in der Tradition des Europäischen Empirismus. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, S. 13-24.Stiening, G., 2014. Dieser „große Künstler von Blendwerken“. Kants Kritik an Herder. In: M. Egger, Hg. 2014. Philosophie nach Kant. Festschrift für Manfred Baum. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, S. 473-498.Sturm, T., 2009. Kant und die Wissenschaft vom Menschen. Paderborn: Schöningh.Tetens, J.N., 1760. Gedancken über einige Ursachen, warum in der Metaphysik nur wenige ausgemachte Wahrheiten sind, als eine Einladungs-Schrift zu seinen den 13ten October auf der Bützlowischen Academie anzufangenden Vorlesungen, entworfen von Johann Nikolaus Tetens. Bützlow, Wismar: o. V.Vorländer, K., 1992. Immanuel Kant. Der Mann und das Werk. In 2 Bänden. 3. Auflage. Band 2. Hamburg: Meiner.Walschots, M., 2022. Lambert über den moralischen Schein. In: H.-P. Nowitzki, E. Pasini, P. Rumore und G. Stiening, Hg. 2022. Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728-1777). Wege zur Mathematisierung der Aufklärung. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. (Im Druck).Wunderlich, F., 2005. Kant und die Bewußtseinstheorien des 18. Jahrhunderts. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.A.V.BabaevaL.V.GusevaO.MKimImmanuel Kant’s Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime is examined in the context of the emergence of the epistemological practice of scientific observation. By focusing on the genre-stylistic and semantic-structural features of the text the authors demonstrate the mechanisms of observation as well as the methods of describing the results characteristic of mid-eighteenth century science. The authors consider Kant’s treatise to be a hybrid text: on the one hand, it attests to the importance of the natural science paradigm and the degree of its influence on the humanities in the modern period; and, on the other hand, it bears witness to the multi-genre character of philosophical treatises, combining as they do the considered and serious wisdom of philosophy, the precision of scientific terminology and the figurativeness of a work of fiction. Kant is perceived not only as a researcher and philosopher capable of bringing out the essence of the particular and changeable captured in observation, but as a writer with a consummate command of the apparatus for keeping the reader’s attention through linguistic devices and practices of image-creating. The authors demonstrate how the categories of the “beautiful” and “sublime” become a general framework for the description of the moral and mental properties of human nature. The authors show that Kant’s use of “aesthetic” wording in the title of his treatise does not announce that his aim is analysis of artistic perception and practices, but mainly refers to the form of his anthropological study and conceptualisation of scientific knowledge. Kant has transferred the technique of visualisation from natural sciences to the objects of philosophical inquiry, thus contributing to the development in the humanities of representative practices, the scientific method of observation as well as the corresponding epistemic and literary genre.0605202611Baecker, D., 2013. Foreword: A Mathematics of Form, a Sociology of Observers. Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 20(3-4), pp. 5-8.Baeva, A. V., 2019. Historization of Scientific Observation in Modern Science Research. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 56(4), pp. 46-61. (In Rus.)Chernenok, I. G., 2005. Sposoby vyrazhenija argumentacii v jetiko-filosofskom diskurse I. Kanta: Na materiale proizvedenij “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten”, “Kritik der praktischen Vernunft” i “Metaphysik der Sitten” [Ways of Expressing Argumentation in the Ethical-Philosophical Discourse of I. Kant: On the Material of the Works Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, Kritik der praktischen Vernunft and Metaphysik der Sitten]. Dissertation. Kaliningrad: s.n. (In Rus.).Chernenok, I. G., 2017. Linguistic Paradigm in Kant Studies. Slovo.ru: Baltic Accent, 8(2), pp. 114-123. (In Rus.)Daston, L., 2011. The Empire of Observation, 1600-1800. In: L. Daston and E. Lunbeck, eds. 2011. Histories of Scientific Observation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 81—113.Foucault, M., 1978. Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. Translated by A. Sheridan. New York: Pantheon Books.Gavrilenko, S. M., 2017. Historical Epistemology: the Zone of Uncertainty and the Space of Theoretical Imagination. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, 52(2), pp. 20-28. (In Rus.)Ginzburg, C., 2004. The Evidence-based Paradigm and Its Signs. In: C. Ginzburg. Mify — emblemy — primety [Myths — Emblems — Signs]. Moscow: New Publishing House, pp. 189-241. (In Rus.)Goldthwait, J. T., 1960. Translator’s Introduction. In: I. Kant, 1960. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. Translated by J. T. Goldthwait. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 1-38.Gulyga, A. V., 1977. Kant. Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 2011. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime. In: I. Kant, 2011. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime and Other Writings. Ed. by P. Frierson and P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-62.Koptsev, I. D., 1993. Kant i problemy lingvistiki filosofskogo teksta [Kant and Problems of Linguistics of the Philosophical Text]: Synopsis of the PhD Dissertation. St. Petersburg: s.n. (In Rus.)Koptsev, I. D., 2010. To the Subject-Speech Structure of I. Kant’s Axiological Discourse. Kantian Journal, 2(32), pp. 60-68. (In Rus.)Kuehn, М., 2001. Kant: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Latour, B., 1986. Visualization and Cognition: Drawing Things Together. In: H. Kuklick, ed. 1986. Knowledge and Society Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present. Volume 6. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press, pp. 1-40.Meerovsky, B. V., 1985. I. Kant and English Aesthetics of the 18th century. Kantian Journal, 1(10), pp. 51-57. (In Rus.)Narsky, I. S., 1985. Philosophical and Aesthetic Ideas of A. Baumgarten as One of the Incentives for Kant’s Theoretical Formation. Kantian Journal, 1(10), pp. 40-51. (In Rus.)Nikonova, S. B. 2012. Kant’s Philosophy and the Foundations of the Process of Aestheticization in Modern Culture. Kantian Journal, 1(39), pp. 45-54. (In Rus.)Ricoeur, P., 2004. Memory, History, Forgetting. Translated by K. Blamey and D. Pellauer. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Rorty, R., 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Shell, S. M., 2002. Kant as Propagator: Reflections on “Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime”. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 35(3), pp. 455-468.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.)Sologubov, A. M., 2004. Model of the World and the Last Foundations of Argumentation (On the Example of Kant’s Texts). In: V. N. Bryushinkin, ed. 2004. Modeli mira. Issledovanija po logike, argumentacii i istorii filosofii [Models of the World. Studies in Logic, Argumentation and the History of Philosophy]. Kaliningrad: KGU, pp. 109-119. (In Rus.)Sudakov, A. K., 2017. Philosophy of Love in the Observations of the Feeling of the Beautiful and the Sublime. Philosophy and Culture, 2, pp. 136-150. (In Rus.)Tausneva, A. S., 2016. The Aesthetic Theory of I. Kant in the Light of the Hermeneutic Project of H.-G. Gadamer. Kantian Journal, 2(56), pp. 67-72. (In Rus.)Volzhin, S. V., 2017. Sublime and Violence. The Ethos of the Sublime in M. Luther and I. Kant. Christian Reading, 4, pp. 327-343. (In Rus.)Zammito, J. H., 2002. Kant, Herder, and the Birth of Anthropology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Zilber, A. S., 2016a. Knowing People without Knowing a Human Being: The Structure of Polemics in Kant’s Political Argument. Kantian Journal, 3(57), pp. 28-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2016-3-3 (In Rus.)Zilber, A., 2016b. „Zum Geständnisse zu bringen“: Wahrheit, Glückseligkeit und Publizität bei Kant. Con-Textos Kantianos, 4, pp. 70-88. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.163990.Zilber, A. S., 2020. Polemika v politicheskoj filosofii Kanta: istoriko-filosofskij kontekst [Polemics in Kant’s Political Philosophy: Historical and Philosophical Context]. Dissertation. Kaliningrad: s.n. (In Rus.).Zilber, A. S., 2021. Mechanisms, Bees, Forest: Kant’s Political and Anthropological Metaphors and Their Meaning. In: A. V. Smirnov, ed. 2021. Vos’moj Rossijskij Filosofskij Kongress “Filosofija v policentrichnom mire”. Sekcii (I) [Eighth Russian Philosophical Congress “Philosophy in a Polycentric World”. Sections (I)]. Moscow: Logos, pp. 599-602. (In Rus.)González S.A.FuentesIt is necessary to reconsider P. M. S. Hacker’s assessment of Kant and Wittgenstein’s philosophical affinities and the question concerning Wittgenstein’s alleged use of “transcendental arguments”. First, Alfred