NONE20260604051330369Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370106042026414L.E.KryshtopThe positions of Christian Wolff and Im­manuel Kant on the possibility of proving the existence of God require some examination. Wolff’s critique of the physical-theological proof and his proposed ways of improving it are here analysed. God is central to Wolff’s philosophical system and the fundamental prerequisite of his theoretical and practical philosophy. Although Wolff insists that the natural law is inherent in human nature and can therefore be comprehended by human reason without turning to divine revelation, in reality God is the creator of this natural law and the cause of its perfection. Accordingly, faith in the true God in Wolff’s philosophy is obligatory for achieving the supreme degree of virtue, whereas pagans and atheists can achieve only its lowest degree. Kant criticises traditional proofs of the existence of God both in his pre-critical and critical periods. The author looks at the role God plays in Kant’s practical philosophy. Comparing the positions of Kant and Wolff, the author finds many similarities between them. Chief of them is that although both thinkers saw the moral/natural law as universal and obligating regardless of a person’s faith in God, in fact faith in God turned out to be an inevitable consequence of the true moral attitude of the individual.0604202611Albrecht, M., 1978. Kants Antinomie der praktischen Vernunft. Hildesheim: Olms.Albrecht, M., 1985. Einleitung. In: C. Wolff, 1985. Rede über die praktische Philosophie der Chinesen. Latein-Deutsch. Edited by M. Albrecht. Hamburg: Meiner, pp. IX-LXXXVIII.Arnaud, T., 2008. La place de la philosophie pratique dans l’œuvre de Christian Wolff. In: J.-F. Goubet, F. Fabbianelli, O.-P. Rudolph, eds. 2008. Christian Wolff et la pensée encyclopédique européenne. Bordeaux: Pu de bordeaux, pp. 195-205.Casula, M., 1986. Die Theologia naturalis von Christian Wolff: Vernunft und Offenbarung. In: W. Schneiders, ed. 1986. Christian Wolff 1679—1754. Interpretationen zu seiner Philosophie und deren Wirkung. Mit einer Bibliographie der Wolff-Literatur. Hamburg: Meiner, pp. 129-138.Ciafardone, R., 1990. Religion und Philosophie. In: R. Ciafardone, ed. 1990. Die Philosophie der deutschen Aufklärung. Texte und Darstellung. Stuttgart: Reclam, pp. 211-215.Corr, C. A., 1983. Introduction. In: C. Wolff, 1983. Gesammelte Werke. Abt. 1. Deutsche Schriften. Volume 2. Vernünfftige Gedanken. Edited by C.A. Corr. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 1-47.Fugate, C.D., 2014. The Teleology of Reason. A Study of the Structure of Kant’s Critical Philosophy. Berlin: De Gryuter.Gawlick, G., 1986. Christian Wolff und der Deismus. In: W. Schneiders, ed. 1986. Christian Wolff 1679—1754. Interpretationen zu seiner Philosophie und deren Wirkung. Mit einer Bibliographie der Wolff-Literatur. Hamburg: Meiner, pp. 139-147.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2015. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated and edited by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 1987. Critique of Judgement. Translated by W. Pluhar. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett.Kant, I., 1992. 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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 107-201.Kant, I., 1998. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason. In: I. Kant, 1998. Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason and Other Writings. Translated and edited by A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31-191.Klemme, H., 2018. Der Grund der Verbindlichkeit. Mendelssohn und Kant über Evidenz in der Moralphilosophie (1762/64). Kant-Studien, 109(2), pp. 286-308.Kopper, J., 1955/1956. Kants Gotteslehre. Kant-Studien, 47, pp. 31-61.Kryshtop, L., 2016. Uchenie o postulatah v filosofii I. Kanta [The Doctrine of Postulates in Kant’s Philosophy]. Moscow: RUDN University Press. (In Rus.)Laberge, P., 1973. La théologie kantienne précritique. Ottawa: Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa.Marcolungo, F. L., 2011. Christian Wolff und der physiko-theologische Beweis. In: M. Albrech, ed. 2011. Aufklärung. Interdisziplinäres Jahrbuch zur Erforschung des 18. Jahrhunderts und seiner Wirkungsgeschichte. Bd. 23. Die Natürliche Theologie bei Christian Wolff. Hamburg: Meiner, pp. 147-161.Mauthner, F., 2010. Der Atheismus und seine Geschichte im Abendlande. Heppenheim: m-presse.Paccioni, J.