NONE20260608022608132Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370106082026413M.WalterAn unrecognised copy (1665) in Kant’s private library of Michael Piccart’s Isagoge (1605), an introduction to the system of Aristotelian philosophy together with Kant’s own remarks on this author (Refl 4160, AA 17, p. 439) can be established as an original source for the Kantian ‘ideosphere’. First, I point out contexts and consequences of Piccart’s Altdorfian Aristotelianism, in contrast to the Königsbergian Aristotelianism (emphasised by Tonelli’s research). To further check the quality of Piccart as a source of Kant’s, a conceptual case-study is elaborated with Kant’s critical distinction between analytics as a “logic of truth” (KrV, B 85) and dialectics as a “logic of illusion” (KrV, B 86). Hereby, dialectics is understood as part of an Aristotelian division of logic in analytics, dialectics and sophistics (Königsberg/Rabe versus Altdorf/Piccart). As will be shown by the paradigmatic case of the famous Königsbergian proponent of Aristotelianism, Paul Rabe, Kant cannot have received the suggestion for his own critical distinction from Rabe’s Cursus Philosophicus. Instead, Piccart refers to a passage of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, which suggests the very distinction between an analytic philosopher who searches for scientific truth and dialecticians and sophists. For different reasons, they do not claim any scientific seriousness.0608202611Adickes, E., 1887. Kants Systematik als systembildender Factor. Berlin: Mayer & Müller.Anonymus, 1808. Verzeichniß der Bücher des verstorbenen Prof. Joh. Friedr. Gensichen, wozu auch die demselben zugefallenen Bücher des Professor Kant gehören. Faksimile. In: Warda, A., 1922. Kants Bücher. Berlin: M. Breslauer.Anonymus, 1838: Liverei. In: Brockhaus’ Bilder-Conversations-Lexikon, Band 2. Leipzig: Brockhaus, S. 755.Aristoteles, 1989. Metaphysik. Erster Halbband: Bücher I-IV. Griechisch-Deutsch. Hg. von H. Seidl. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Aristoteles, 1997. Organon, Band 1: Topik. Topik, neuntes Buch oder Über die sophistischen Widerlegungsschlüsse. Griechisch-Deutsch. Herausgegeben, übersetzt, mit einer Einleitung und Anmerkungen versehen von H. G. Zekl. Hamburg: Meiner.Beck, H., 1983. Kant and the Novel. A Study of Examination Scene in Hippel’s ‘Lebensläufe nach aufsteigender Linie’. Kant-Studien, 74, S. 271-301.Borowski, L. E., 1804. Darstellung des Lebens und Charakters Immanuel Kant’s. Von Kant selbst genau revidiert und berichtigt. Königsberg: Friedrich Nicolovius.Dreier, Ch., 1644. Sapientia seu Philosophia Prima: Ex Aristotele & optimis antiquis, Graecis praesertim commentatoribus Methodo scientifica conscripta, Et XX. disputationibus in Academia Regiomontana in usum discentium publice proposita. Königsberg: J. Reusner; P. Hendel.Dürr, J. C., 1667. Dissertatio Philosophica de Auctoritate quam Divino favente Numine. Altdorf: Johann Heinrich Schönerstaedt.Erler, G., Hg. 1911/1912. Die Matrikel der Albertus Universität zu Königsberg in Preußen, Band II: 1657—1829. Leipzig und Berlin: Duncker und Humblot.Georgi, Th., 1742. Allgemeines europäisches Bücher-Lexicon. Leipzig: Theophil Georgi.Gottsched, J. Ch., 1733. Erste Gründe der gesamten Weltweisheit. Erster, theoretischer Theil. Leipzig: Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf.Hamann, J. G., 1956. Briefwechsel. Band 2: 1760—1769. Hg. von W. Ziesemer und A. Henkel. Wiesbaden: Insel-Verlag.Heimsoeth, H., 1963. Zur Herkunft und Entwicklung von Kants Kategorientafel. Kant-Studien, 54, S. 376-400.Heßbrüggen-Walter, S., 2016. Piccart, Michael. In: M. Sgarbi, ed. 2016. Encyclopedia of Renaissance Philosophy. Heidelberg and New York: Springer Academic Publishing.Hippel, Th. G. v. d. Ä., 1779. Lebensläufe nach Aufsteigender Linie nebst Beylagen A, B, C. Meines Lebenslaufs Zweiter Theil. Beylage A, und Beylage B. Berlin: Ch. F. Voss.Hippel, Th. G. v. d. Ä., 1801. Biographie des Königl. Preuß. Geheimenkriegsraths zu Königsberg, Theodor Gottlieb von Hippel, zum Theil von ihm Selbst verfaßt. [Aus Schlichtegrolls Nekrolog besonders abgedruckt.] Gotha: Perthes.Hüttner, J. und Walter, M., 2021. „Wo ist denn Obereit?“ — eine Ergänzung zu Fichtes Biographie für die Jahre 1794 bis 1798. Fichte-Studien, 50(1), S. 205-223.Kant, I., 1998. Logik-Vorlesung. Unveröffentlichte Nachschriften II. Bearbeitet von T. Pinder. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Kant, I., 2018. Die fruühen Notate zu Baumgartens „Metaphysica“. Mit einer Edition der dritten Auflage dieses Werks. Herausgegeben von G. Gawlick, L. Kreimendahl und W. Stark. In Zusammenarbeit mit M. Oberhausen und M. Trauth. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann Holzboog.Kirwan, C., 1993. Notes. In: Aristotle, 1993. Metaphysics Gamma, Delta and Epsilon. Second Edition. Translated with Notes by C. Kirwan. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 75-200.Kuehn, M., 2005. Immanuel Kant. A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge Universtiy Press.Leinsle, U. G., 1985. Das Ding und die Methode. Methodische Konstitution und Gegenstand der frühen protestantischen Metaphysik. I. Teil. Darstellung. Augsburg: Maro.Mährle, W., 2000. Academia Norica. Wissenschaft und Bildung an der Nürnberger Hohen Schule in Altdorf (1575—1623). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Maréchal, J., 1922—1926. Le point de départ de la métaphysique, Cahiers I—V. Paris: Felix Alcan.Martin, G., Hg. 1967. Allgemeiner Kantindex zu Kants gesammelten Schriften. Band 16, Abteilung 2: Wortindex, Band 1. Bearbeitet von D. Krallmann und H. A. Martin. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Mellin, G. S. A., 1799. Encyclopädisches Wörterbuch der kritischen Philosophie. II. Band. I. Abtheilung. Leipzig: Frommanns Verlag.Mitchell, P. M., 1995. Johann Christoph Gottsched (1700-1766). Harbinger of German Classicism. Columbia: Camden House.Moraux, P., 1973. Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen. Band 1. Berlin und New York: Walter de Gruyter.Piccart, M., 1605. Isagoge in lectionem Aristotelis, Hoc est: Hypotyposis totius philosophiea Aristotelis, qua Series & Ordo librorum, Scopus & Ordo, táxis [griechisch] deniq; & diaíresis eìs ta kephália [griechisch] breviter & succinctè proponitur. Nürnberg: M. Sebastian Körber.Piccart, M., 1610. De problemate et propositione dialectica in genere. Altdorf: Agricola.Piccart, M., 1660. Isagoge in lectionem Aristotelis. Hoc est: Hypotyposis totius philosphiae Aristotelis qua Series & Ordo librorum, Scopus & Subjectum, táxis [griechisch] deniq; et diaíresis eis ta kephália [griechisch] breviter et succincte poponitur. Olim a Michaele Piccarto Professore Organico Altdorffino, aucta & Notis plurimus illustrata. A M. Joh. Conrado Dürrio S. S. Theol. et Philos. Moral. in illustri Acad. Altdorff. Prof. Pub. Praemissa est Epistola Viri Celeberrimi Hermanni Conringii, continens judicium de isto libello eiusdemq[ae], iterata editione. Altdorf: Georg Hagen.Piccart, M., 1665. Isagoge in lectionem Aristotelis. Hoc est: Hypotyposis totius philosophiae Aristotelis qua Series & Ordo librorum, Scopus & Subjectum […] olim a Michaele Piccarto Professore Organico Altdorffino concinnata Nuc iis partibus, quibus defficiebat, aucta, & notis plurimis altera vice illustrata, atque ad usum in Theolog.[iam] applicata A Joh. Conrado Dürrio SS. Theol. et Philos. Moral. in Acad. Altdorff. P. P. Altdorffi: Georg Hagen.Pisanski, G. Ch., 1886. Entwurf einer preußischen Literärgeschichte. In vier Büchern. Hg. von R. Philippi. Königsberg: Wilhelm Koch.Plitt, G. L., 1869. Aus Schellings Leben. In Briefen. Band 1. Leipzig: Hirzel.Rabe, P., 1703. M. Pauli Raben, Professoris Regiomontani, Cursus Philosophicus, Sive Compendium Præcipuarum Scientiarum Philosophicarum: Dialecticæ nempe, Analyticæ, Politicæ sub qua comprehenditur Ethica, Physicæatque Metaphysicæ. Königsberg und Leipzig: Heinrich Boye.Reichel, E., 1908. Gottsched. Band 1. Berlin: Gottsched-Verlag.Reicke, R., 1860. Kantiana. Beiträge zu Kants Leben und Schriften. Königsberg: T. Theile.Reusch, J. P., 1760. Systema Logicum antiquiorum atque recentiorum. Jena: Croekers Witwe.Risse, W., 1964. Die Logik der Neuzeit. Band 1. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: F. Frommann.Rosenkranz, K., 1878. Neue Studien. Vierter Band: Zur Literaturgeschichte. Leipzig: Erich Koschny (L. Heimann’s Verlag).Rubio, A., 1615. Antonii Ruvvio [sic!] Rodensis Commentarii in universam Aristotelis Dialecticam. Una cum dubiis et quaestionibus hac tempestate agitari solitis. Coloniae Agrippinae: Apud Ioannem Crithium, sub signo galli.Schepelmann, M., 2017. Kants Gesamtwerk in neuer Perspektive. Münster: Mentis.Selle, G. v., 1956. Geschichte der Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg in Preussen. Würzburg: Hölzner.Sentroul, Ch., 1911. Kant und Aristoteles. Kempten: Kösel.Serck-Hanssen, C., 2015. Dialektik. In: M. Willaschek, J. Stolzenberg, G. Mohr und S. Bacin, Hg. 2015. Kant-Lexikon, Band 1. Berlin und Boston: Walter de Gruyter, S. 395-397.Sgarbi, M., 2010. La Kritik der reinen Vernunft nel contesto della tradizione logica aristotelica. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Sgarbi, M. und Ertl, W., 2012. Aristotelianism. In: G. Banham, N. Hems und D. Schulting, Eds. 2012. The Continuum Companion to Kant. London: Routledge, pp. 86-90.Smith, R., 1997. Introduction. In: Aristotle, 1997. Topics Books I and VIII with Excerpts from Related Texts. Translated with a Commentary by R. Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. XI-XXXV.Stäudlin, C. F., 1794. Geschichte und Geist des Skepticismus vorzüglich in Rücksicht auf Moral und Religion. Leipzig: Siegfried Lebrecht Crusius.Stark, W., 1993. Nachforschungen zu Briefen und Handschriften Immanuel Kants. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Tommasi, F. V., 2005. Michael Piccart, Kant e i termini primi. Il trascendentale nel rapporto tra filosofia e linguaggio. Archivo di Filosofia, 73, pp. 369-390.Tommasi, F. V., 2008. Philosophia transcendentalis. La questione antepredicativa e l’analogia tra la Scolastica e Kant. Florenz: Leo S. Olschki.Tommasi, F. V., 2010. Ein Missing Link in der Geschichte der Transzendentalphilosophie. Die Longue Durée des akademischen Aristotelismus bei Kant. In: R. Darge, E. J. Bauer und G. Frank, Hg. 2010. Der Aristotelismus an den Europäischen Universitäten der frühen Neuzeit. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, S. 315-331.Tommasi, F. V., 2014. Zwischen radikalem Aristotelismus und lutherischer Orthodoxie. Die These der doppelten Wahrheit in der Altdorfer Schule. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, 55, S. 61-74.Tonelli, G., 1962. Der historische Ursprung der Kantischen Termini ‚Analytik‘ und ‚Dialektik‘. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, 7, S. 120-139.Tonelli, G., 1964. Das Wiederaufleben der deutsch-aristotelischen Terminologie bei Kant während der Entstehung der ‘Kritik der reinen Vernunft’. Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, 9, S. 233-242.Tonelli, G., 1974. Kant within the Tradition of Modern Logic. In: G. Funke, Hg. 1974. Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongress: Mainz, 6.—10. April 1974, Teil III. Berlin und New York: Walter de Gruyter, S. 186-191.Ueberweg, F., 1880. Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Dritter Theil: Die Neuzeit. 5. Auflage. Bearbeitet von M. Heinze. Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mittler & Sohn.Vollhardt, F., 2016. Piccart, Michael (1574—1620). In: F. Vollhardt, Hg. 2016. Frühe Neuzeit in Deutschland 1520—1620. Literaturwissenschaftliches Verfasserlexikon. Bd. 5: Paganus, Petrus — Seusse, Johannes. Berlin und Boston: Walter de Gruyter, col. 57-71.Walter, M., 2013. Welche Aristoteles-Ausgabe befand sich im Besitz Kants? Kant-Studien, 104, S. 490-498.Walter, M., 2022. Begriffslogische und begriffsgeschichtliche Wegmarken zur Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Interpretationen ausgewählter Stellen des ersten Teils. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Warda, A., 1922. Kants Bücher. Berlin: M. Breslauer.Wasserleiter, G., 1590. Logica. Das ist: Vernunfftkunst. Nach der hochberhümbten P. Rami Dialectica. Erfford: Ottonis von Rißwick.Will, G. A., 1757. Nürnbergisches Gelehrten-Lexicon. Band 3. Nürnberg und Altdorf: Lorenz Schüpfel.Will, G. A., 1801. Geschichte und Beschreibung der Nürnbergischen Universität Altdorf. 2. Auflage. Nürnberg: In Commission der akademischen Monath-Kußlerischen Buchhandlung.Wilpert, P., 1957. Aristoteles und die Dialektik. Kant-Studien, 48, S. 247-257.Wundt, M., 1939. Die deutsche Schulmetaphysik des 17. Jahrhunderts. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).T.B.DlugachMy task is to demonstrate substantial differences in the views of Kant and Heidegger on being. To this end I analyse Heidegger’s work Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics which Heidegger was writing intermittently during the period from 1927 to 1964. It deals not only with the ideas of the Critique of Pure Reason but also with Kant’s pre-critical work, The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God (1763), in which Kant explicitly addressed the question of being for the first time. Heidegger focuses on the transcendental power of imagination not only as the “common root” of sensibility and understanding, but also as the fundamental faculty of ontological cognition. He links it with the phenomenon of time, arguing that the object of knowledge as such is also linked with this phenomenon. True, for Heidegger what matters is not a singular empirical object, but the universal noumenal object, including being. Consequently, Heidegger draws a distinction between empirics and sensibility: all empirics is sensible, but not all sensibility is empirical. A triangle in general, a dog in general, etc. have an image, but it is not a singular image, but a schema. Heidegger argues that time as pure intuition is the “field” in which the imagination faculty draws its image schemas. This field is the horizon of objectness, i.e. the possibility of emergence of non-empirical objects, including being. Being, then, is not a Kantian noumenon, not an X, but a sensible, albeit non-empirical, object created by the power of imagination, a correlate of everything cognisable. So understood, being is created by the human, therefore it is not transcendent but immanent to him/her. I also note that in characterising being Heidegger gradually moves from “time” to “work of art” in the frame of which the power of imagination does not simply reflect reality, but creates multiple diverse worlds.0608202611Banham, G., 2005. Kant’s Transcendental Imagination. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Bibler, V. S., 1991. Ot naukoucheniya k logike kul’tury [From Science to the Logic of Culture]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Rus.)Chernyak, L. S., 2014. Vechnost’ i vremya: vozvrashchenie zabytoj temy [Eternity and Time: The Return of a Forgotten Theme]. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istoriya. (In Rus.)Dlugach, T. B., 2002. Problema bytia v nemetskoi filosofii i sovremennost’ [The Problem of Being in German Philosophy and the Present]. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy RAS.Enskat, R., 2020. Kant über Sein und Zeit und Denken und Sein. Selbsterkenntnis durch Selbstaffektion. Kantian Journal, 39(3), pp. 7-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2020-3-1Falev, E.V., 2008. Germenevtika Hajdeggera [Hermeneutics of Heidegger]. St. Petersburg: Aleteya. (In Rus.)Gadamer, H. -G., 1994. Heidegger’s Ways. Translated by J. W. Stanley. New York: State University of New York Press.Heidegger, M., 2002. The Origin of the Work of Art. In: M. Heidegger, 2002. Off the Beaten Track. Edited and translated by J. Young and K. Haynes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-56.Heidegger, M., 1977. Gesamtausgabe Band 5: Holzwege. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Heidegger, M., 1982. The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Translated by A. Hofstadter. Bloomingron, Indianopolis: Indiana University Press.Heidegger, M., 1997. Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics. Translated by R. Taft. Bloomingron, Indianopolis: Indiana University Press.Heidegger, M., 1998. History of the Concept of Time: Prolegomena. Translated by T. Kisiel. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Heidegger, M., 1998, Kant’s Thesis about Being. In: M. Heidegger, 1998. Pathmarks. Edited by W. McNeill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 337-363.Heidegger, M., 2014. Ponderings II-VI. Black Notebooks 1931-1938. Translated by R. Rojcewicz. Bloomingron, Indianopolis: Indiana University Press.Erdmann, B., ed. 1881. Nachträge zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Aus Kants Nachlass. Kiel: Lipsius & Tischer.Kant, I., 1992a. Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitudes into Philosophy. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical philosophy, 1755-1770. Translated and edited by D. Walford and R. Meerbote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203-242.Kant, I., 1992b. The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God. In: I. Kant, 1992. Theoretical philosophy, 1755-1770. Translated and edited by D. Walford and R. Meerbote. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107-202.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by and Translated by P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2011. Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality. In: I. Kant, 2011. Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime and Other Writings. Edited by P. Frierson and P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 221-250.Klenk, G.F., 1953. Heidegger und Kant. Gregorianum, 34(1), pp. 56-71.Lehmann, G., 1955. Einleitung. In: Kant’s gesammelte Schriften hrsg. von der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bd. XXIII, 3. Abt.: Handschriftlicher Nachlaß, Bd. X: Vorarbeiten und Nachträge. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 505-518.Mikhailov, A. V., 2008. Instead of an Introduction. In: M. Heidegger, 2002. Istok khudozhestvennogo tvoreniya [The Origin of the Work of Art]. Moscow: Akademicheskii proekt, pp. 5-75. (In Rus.)Taminiaux, I., 1991. Heidegger and the Project of Fundamental Ontology. Translated and edited by M. Gendre. New York: SUNY Press.Trappe, T., 2000. Heidegger und die Phantasie. Phänomenologische Forschungen. Neue Folge, 5(2), pp. 165-179.V.Ye.SemyonovConstructive (productive) thinking in the critical philosophy of Hermann Cohen differs significantly from the seemingly similar speculative thinking in J. G. Fichte’s Science of Knowledge (Wissenschaftslehre) (1794/95). The fundamental characteristics of scientific thinking in Cohen’s teaching include: purity, focus on the “fact of science”, the origin (Ursprung), the infinitesimal