Norman’s reading of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus as a thought experiment receives revision to develop a view of the Critique of Pure Reason as a large-scale thought experiment that shares important logical features with the Tractatus. Then the question is addressed whether the middle Wittgenstein and the pre-critical Kant employed any thought experiments that could be equally characterised as “transcendental arguments”. A rational reconstruction of both thinkers’ arguments is carried out in the light of the contemporary literature on thought experimenting. The novelty and relevance of this approach is the emphasis laid upon a largely neglected affinity between Kant and Wittgenstein, namely the systematic use of thought experiments in their epistemological pursuits. The conclusions are: i) Wittgenstein’s and Kant’s magna opera can be seen as philosophical thought experiments that attempt to try out the limits of language and the limits of possible experience respectively; ii) Both philosophers developed arguments that can be designated as transcendental if only from a methodological standpoint; and iii) some key arguments put forward by the middle Wittgenstein in the determination of the structure of visual space could be characterised better as thought experiments than transcendental arguments.0605202611Brendel, E., 2004. Intuition Pumps and the Proper Use of Thought Experiments. Dialectica, 58(1), pp. 89-108.Brown, J. R., 1991. Thought Experiments: A Platonic Account. In: T. Horowitz and G. J. Massey, eds. 1991. Thought Experiments in Science and Philosophy. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Brown, J. R., 2004. Why Thought Experiments Transcend Empiricism. In: C. Hitchcock, ed. 2004. Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, pp. 23-43.Broyles, J. E., 1974. An Observation on Wittgenstein’s Use of Phantasy. Metaphilosophy, 5(4), pp. 291-297.Buzzoni, M., 2018. Kantian Accounts of Thought Experiments. In: M. T. Stuart, Y. Fehige and J. R. Brown, eds. 2018. The Routledge Companion to Thought Experiments. London & New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 327-341.Diamond, C., 2000. Ethics, Imagination, and the Method of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. In: A. Crary and R. Read, eds. 2000. The New Wittgenstein. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 149-173.Dragalina-Chernaya, E. G., 2020. Colours in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Logical Space. Voprosy Filosofii, 6, pp. 146-156.Engelmann, M. L., 2013. Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Development. Phenomenology, Grammar, Method, and the Anthropological View. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Fehige, Y. and Stuart, M. T., 2014. On the Origins of the Philosophy of Thought Experiments: The Forerun. Perspectives on Science, 22(2), pp. 179-220.Hacker, P. M. S., 2013. Kant and Wittgenstein: The Matter of Transcendental Arguments. In: N. Venturinha, ed. 2013. The Textual Genesis of Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations. New York: Routledge, pp. 120-134.Hanna, R., 2017. Wittgenstein and Kantianism. In: H. J. Glock & J. Hyman, eds. 2017. A Companion to Wittgenstein. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 682-698.Kalin, M.G., 1972. Kant’s Transcendental Arguments as Gedankenexperimente. Kant-Studien, 63(3), pp. 315-328.Kant, I., 1992a. Concerning the Ultimate Ground of the Differentiation of Directions in Space. Translated by D. Walford. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical philosophy, 1755-1770. Edited by D. Walford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 365-372.Kant, I., 1992b. On the Form and Principles of the Sensible and the Intelligible World [Inaugural Dissertation]. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical philosophy, 1755-1770. Edited by D. Walford. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 373-416.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2002. Prolegomena to any Further Metaphysics that Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science, In: I. Kant, 2002. Theoretical Philosophy After 1781. Edited by H. E. Allison and P. Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53-169.Nordmann, A., 2005. Wittgenstein’s Tractatus: An Introduction. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Norton, J., 2004. Why Thought Experiments do not Transcend Empiricism. In: C. Hitchcock, ed. 2004. Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Science. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, pp. 44-66.Ramsey, F. P., 1923. Critical Notice of L. Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Mind, 32(128), pp. 465-478.Ryle, G., 2009. Philosophical Arguments. In: G. Ryle, 2009. Collected Papers, Volume 2: Collected Essays 1929 — 1968. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 203-221. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875308Silva, M., 2014. Holismo e Verofuncionalidade: Sobre Um Conflito Lógico-Filosófico Essencial. Philósophos — Revista de Filosofia, 18(2), pp. 167-200.Sorensen, R. A., 1992. Thought Experiments. New York: Oxford University Press.Virvidakis, S., 2011. On Kant’s Critique of Thought Experiments in Early Modern Philosophy. In: K. Ierodiakonou and S. Roux, eds. 2011. Thought Experiments in Methodological and Historical Contexts. Leiden & Boston: Brill, pp. 127-142.Westphal, K. R., 2015. Experiment. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr and S. Bacin, eds. 2015. Kant-Lexikon. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 591-594.Witt-Hansen, J., 1976. H. C. Ørsted, Immanuel Kant and the Thought Experiment. Danish Yearbook of Philosophy, 13, pp. 48-65.Wittgenstein, L., 1961. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by B. McGuinness and D. Pears. London: Routledge & Paul.Wittgenstein, L., 1969. Notebooks 1914—1916. Second Edition. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. New York: Harper & Row.Wittgenstein, L., 1990. Philosophical Remarks. Reprint. Translated by R. Hargraves and R. White. Oxford: Blackwell.Wittgenstein, L., 1993. Some Remarks on Logical Form. In: J. C. Klagge and A. Nordmann, eds. 1993. Philosophical Occasions, 1912—1951. Indianapolis: Hacket Pub. Co., pp. 29-35.Wittgenstein, L., 1997. Philosophical Investigations. Second Edition. Translated by G. E. M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell Pub.A.V.UglevaSome ideas expressed in the collective monograph Universality in Morality (2020), edited by Ruben Apressyan, are here critically examined. The book is based on the results of a large-scale study by professional ethical philosophers devoted to the question of the nature of universality in morality and the mechanisms of universalisation of individual maxims and norms from antiquity to modern ethical theories, represented above all by the analytical tradition in philosophy. Of great interest is the analysis of related phenomena in morality, which makes it possible to determine the causes and nature of the transformation of morality in different eras and the accompanying change in the terminological apparatus of absolute ethical universalism, considered to be the starting point in the analysis of key modern concepts of moral universality. The article also suggests possible avenues for continued research in this area which could prompt modifications not only to the history of the concept of universality in morality, but also to our assessment of the contribution of individual authors and entire eras to the progress of human civilisation. This concerns above all the moral theory of contractarianism and the Enlightenment. Focus on their ideas goes a long way to determining the direction of current historical-philosophical research that reconstructs the history of ethical teachings and individual concepts. The importance attached today to a new view of the theory of the social contract, considered not only from socio-political but also from moral positions, forces us to approach in a new way the question concerning the universality of the key philosophical categories developed within this theory throughout its history. Elaborating the ideas set forth in the monograph, the author also stresses the relevance of the problem of justifying the thesis about the moral law as an analogue of the universal law of nature in the modern context.0605202611Apressyan, R. G., ed. 2020. Universal’nost’ v morali: kollektivnaya monografiya [Universality in Morality: A Collective Monograph]. Moscow: Sadra. (In Rus.)Callahan, D., 2000. Universalism and Particularism: Fighting to a Draw. Hastings Center Report, 30(1), pp. 37-44.Dévédec, N. le, 2015. La société de l’amélioration : la perfectibilité humaine des Lumières au transhumanisme. Montréal: Liber.Gauthier, D., 1985. Moral by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Gauthier, D., 2013. Why Contractarianism? In: R. Shafer-Landau, ed. 2013. Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Second Edition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 571-580.Habermas, J., 1991. Treffen Hegels Einwände gegen Kant auch auf die Diskursethik zu? In: J. Habermas. Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp, pp. 9-30.Hare, R. M., 1963. Freedom and Reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Hare, R. M., 1981. Moral Thinking. Its Levels, Method, and Point. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Hegel, G. W. F., 1991. Elements of the Philosophy of Right. Translated by H. B. Nisbeth, edited by A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hegel, G. W. F., 2010. The Science of Logic. Translated and edited by G. Di Giovanni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Höffe, O., 1985. Introduction à la philosophie pratique de Kant. Castella: Albeuve.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., 2002. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by W. S. Pluhar. Cambridge and Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Kant, I., 2006. Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective. In: I. Kant, 2006. Toward Perpetual Peace and Other Writings on Politics, Peace, and History. Edited and with an introduction by P. Kleingeld; translated by D. L. Colclasure. New Haven & London: Yale University Press, pp. 3-16.Kant, I., 2007. Lectures on Pedagogy. In: I. Kant, 2007. Anthropology, History, and Education. Edited by G. Zöller and R. B. Louden; translated by R. B. Louden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 434-485.Kant, I., 2011. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. German-English Edition. Translated by M. Gregor, edited by J. Timmermann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kashnikov, B. N., 2004. Liberal’nye teorii spravedlivosti i politicheskaya praktika Rossii [Liberal Theories of Justice and Political Practice in Russia]. Veliky Novgorod: NovSU Yaroslav Mudryj. (In Rus.)Macklin, R., 1999. Against Relativism. New York: Oxford University Press.Rawls, J., 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Scanlon, T. M., 2013. Contractualism and Utilitarianism. In: R. Shafer-Landau, ed. 2013. Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Second Edition. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 593-607.Schelling, F. W. J., 2001. System of Transcendental Idealism. Translated by P. Heath, Introduction by M. Vater. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.Singer, M. G., 1971. Generalization in Ethics. New York: Atheneum.Vinogradova, O. and Ugleva, A., 2019. The Birth of the Idea of Perfectibility: From the Enlightenment to Transhumanism. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences = Filosofskie nauki, 62(4), pp. 113-131. https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-4-113-131V.N.BelovThis report of the roundtable that took place on 25 November 2021 at The Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University) attempts to explain the obvious growth of interest in Neo-Kantian philosophy in general and the philosophy of the head of the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism, Hermann Cohen, in particular. In their contributions, the participants in the discussion demonstrated that the current interest in Neo-Kantianism does not solely or even largely have to do with the history of philosophy but rather with the relevance of many of the ideas of Marburg Neo-Kantianism for the modern theory of cognition, the philosophy of culture, ethics and the philosophy of religion. The course of the discussion highlighted the relevance of Cohen’s theory of cognition based on logic and rationality. The main outcome of the discussion was the conviction that the potential of many of Cohen’s ideas has yet to be fully tapped and there are grounds for considering them to be heralds of a new philosophy which, in many of its features, is only maturing.0605202611Belov, V. N., 2018. Is Research on Postmodernism Still Relevant? Thoughts on a Book by the Italian Philosopher A. Poma (Rev.: A. Poma. Cadenzas. Philosophical Notes for Post-modernism. Cham: Springer, 2017, 244 pp.), translated by A. S. Kiselev. Kantian Journal, 37(3), pp. 97-102. http://dx. doi. org/10.5922/0207-6918-2018-3-5.Edel, G., 2014. Die Aktualität Cohens in der gegenwärtigen Philosophie. ZENO. Jahrheft für Literatur und Kritik, 35(34), pp. 98-108.Poma, A., 2012. Kriticheskaja filosofija Germana Kogena [The Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen]. Translated from the Italian by O. A. Popova. Moscow: Akademicheskii projekt. (In Rus.)