-P., 2006. Cet esprit de profondeur. Christian Wolff. L’ontologie et la métaphysique. Paris: Vrin.Pott, M., 1992. Aufklärung und Aberglaube. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Sala, G., 1990. Kant und die Frage nach Gott. Gottesbeweise und Gottesbeweiskritik in den Schriften Kants. Berlin: De Gruyter.Sala, G., 2004. Kants „Kritik der praktischen Vernunft“: ein Kommentar. Darmstadt: WBG.Schaeffler, R., 2005. Ist dem Verstand jeder Weg zu Gott verschlossen? Religionsphilosophie nach Kant. In: I. Kaplow, ed. 2005. Nach Kant: Erbe und Kritik. Münster: Lit, pp. 162-184.Schmidt, J., 1862. Geschichte des geistigen Lebens in Deutschland von Leibniz bis auf Lessing’s Tod. 1681-1781. Leipzig: Wilhelm Grunov.Schmitz, H., 1989. Was wollte Kant. Bonn: Bouvier.Schmucker, J., 1980. Die Ontotheologie des vorkritischen Kant. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Schneiders, W., 2014. Radikalaufklärung in philosophiehistorischer Perspektive. In: J.I. Israel, M. Mulsow, ed. 2014. Radikalaufklärung. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 187-202.Schwaiger, C., 2011. Philosophie und Glaube bei Christian Wolff und Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten. In: M. Albrech, ed. 2011. Aufklärung. Interdisziplinäres Jahrbuch zur Erforschung des 18. Jahrhunderts und seiner Wirkungsgeschichte. Bd. 23. Die Natürliche Theologie bei Christian Wolff. Hamburg: Meiner, pp. 213-227.Stangneth, B., 2003. Einleitung. In: I. Kant, 2003. Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft. Hamburg: Meiner, pp. XI-LXIII.Striet, M., 2005. „Erkenntnis aller Pflichten als göttlicher Gebote“. Bleibende Relevanz und Grenzen von Kants Religionsphilosophie. In: G. Essen and M. Striet, eds. 2005. Kant und die Theologie. Darmstadt: DBG, pp. 162-186.Schulze G. E. Einige Bemerkungen über Kants philosophische Religionslehre. Kiel: Bohn, 1795.Theis, R., 2013a. La question du fondement chez Christian Wolff. In: R. Theis, 2013. De Wolff à Kant. Études. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 3-33.Theis, R., 2013b. Philosophie und Offenbarung: Aspekte eines „mirus consensus“ In: R. Theis, 2013. De Wolff à Kant. Études. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 35-60.Wagner, H., 1975. Moralität und Religion bei Kant. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 29(4), pp. 507-519.Wimmer, R., 1990. Kants kritische Religionsphilosophie. Berlin: De Gruyter.Wolff, C., 1732. Philosophia rationalis sive Logica, methodo scientifica pertractata et ad usum scientiarum atque vitae aptata. Franfurt & Leipzig: Renger.Wolff, C., 1736. Philosophia prima sive Ontologia, methodo scientifica pertractata. Frankfurt & Leipzig: Renger.Wolff, C., 1736. Theologia naturalis methodo scientifica pertractata. Pars I. Frankfurt & Leipzig: Renger.Wolff, C., 1743. Vernünfftige Gedancken von der Menschen Thun und Lassen, zu Beförderung ihrer Glückseeligkeit. Halle: Renger.Wolff, C., 1729. Vernünftige Gedanken von Gott, der Welt und der Seele des Menschen, auch allen Dingen überhaupt. 4. Auflage hin und wieder vermehret. Frankfurt & Leipzig: s.n.Wolff, C., 1841. Christian Wolffs eigene Lebensbeschreibung. Leipzig: Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung.Wolff, C., 1985. Rede über die praktische Philosophie der Chinesen. Latein-Deutsch. Hamburg: Meiner.Zhuchkov, V. A., 2001. Wolff’s Metaphysics and Its Place in the History of Modern Philosophy. In: V. A. Zhuchkov, ed. 2001. Khristian Vol’f i filosofiya v Rossii [Christian Wolff and Philosophy in Russia]. Saint Petersburg: RHGI, pp. 8-106. (In Rus.)Zobrist, M., 2008. Kants Lehre vom höchsten Gut und die Frage moralischer Motivation. Kant-Studien, 99(3), pp. 285-311.R.EnskatIn his first Kant book of 1929 Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics Martin Heidegger focusses, not surprisingly, on one of the two central