method, continuity, movement, production, correlation, intensive magnitude, interrelation of thinking and being. According to Cohen, scientific thinking can only be pure and generated by the origin. The origin is continuous action (movement) of thinking to separate the united and bind the divided content. In this process, thinking and being are correlative. Infinitely small reality contains thinking and being simultaneously as a union and in a divided form. The infinitesimal method is thinking that continuously carries out a) the operations of opposing itself as pure thinking to the results of its own production; b) the coincidence of itself with the products of its own generation. Infinitesimal thinking seeks to eliminate the difference between self and being. Nevertheless, being constantly retains autonomy. Being does not merge with thinking and is not absorbed by it. In Fichte’s Science of Knowledge pure thinking moves in a logical circle, having no access into real being. In an effort to break out of this circle and find its causality, thinking turns not to the being of the world of phenomena, but to the Absolute I. Such a speculative approach to consciousness, thinking and being has little in common with Cohen’s critical position.0608202611Aquila, R. E., 1989. Matter in Mind: A Study of Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. Bloomington; Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Brelage, M., 1965. Studien zur Transzendentalphilosophie. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Carl, W., 1989. Kant’s First Drafts of the Deduction of the Categories. In: E. Förster, ed. 1989. Kant’s Transcendental Deduction. The Three Critiques and the Opus Postumum. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 3-20.Cassirer, E., 1912. Hermann Cohen und die Erneuerung der Kantischen Philosophie. Kant-Studien, 17, pp. 252-273.Cohen, H., 1883. Das Princip der Infinitesimal-Methode und seine Geschichte: Ein Kapitel zur Grundlegung der Erkenntnisskritik. Berlin: Dümmler.Cohen, H., 1918. Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. 3. Auflage. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Cohen, H., 1922. Logik der reinen Erkenntnis. 3. Auflage. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Dlugach, T. B., 2010. The Concept and Judgment in the Philosophy of H. Cohen. In: I. N. Griftsova and N. A. Dmitrieva, eds. 2010. German and Russian Neo-Kantianism: Between Theory of Cognition and Criticism of Culture. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 221-226. (In Rus.).Dmitrieva, N. A., 2013. The Concept of A Priori in German and Russian Neo-Kantianism. In: A. N. Krouglov, ed. 2013. Diversity of A Priori. Moscow: Kanon+, pp. 129-148. (In Rus.).Edel, G., 2013. Zum Fichte-Bild im Marburger Neukantianismus. In: J. Stolzenberg and O.-P. Rudolph, eds. 2013. Wissen, Freiheit, Geschichte: Die Philosophie Fichtes im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Band III. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, pp. 15-31.Fichte, J. G., 1982. The Science of Knowledge. Translated by P. Heath and J. Lachs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Holzhey, H., 1986. Cohen und Natorp: In 2 Bände. Band 1. Basel; Stuttgart: Schwabe & Co.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Liebmann, O., 1912. Kant und die Epigonen. Eine kritische Abhandlung. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Luft, S., 2010. Construction and Constitution, or What is the Content of Experience? Husserl vs. Neo-Kantianism. In: I. N. Griftsova and N. A. Dmitrieva, eds. 2010. German and Russian Neo-Kantianism: Between the Theory of Knowledge and Criticism of Culture. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 117-134. (In Rus.).Marx, W., 1977. Transzendentale Logik als Wissenschaftstheorie. Systematisch-kritische Untersuchungen zur philosophischen Grundlegungsproblematik in Cohens “Logik der reinen Erkenntnis”. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Marx, W., 1987. Die philosophische Entwicklung Paul Natorps im Hinblick auf das System Hermann Cohens. In: H.-L. Ollig, ed. 1989. Materialen zur Neukantianismus-Diskussion. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, pp. 66-86.Mayerhofer, H., 2004. Der philosophische Begriff der Bewegung in Hermann Cohens “Logik der reinen Erkenntnis”. Wien: Universitätsverlag.Natorp, P., 2004. Plato’s Theory of Ideas: An Introduction to Idealism. Edited by V. Politis; translated by V. Politis and J. Connolly. Sankt Augustin: Academia.Natorp, P., 1910. Die logischen Grundlagen der exakten Wissenschaften. Leipzig & Berlin: Teubner.Poma, A., 1997. The Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Translated by J. Denton. Albany & New York: State University of New York Press.Sokuler, Z. A., 2008. Hermann Cohen and the Philosophy of Dialogue. Moscow: Progress-Tradition. (In Rus.).Stolzenberg, J., 1995. Ursprung und System. Probleme der Begründung Systematischer Philosophie im Werk Hermann Cohens, Paul Natorps und beim frühen Martin Heidegger. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.N.ArtemenkoThe problem of rationality today means the problem of the inner unreasonableness of reasonableness in the sense of its inner limit. Even the humanistic revolution of the Renaissance gradually led to the replacement of the power of omnipotent faith by faith in the omnipotence of power. It is this general orientation towards power and the cult of power, this new belief in power, that revealed itself more and more sharply in the course of European history and eventually led to extreme forms of expression in the world wars and catastrophes of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The activity of free reasonableness has resulted in a host of unreasonable consequences: we have reason to suggest that reasonableness perhaps contains its own negation. Most philosophers of the twentieth century supposed that today it is impossible to think as in former times; it is already impossible to imagine reality as the structure which alone has a basis. The modern pluralistic world cannot be interpreted in a single rationalistic way as the only possible way, which would lead to the world’s being be united on a single principle for the sake of final truth. The philosophical world of the twentieth century “shivers” because of the fluctuation its own foundation, which was recently the symbol of its firmness and absoluteness. The article offers an analysis of a foundation of this kind, viz. evidence. The tradition of this concept leads us to Descartes and back to the three main versions of transcendentalism: Kant’s, Husserl’s and Heidegger’s. The author finally comes to the conclusion that the appearance of overcoming the metaphysical approach in the twentieth century is replaced by a transcendental and dialectical “game” around metaphysical concepts.0608202611Avtonomova, N. S., 1988. Rassudok, razum, racional’nost’ [Reason, Reason, Rationality]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Rus.)Descartes, R., 1992. Meditationes de prima philosophia. Lateinisch-Deutsch. Herausgegeben von L. Gäbe. Hamburg: Meiner.Habermas, J., 1983. Die Philosophie als Platzhalter und Interpret. In: J. Habermas, 1983. Moralbewußtsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, S. 9-28.Habermas, J., 2012. Nachmetaphysisches Denken II. Aufsätze und Repliken. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Heidegger, M., 1952. Was heißt Denken? In: M. Heidegger, 2000. Gesamtausgabe. 1. Abteilung: Veröffentlichte Schriften 1910—1976. Band 7: Vorträge und Aufsätze (1936—1953). Herausgegeben von F. -W. von Herrmann. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, S. 127-143.Heidegger, M., 1986. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Horkheimer, M. und Adorno, T. W., 2000. Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.Husserl, E., 1996. Philosophie als strenge Wissenschaft. Herausgegeben von W. Szilasi. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Husserl, E., 1995. Cartesianische Meditationen. Herausgegeben von E. Ströker. Meiner: Hamburg.Husserl, E., 1950. Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie. Erstes Buch: Allgemeine Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie (Hua III). Den Haag: M. Nijhoff.Katrechko, S. L., 2020. Kant’s “Idea [Project] of Transcendental Philosophy”. Transcendental’ny zhurnal, 1. doi: 10.18254/S271326680008967-4. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A. N., 2005. Did Kant Have a Transcendental Subject? History of Philosophy Yearbook — 2004, pp. 279-295. (In Rus.)Molchanov, V. I., 1997. Loneliness of Consciousness and Communicativeness of the Sign. Logos, 9, рр. 5-24. (In Rus.)Nancy, J. -L., 1996. Être singulier pluriel. Paris: Galilée.Nancy, J. -L., 2006. La Naissance des seins suivi de Péan pour Aphrodite. Paris: Galilée.Okorokov, V. B., 2000. Metafizika epohi transcendental’nogo myshleniya: specifika, sushchnost’ i tendenciya razvitiya [Metaphysics of the Era of Transcendental Thinking: Specificity, Essence and Trend of Development]. Dnepropetrovsk: DNU. (In Rus.)Pruzhinin, B. I. und Shvyrev, V. S., Hg., 1995. Racional’nost’ kak predmet filosofskogo issledovaniya [Rationality as a Subject of Philosophical Research]. Moscow: IF RAN. (In Rus.)Weber, M., 1919. Wissenschaft als Beruf. München und Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.T.G.ShchedrinaI.O.ShchedrinaThis article assesses the role of Immanuel Kant’s ideas in the historical philosophy of Gustav Shpet (1879—1937). This theme has been largely ignored by Shpet scholars who have concentrated on comparing his logical-methodological theories with the ideas of representatives of phenomenology (E. Husserl, R. Ingarden and others) and hermeneutics (F. Schleiermacher, W. Dilthey, H. Lipps, H.