themes from his two years earlier major book Being and Time — the question of the essence of time. It cannot be overseen that he tries to show that his conception of time is superior to Kant’s. Nevertheless, it is high time to examine whether Heidegger’s claim can bear up against a micro-hermeneutical and micro-analytical test. Such an examination, to be fair and appropriate to the leading aspects of the two philosophers, has to bear in mind from the very beginning the deep differences of these leading aspects: Kant concentrates on the formal structure and the strictly subjective status of time as a form of intuition, Heidegger concentrates on the roles time plays in the daily human world orientation. Under these methodical and conceptional pre-suppositions a close examination must come the result, that both conceptions complement, even complete one another. Heidegger comes closer to the type of time-experience as it is exposed by St. Augustine, Kant exposes a strict analysis of the human way to conceive of the successive form of time. It is evidently possible for us today to continue on both paths.0604202611Aristoteles, 1983. Physikvorlesung. Übersetzt von H. Wagner. 4. unveränderte Ausgabe. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Augustinus, 1955. Confessiones — Bekenntnisse. Lateinisch-deutsch. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und erläutert von J. Bernhart. München: Kösel.Enskat, R., 1988. Zeit, Bewegung, Handlung und Bewußtsein im XI. Buch der „Confessiones“ des hl. Augustinus. In: E. Rudolph, Hg. 1988. Zeit, Bewegung, Handlung. Studien zur Zeitabhandlung des Aristoteles. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, S. 193-221.Enskat, R., 2015. Urteil und Erfahrung. Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Erster Teil. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Enskat, R., 2020. Urteil und Erfahrung. Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Zweiter Teil. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Hawking, S., 2011. Eine kleine Geschichte der Zeit. Hamburg: Rowohlt.Hegel, G. W. F., 1989. Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften. 2. Auflage. Teil 3: Die Philosophie des Geistes. Mit den mündlichen Zusätzen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Heidegger, M., 1960. Sein und Zeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Heidegger, M., 1965. Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik. 3. unveränderte Auflage. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Heidegger, M., 1976. Logik. Die Frage nach der Wahrheit. In: M. Heidegger, 1976. Gesamtausgabe, Band 21. Herausgegeben von W. Biemel. Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.Newton, I., 1872. Mathematische Prinzipien der Naturlehre. Mit Bemerkungen und Erläuterungen herausgegeben von J.Ph. Wolfers. Berlin: Oppenheim.Paton, H. J., 1961. Kant’s Metaphysic of Experience. A Commentary on the First Half of the Kritik der reinen Vernunft. In Two Volumes. London & New York: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Tugendhat, E., 1979. Selbstbewußtsein und Selbstbestimmung. Sprachanalytische Interpretationen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Searle, J., 1971. Sprechakte. Ein sprachphilosophischer Essay. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Vleeschauwer, H. J. de, 1934—1937. La déduction transcendentale dans l’œuvre de Kant. Trois Tomes. Antwerpen, Paris & ’S Gravenhage: De Sikkel; Librairie Leroux; Nijhoff.Wieland, W., 2001. Urteil und Gefühl. Kants Theorie der Urteilskraft. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.P.R.BonadysevaThe Russian intuitivist philosopher Nikolay Lossky repeatedly admitted Kant’s substantial formative influence on him as a scholar. Moreover, Lossky was a disciple of the Russian Kantian Aleksander Vvedensky, and was one of the most successful translators of the first Critique. However, his own philosophical project is rather the opposite of the critical programme. While in the framework of Lossky’s epistemology the specificities of his reading of Kant have received a fair amount of attention in Russian scholarship, in the ethical field the Russian philosopher’s comments on Kant have passed largely unnoticed. My task is to reveal the link between Kant’s practical philosophy and Lossky’s ethics. A demonstration of the degree of Kant’s influence in this field will enlarge and concretise the current thinking about Lossky’s perception of Kant. We are looking at a whole range of parallels and borrowings. My comparative analysis focuses on the following aspects: 1) definition and uses of the term “categorical imperative”, 2) free will as the condition of the possibility of moral action, 3) the cause of moral evil, 4) the role of the idea of God in ethics. As a result, I reveal how Lossky used elements of Kant’s practical philosophy as conceptual, terminological and rhetorical resources in his theonomic ethics, and how the Russian philosopher interpreted them in line with his own doctrine. I argue that Lossky’s use of the Kantian moral terminology is incautious and debatable and point out several intersections of ethical argumentations in the light of its projection on radically different ontological and epistemological principles.0604202611Berdnikova, А. Yu., 2017. ‘Back to Kant’ or ‘Back to Leibnitz’? A Critical View from the History of Russian Metaphysical Personalism. Kantian Journal, 36(2), pp. 33-45. (In Rus.)Blauberg, I. I., 2017. Evolution of Personalistic Ideas in the Work of N. O. Lossky. History of Philosophy, 22(1), pp. 106-120. (In Rus.)Bonadyseva, P. R., 2020. The Emergence of Onto-Gnoseology among Russian Intuitivists as Criticism of Neo-Kantianism. Kantian Journal, 39(4), pp. 95-123.Kant, I., 1996. The Metaphysics of Morals. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical philosophy. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor, Introduction by A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353-604.Kant, I., 1997. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by M.J. Gregor, Introduction by C. M. Korsgaard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2002. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated by W. S. Pluhar, Introduction by S. Engstrom. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc.Kant, I., 2009. Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason. Translated by W. S. Pluhar, Introduction by S. R. Palmquist. Indianapolis & Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company Inc.Lewin, M., 2021. Das System der Ideen. Zur perspektivistisch-metaphilosophischen Begründung der Vernunft im Anschluss an Kant und Fichte. Freiburg & München: Alber.Lossky, N. O., 1932. Freedom of Will. Translated by N. A. Duddington. London: Williams & Norgate.Lossky, N. O., 1991a. The Conditions of Absolute Good. Moscow: Political Literature Publishers. (In Rus.).Lossky, N. O., 1991b. The Types of Worldview. In: N. O. Lossky, 1991. Sensual, Intellectual, and Mystical Intuition. Moscow: Respublika, pp. 4-135. (In Rus.).Lossky, N. O., 1994. God and Evil. Moscow: Republic, pp. 316-409. (In Rus.).Lossky, N. O., 1995. Sensual, Intellectual, and Mystical Intuition. Moscow: Republic, pp. 136-288. (In Rus.).Lossky, N. O., 1919. The Intuitive Basis of Knowledge. Translated by N. A. Duddington, with a Preface by G. D. Hickes. London: Macmillan & Co.Lossky, N.O., 1928. The World as an Organic Whole. Translated by N.A. Duddington. Oxford: Humphrey Milford.Navickas, J. L., 1978. N. Lossky’s Moral Philosophy and M. Scheler’s Phenomenology. Studies in Soviet Thought, 18(2), pp. 121-130.Oizerman, T. I., 1994. Kant’s Doctrine of Initial Evil in Human Nature. Kantian Journal, 18, pp. 11-20. (In Rus.).Popova, V. S., 2015. Kant in the Development of N. O. Lossky’s Philosophical Views: The Case of a Translation. Kantian Journal, 1(52), pp. 62-75.Puls, H., 2011. Freiheit als Unabhängigkeit von bloß subjektiv bestimmenden Ursachen — Kants Auflösung des Zirkelverdachts im dritten Abschnitt der Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, 65(4), pp. 534-562.Rinne, P., 2018. Kant on Love. Berlin: De Gruyter.Schönecker, D., 1999. Kant: Grundlegung III. Die Deduktion des kategorischen Imperativs. Freiburg & München: Karl Alber.Titarenko, A. I., 1991. Classical Ethics of the Absolute. Introductory Article. In: N. O. Lossky. The Conditions of Absolute Good. Moscow: Political Literature Publishers, pp. 5-22. (In Rus.)Zenkovsky V. V., 2001. History of Russian Philosophy. Moscow: Akademicheskiy Proekt, Raritet, pp. 599-642. (In Rus.).L.Yu.KornilaevNeo-Kantianism is traditionally seen as a philosophy that was formed to develop and actualise Kant’s philosophy and Kantian transcendental methodology. However, Kant was the determining, but by no means the only, influence on the emergence of the neo-Kantian tradition. Neo-Kantianism was strongly influenced by the entire German post-Kantian philosophy, especially by Fichte and Hegel, although neo-Kantians have repeatedly tried to dissociate themselves from the great idealists. In many ways neo-Kantianism was cultivated by the Fichtean reading of Kant, which enabled succeeding philosophers, notably H.-G. Gadamer, to consider neo-Kantianism to be “hidden neo-Fichteanism”. The main goal of this study is a historical-philosophical reconstruction of the image of Fichtean philosophy formed within German neo-Kantianism. To achieve this aim I have analysed the key projects of the German neo-Kantians in which the influence of Fichte’s philosophy, in particular his interpretation of the Kantian doctrine of the primacy of practical reason, is most clearly manifested. I show that the theory of values of the Southwest neo-Kantians and the ethics of pure will of the Marburg neo-Kantians are associated with the Fichtean revision of Kant’s doctrine of the primacy of practical reason. The following, in my opinion, are the main features of the image of Fichte’s philosophy: it is close to neo-Kantians precisely because it strives to combine theoretical and practical reason; it is in ethics that Fiche’s ideas are most manifest in neo-Kantianism; neo-Kantian original theories contain the ideas of self-consciousness “in the spirit” of Fichte. The conclusion is drawn that the growth of the metaphysical component in neo-Kantian doctrines may be connected with the influence of Fichte’s philosophy.0604202611Beiser, F., 2018. Neo-Kantianism as Neo-Fichteanism. Fichte-Studien, 45, pp. 309-327.Belov, V. N., 2014. Ethics in the System of Philosophical Criticism of Hermann Cohen. Ethical Thought, 14, pp. 174-199. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2016. Our Disagreements: On the Anniversary of the Leading Kant Scholar of Modern Russia. Kantian Journal, 2(56), pp. 10-15. (In Rus.)Bykova, M. F., 2006. The Concept of the Subject in Fichte’s Philosophy, Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik 2006, pp. 151-179. (In Rus.)Cohen, H., 1877. Kants Begründung der Ethik. Berlin: Harwitz und Gossman.Cohen, H., 1904. System der Philosophie. Teil 2: Ethik des reinen Willens. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Dmitrieva, N. A., 2007. Russkoe neokantianstvo: ‘Marburg’ v Rossii. Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki [Russian Neo-Kantianism: Marburg in Russia. Historical and Philosophical Essays]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Rus.)Dmitrieva, N. A., 2021. The Kantian Origins of Sergei Rubinstein’s Theory of Moral Improvement. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55(6), pp. 1126-1141.Edel, G., 2002. Fichte — Marburger Neukantianismus (insbesondere Natorp) und die philosophische Methode. In: D. Pätzold and Ch. Krijnen, eds. 2002. Der Neukantianismus und das Erbe des deutschen Idealismus: Die philosophische Methode. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, pp. 35-47.Edel, G., 2013. Zum Fichte-Bild im Marburger Neukantianismus. In: J. Stolzenberg and O.-P. Rudolph, eds. 2012. Wissen, Freiheit, Geschichte: Die Philosophie Fichtes im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Volume 3. Leiden: Brill, pp. 15-31.Fichte, I. G., 2021. Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre. In: I. G. Fichte, 2021. Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre and Related Writings (1794—95). Edited and translated by D. Breazeale. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 196-378.Fichte, I. G., 2021. Outline of the Distinctive Character of the Wissenschaftslehre with Respect to the Theoretical Faculty. In: I. G. Fichte, 2021. Foundation of the Entire Wissenschaftslehre and Related Writings (1794—95). Edited and translated by D. Breazeale. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 380-436.Gadamer, H.-G., 1995. Subjektivität und Intersubjektivität, Subjekt und Person. In: H.-G. Gadamer, 1995. Gesammelte Werke. Volume 10: Hermeneutik im Rückblick. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 87-99.Goubet, J.-F., 2012. Paul Natorps Fichte-Rezeption in der “Praktischen Philosophie” von 1925. In: J. Stolzenberg and O.-P. Rudolph, eds. 2012. Wissen, Freiheit, Geschichte: Die Philosophie Fichtes im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Volume 3. Leiden: Brill, pp. 3-14.Heinz, M., 1997. Die Fichte-Rezeption in der südwestdeutschen Schule des Neukantianismus. Fichte-Studien, 13, pp. 109-129.Kalinnikov, L. A., 2010. On the Need to Revaluation Neo-Kantianism in the Light of the Contemporary Interpretation of I. Kant’s System. In: I.N. Griftsova and N. A. Dmitrieva, eds. 2010. Nemetskoe i russkoe neokantianstvo: mezhdu teoriej poznaniya i kritikoi kul’tury [German and Russian Neo-Kantianism: Between the Theory of Knowledge and Criticism of Culture]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 56-66. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1996. Critique of Practical Reason. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical philosophy. Translated and edited by M. J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139-271.Kant, I., 1999. Correspondence. Translated and edited by A. Zweig. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lask, E., 1923. Fichtes Idealismus und die Geschichte In: E. Lask, 1923. Gesammelte Schriften. Volume 1. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 1-274.Natorp, P., 1980. Allgemeine Logik. In: W. Flach and H. Holzhey, 1980. Erkenntnistheorie und Logik im Neukantianismus. Hildesheim: Olms, pp. 226-269.Noras, A., 2020. Geschichte des Neukantianismus. Bern: Peter Lang.Rickert, H., 1899. Fichtes Atheismusstreit und die kantische Philosophie. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Semyonov, V. Ye., 2022. Constructive Thinking in the Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Kantian Journal, 41(3), pp. 76-101. (In Rus.)Stolzenberg, J., 2002. Fichte im Neukantianismus. Probleme der Fichte-Rezeption bei Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Rickert, Hermann Cohen und Paul Natorp. In: R. Alexy, L. H. Meyer, S. L. Paulson, G. Sprenger, eds. 2002. Neukantianismus und Rechtsphilosophie. Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 421-434.Windelband, W., 1880. Die Geschichte der neueren Philosophie in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der allgemeinen Cultur und den besonderen Wissenschaften dargestellt. Bd. 2: Die Blüthezeit der deutschen Philosophie. Von Kant bis Hegel und Herbart. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Windelband, W., 1915. Was ist Philosophie? (Über Begriff und Geschichte der Philosophie). In: W. Windelband, 1915. Präludien: Aufsätze und Reden zur Philosophie und ihrer Geschichte. Volume 1. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), pp. 1-54.Witzleben, F., 2013. Fichtes Subjektbegriff im Neukantianismus In: J. Stolzenberg and O.-P. Rudolph, eds/ 2013. Wissen, Freiheit, Geschichte: Die Philosophie Fichtes im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Volume 3. Leiden: Brill, pp. 33-46.Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2012. The Concept of Value in H. Rickert and its Interpretation in the Philosophy of S. I. Hessen. Kantian Journal, 1(39), pp. 40-44.V.I.SavintsevV.S.PopovaIn the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the need to rethink the status of space and time which Kant considered to be a priori forms of sensibility was prompted by the emergence of new approaches to the methodology of scientific cognition. In neo-Kantian interpretation these cognitive forms acquire a special epistemological status, manifesting themselves in theoretical research as “pre-given” foundations of knowledge. It seems necessary to conduct a comparative analysis of two