-G. Gadamer and others). Accordingly, the authors consistently reconstruct “the sphere of conversation” within which Shpet’s concept of “historical philosophy” was formed and reveal the place and role of Kant’s ideas in Shpet’s theories (with particular focus on the Plato-Kant antithesis). Among Shpet’s “interlocutors” with whom he discusses Kant and thus “ploughs” the field of historical philosophy are G. I. Chelpanov and E. Husserl, B. Bolzano and A. Trendelenburg, F. Heman and M. Frischeisen-Kohler. We have attached Shpet’s notes on Kant in the archive of his family. Shpet’s attitude to Kant was controversial (while of course largely critical) and yet he was aware that Kant was the foundation of European philosophy and that his efforts to resolve the epistemological problem merit a second, thorough examination and a retracing of the path followed by Kant. The authors show that Shpet’s notes on Kant have more than historical-philosophical relevance. They enable us to take a new look at many theoretical and cognitive problems and, even more importantly, make us rethink the fundamental tenets of philosophy and the methodology of scientific cognition.0608202611Akhutin, A. V., 1990. Sophia and the Devil (Kant in the Face of Russian Religious Metaphysics). Voprosy filosofii, 1, pp. 51-69. (In Rus.)Anonym., 1907. Report on the activities of the Psychological Seminary at the St. Vladimir University for 1902—1906]. Trudy Psihologicheskoj Seminarii pri Universitete Sv. Vladimira. [Proceedings of the Psychological Seminary at the St. Vladimir University] (Kiev), 1(4), pp. 1-11. (In Rus.)Baum, M., 2019. Kants praktischer Platonismus. Kantian Journal, 38(4), pp. 7-33. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5922/0207-6918-2019-4-1.Bely, A., 1990. Mezhdu dvukh revoljucij [Between Two Revolutions]. Moscow: Khudozhestvennaja literatura. (In Rus.)Bolzano, B., 1837. Wissenschaftslehre. Volume 1. Sulzbach: Seidelsche Buchhandlung.Brucker, J., 1742. Historia critica philosophiae. Part 1. Leipzig: Breitkopf.Drobisch, M.W., 1887. Neue Darstellung der Logik nach ihren einfachsten Verhältnissen mit Rücksicht auf Mathematik und Naturwissenschaft. Hamburg & Leipzig: Leopold Voss.Frischeisen-Köhler, M., 1912. Realitätsproblem. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Hegel, G. W. F., 1913. Phenomenology of Spirit. Edited and translated in Russian by E. L. Radlov. St. Petersburg: Brokgauz-Efron. (In Rus.)Heman, F., 1904. Immanuel Kants philosophisches Vermächtnis. In: H. Vaihinger and B. Bauch, eds. 1904. Zu Kants Gedächtnis. Zwölf Festgaben zu seinem 100-jährigen Todestage von O. Liebmann, W. Windelband, F. Paulsen, A. Riehl, E. Kühnemann, E. Troeltsch, F. Heman, F. Staudinger, G. Runze, B. Bauch, F. A. Schmid, E. v. Aster; mit vier Beilagen. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, pp. 155-195.Holt, E. B., Marvin, W. T., Montague, W. P., Perry, R. B., Pitkin, W. B. and Spaulding, E. G., 1912. The New Realism: Cooperative Studies in Philosophy. New York: Macmillan Company.Jurkevich, P. D., 1865. Reason According to Plato and Experience According to Kant (Speech Delivered at the Solemn Meeting of the Imperial Moscow University on 12 January 1866). Moskovskie universitetskie izvestija [Moscow University News], 35, pp. 321-392. (In Rus.)Kalinichenko, V. V., 1992. Gustav Shpet: From Phenomenology to Hermeneutics. Logos, 3, pp. 37-61. (In Rus.)Leibniz, G. W., 1840. God. Guil. Leibnitii Opera Philosophica quae exstant Latina Gallica Germanica omnia. Pars prior et altera. Edited by J. E. Erdmann. Berolini: Sumtibus G. Eighleri.Locke, J., 1898. Opyt o chelovecheskom razume [An Essay Concerning Human Understanding]. Translated in Russian by A. N. Savin. Moscow: Typ-lit. t-va I. N. Kushnereva. (In Rus.)Plato, 2005. Phaedo. In: Plato, 2005. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus. Translated by H. N. Fowler, Introduction by W. R. M. Lamb. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press, pp. 193-404.Pruzhinin, B. I. and Shchedrina, T. G., 2012. David Hume and Gustav Shpet: the Problem of Empiricism in Historical Knowledge. Voprosy filosofii, 7, pp. 133-144. (In Rus.)Shchedrina, T. G., ed. 2005. Gustav Shpet: zhizn’ v pis’makh. Jepistoljarnoe nasledie [Gustav Shpet: Life in Letters. Epistolary Heritage]. Мoscow: ROSSPEN. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 1904. [Book Review] Zu Kants Gedächtnis. Zwölf Festgaben zu seinem 100-jährigen Todestage von O. Liebmann, W. Windelband, F. Paulsen, A. Riehl, E. Kühnemann, E. Troeltsch, F. Heman, F. Staudinger, G. Runze, B. Bauch, F. A. Schmid, E. v. Aster, herausgegeben von H. Vaihinger und B. Bauch. Mit vier Beilagen. Berlin : Reuther v. Reichard, 1904. 350 S. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii [Questions of Philosophy and Psychology], III (73), pp. 406-418. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 1905. The Problem of Causality in Hume and Kant (Introduction). Trudy Psikhologicheskoj seminarii pri universitete Sv. Vladimira. Filosofskie issledovanija. [Proceedings of the Psychological Seminary at the St. Vladimir University. Philosophical Investigations] (Kiev), 1(3), pp. 1-16. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 1907. Problema prichinnosti u Juma i Kanta: Otvetil li Kant na somnenija Juma [The Problem of Causality in Hume and Kant: Did Kant Answer Hume’s Doubts]. Kiev: Tipografija Imperatorskogo universiteta sv. Vladimira. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 1991. Appearance and Sense: Phenomenology as the Fundamental Science and Its Problems. Translated by T. Nemeth. Dordrecht, Boston & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Shpet, G. G., 1996. Letter to E. Husserl dated February 26, 1914. Logos, 7, pp. 123-128. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 1997. A Work on Philosophy. Russian Studies in Philosophy, 35(4), pp. 43-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/RSP1061-1967350443Shpet, G. G., 2005. Philosophy and History. In: G. G. Shpet, 2005. Mysl’ i Slovo. Izbrannye trudy [Thought and Word. Selected Works]. Edited by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 191-200. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2007. Esteticheskie fragmenty [Aesthetic Fragments]. In: G. G. Shpet, 2007. Iskusstvo kak vid znanija. Izbrannye trudy po filosofii kul’tury [The Art as a Kind of Knowledge. Selected Works on the Philosophy of Culture]. Edited by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 175-322. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2009. Ocherk razvitija russkoj filosofii. II. Materialy [Essay on the Development of Russian Philosophy. II. Materials]. Reconstruction by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 24-56. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2010a. Lectures on the Theory of Cognition: Paragraphs 1—9. In: G. G. Shpet, 2010. Filosofija i nauka. Lekcionnye kursy [Philosophy and Science. Lecture Courses]. Edited, published and reconstructed by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 272-291. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2010b. Logika. Lekcii, chitannye v 1911—1912 godah na Vysshikh zhenskikh kursakh [Logics. Lectures Given in 1911‒1912 at the Higher Women’s Courses]. In: G. G. Shpet, 2010. Filosofija i nauka. Lekcionnye kursy [Philosophy and Science. Lecture Courses]. Edited, published and reconstructed by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp.19-210. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2010c. The Latest Trends in Social Science. In: G. G. Shpet, 2010. Filosofskaja kritika: otzyvy, recenzii, obzory [Philosophical Criticism: Commentaries, Reviews, Summaries]. Edited by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 34-51. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2010d. [Book Review] Zu Kants Gedachtniss... In: G. G. Shpet, 2010. Filosofskaja kritika: otzyvy, recenzii, obzory [Philosophical criticism: comments, reviews, summaries]. Edited by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 52-61. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2014. Istorija kak problema logiki: Kriticheskie i metodologicheskie issledovanija. Chast’ pervaja. Materialy [History as a Problem of Logic: Critical and Methodological Studies. Part One. Materials]. Edited, published, commented and reconstructed by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow & St. Petersburg: Universitetskaja kniga. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2016. Istorija kak problema logiki: Kriticheskie i metodologicheskie issledovanija. Chast’ vtoraja. Arkhivnye materialy [History as a Problem of Logic: Critical and Methodological Studies. Part Two. Archival Materials]. Edited by T. G. Shchedrina, Reconstruction and Introduction by T. G. Shchedrina; published and commented by T. G. Shchedrina and I. O. Shchedrina. Moscow & St. Petersburg: Universitetskaja kniga. (In Rus.)Trendelenburg, A., 1868. Logicheskie issledovanija [Logical Investigations]. Volume II. Moscow: Tip. Gracheva & Co. (In Rus.)Troitsky, M. M., 1883. Nemeckaja psihologija v tekushhem stoletii [German Psychology in the Current Century]. Second Edition. Moscow: Typ. A. Gatsuka. (In Rus.)