interconnected neo-Kantian concepts, of Hermann Cohen and Ivan Lapshin. Studying Kant’s philosophy since his student days, Lapshin gradually came to the conclusion that the need to clarify and develop Kant’s transcendental method was dictated by the development of scientific knowledge. Indeed, the works of the Russian neo-Kantian contain echoes and polemical adjustments of Cohen’s spatio-temporal ideas. Our study has revealed common epistemological attitudes in Cohen and Lapshin: the wish to improve elements of Kantian philosophy, adjusting them to prove the possibility of scientific-theoretical cognition and of overcoming psychologism and developing the logicistic approach to the critique of cognition. Each of the two authors developed their own “mechanism” of reducing space and time to a range of intellectual procedures for the construction of the object of knowledge. In Cohen’s account space and time pre-establish the language of observation and found all scientific-theoretical work. Lapshin, on the other hand, in discussing the formal and substantive features of these categories (the introduction of “axioms” of time, the need to specify the concepts of time and space through other categories), notes that their use in scientific judgment implies an epistemological givenness of the concept of the object. This I see as a variant of solving one and the same epistemological task. I submit that Lapshin worked out an independent concept of space and time as cognitive forms that are congruent with the spirit of European neo-Kantianism and contemporary science.0604202611Beiser, F. C., 2018. Hermann Cohen: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Belov, V. N., 2012. Introduction to the Translation of Kant’s Theory of Experience. In: H. Cohen, 2012. Teoriya opyta Kanta [Kant’s Theory of Experience]. Translated [into Russian] by V. N. Belov. Moscow: Akademicheskij Projekt, pp. 5-69. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2018. The Infinitesimal Method as a Principle of the Theory of Cognition in the Systematic Constructions of H. Cohen. Voprosy filosofii, 3, pp. 68-74. (In Rus.)Belov, V. N., 2020. Russian Neo-Kantianism in the History of European Philosophy and Culture. Voprosy filosofii, 4, pp. 41-50. (In Rus.)Bertolino, L., 2018. The Infinitesimal Method by Hermann Cohen, Franz Rosenzweig and Gilles Deleuze. Voprosy filosofii, 3, pp. 75-88. (In Rus.)Brodsky, A. I., 2013. I. I. Lapshin’s Metaphysical Constructivism. In: V. N Brushinkin and V. S. Popova, eds. 2013. Neokantianstvo v Rossii: Ivanovich Vvedensky, Ivan Ivanovich Lapshin. [Neo-Kantianism in Russia: Alexander Ivanovich Vvedensky, Ivan Ivanovich Lapshin]. Moscow: ROSPEN, pp. 246-254. (In Rus.)Demin, M. R., 2010. The Right to Kant: on the Dispute between Adolf Trendelenburg and Kuno Fischer. In: I. Griftsova and N. Dmitrieva, eds. 2010. Neokantianstvo nemetskoe i russkoe: mezhdu teoriej poznanija i kritikoj kultury. [German and Russian Neo-Kantianism: Between the Theory of Cognition and the Critique of Culture]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 66-85. (In Rus.)Dlugach, T. B., 2016. Riddles of Transcendental Idealism (Marburg School of Kantianism). History of Philosophy Yearbook’2016, pp. 145-164. (In Rus.)Dmitrieva, N. A., 2007. Russkoe neokantianstvo: “Marburg” v Rossii. Istoriko-filosofskie ocherki [Russian Neo-Kantianism: “Marburg” in Russia. Historical and Philosophical Essays]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Rus.)Dmitrieva, N. A., 2010. Mensch und Geschichte. Zur ‘anthropologischen Wende’ im russischen Neukantianismus. Etica e Politica, 12(2), pp. 82-103, [online] Available at: [Accessed: 17 January 2022].Dmitrieva, N. A., 2013. The Concept of “A Priori” in German and Russian Neo-Kantianism. In: Kruglov A. N., ed. 2013. Mnogoobrazie apriori. Materiali mezhdunarodnoy konferentsii na filosofskom fakultete RGU 19—20 aprelia 2012 g. [Diversity of A Priori. Proceedings of the International Conference at the Faculty of Philosophy of RSUH, 19 — 20 April 2012]. Moscow: Kanon, pp. 129-147. (In Rus.)Dmitrieva, N. A., 2021. The Concept of Human Being in Herman Cohen’s Philosophy. In: A.V. Smirnov and A. Ju Antonovskiy, eds. 2021. Vos’moy Rossijskij filosofskij kongress “Filosofia v politsentrichnom mire” [The 8th Russian Philosophical Congress “Philosophy in a Polycentric World”. Sections (I)]. Moscow: Logos, “Novye pechatnye technologii”, pp. 596-598. (In Rus.)Dmitrieva, N. A. and Sakketti, A.L., 2021. Philosophy of Hermann Cohen (Publication, Foreword and Commentary by N. A. Dmitrieva). Kantian Journal, 40(2), pp. 95-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2021-2-4Cohen, H., 1885. Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Second Edition. Dümmler, 1885.Edgar, S., 2022. Hermann Cohen on the Role of History in Critical Philosophy. European Journal of Philosophy, 30(1), pp. 148-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12654Kant, I., 2007. Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. In: I. Kant, 2007. Anthropology, History, and Education. Edited by G. Zöller and R.B. Louden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 227-429.Lapshin, I.I., 1900. About Cowardice in Thinking. A Study on the Psychology of Metaphysical Thinking. Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii, 5(55), pp. 817-881. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 1906. Zakony myshlenia i formy poznania [Laws of Thinking and Forms of Cognition]. St. Petersburg: Typografia V. Bezobrazova and Ko. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 1917. Logika otnoshenij i sillogizm. (Po povodu knigi privat-dotsenta S.I. Povarnina “Logika. Obshee uchenie o dokazatel’stve”) [Logic of Relations and Syllogism. (About the Book by Privat-Docent S.I. Povarnin “Logic. The General Doctrine of Proof”)]. Petrograd: Senatskaya typografia. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I.I., 1922. Filosofia izobretenia i izobretenie v filosofii [The Philosophy of Invention and Invention in Philosophy]. Petrograd: Nauka i shkola. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 2006. Neizdannij Ivan Lapshin [Unpsublished Ivan Lapshin]. St. Petersburg: SPbGATI. (In Rus.)Lossky, N. O., 1995. Chuvstvennaja, intellektualnaja i misticheskaja intuitsija [Sensual, Intellectual and Mystical Intuition]. Moscow: Respublika. (In Rus.)Pertsev, A. P., 2015. The Evolution of Transcendental Philosophy in Phenomenology: The Transition from “Construction” to “Description”. Istoricheskaja i sotsialno-obrazovatelnaja mysl’ [historical and socio-educational thought], 7(5.1), pp. 269-273. (In Rus.)Poma, A., 1997. The Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Translated by J. Denton. Albany, N. Y.: SUNY Press.Sekundant, S. G., 2010. The Theory of Infinitesimals and Its Role in the Formation of the Philosophical and Methodological Concept of H. Cohen. Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 26(4), pp. 219-222. (In Rus.)Shchedrina, T. G., 2004. Ocherki intellektualnoj biografii Gustava Shpeta [Essays on the Intellectual Biography of Gustav Shpet]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Rus.)Shchedrina, T. G., 2008. Arkhiv epokhi: tematicheskoe edinstvo russkoj filosofii [Archive of the Epoch: Thematic Unity of Russian Philosophy]. Moscow: ROSSPEN. (In Rus.)Sokuler, Z. A., 2013. Herman Cohen as an Actual Thinker. Reflecting on the Book: Cohen H. Kant’s Theory of Experience. Voprosy filosofii, 1, pp. 154-164. (In Rus.)Sokuler, Z. A., 2021. Hermann Cohen and His Idea of the Logic of Pure Knowledge. RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 25(3), pp. 378-393. (In Rus.)Tyutyunnikov, A. A., 2018. Hermann Cohen’s Transcendental Method as a Project (I). Bulletin of PNRPU. Culture. History. Philosophy. Law, 2, pp. 7-26. https://doi.org/10.15593/perm.kipf/2018.2.01 (In Rus.)Vvedensky, A. I., 1901. Filosofskie ocherki [Philosophical Essays]. St. Petersburg: Tip. V.S. Balashov and Ko. (In Rus.)Zaikova, A. S., 2021. Discreteness and Continuity of Consciousness in Time. In: A.V . Smirnov and A. Ju. Antonovskiy, eds., 2021. Vos’moy Rossijskij filosofskij kongress “Filosofia v politsentrichnom mire” [The 8th Russian Philosophical Congress “Philosophy in a Polycentric World”. Sections (II)]. Moscow: Logos, “Novye pechatnye technologii”, pp. 2247-2250. (In Rus.)