NONE20260531200546007Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370105312026421N.A.DmitrievaT.N.Rezvykh0531202679От Канта к Франку: этика долга и проблема сопротивления злу в русской мысли.K.M.AntonovSt. Tikhon’s Orthodox UniversityOne of the key ethical debates in Russian religious thought, initiated by Leo Tolstoy, concerned the question of nonresistance to evil by force. The purpose of this article is to assess the influence of Kant’s ethics and philosophy of religion on the course of this debate and to determine the place and significance of the arguments and considerations expressed on this issue by Semyon Frank in the early and late periods (1908 and 1940s) of his work. To this end I reconstruct the general course of the debate, notably the positions and arguments of Leo Tolstoy, Vladimir Solovyov, Ivan Ilyin and Nikolai Berdyaev. Beginning with Tolstoy, Russ­ian thinkers introduced the original ethical content of the idea of nonresistance derived from the Gospel into the ethics of duty borrowed from Kant. The Tolstoy version of this idea was challenged mainly from two directions: from the Kantian grounding of the legitimacy of coercion and attempts to bring in styles of moral thinking other than the ethic of duty. Ilyin’s apolo­gia for the use of force in the struggle against evil prompted Russian émigré thinkers to take a closer look at Tolstoy’s ethical concept and pay attention to its positive content. On this basis Berdyaev and especially Frank create their version of the Christ-centered ethic of salvation which, in the perspective of “protecting the world against evil” includes the ethic of duty and links it with the possibility of using force, always a wrongful act, but one justified “in a situation of extreme need”.05312026105110.5922/0207-6918-2023-1-2https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5319/40677/Aljaev, G. E., Obolevich, T. and Rezvykh, T.N., 2021. “Svet vo t’me” i “S nami Bog”: neizvestnye knigi S. L. Franka [The Light Shineth in the Darkness and God with Us: The Unknown Books of S. L. Frank]. Moscow: Modest Kolerov. (In Rus.)Berdyaev, N. A., 1912. The Old and New Testament in L. Tolstoy’s Religious Consciousness. In: Sbornik vtoroi. O religii L’va Tolstogo [The Second Collection. On Lev Tolstoy’s Religion], 1912. Moscow: Put’, pp. 172-195. (In Rus.)Berdyaev, N., 2015. The Philosophy of Inequality. Letters to my Contemners, Concerning Social Philosophy. In: N. Berdyaev, 2015. The Philosophy of Inequality. Letters to my Contemners, Concerning Social Philosophy (1923); Spirits of the Russian Revolution: Gogol, Dostoevsky, L. Tolstoy (1918). Translated by Fr. S. Janos. Mohrsville, PA: frsj Publications, pp. 1-291.Berdyaev, N. A., 1926. A Nightmare of Evil Good. Put’ [The Way], 4, pp. 103-116. (In Rus.)Berdyaev, N. A., 1993. The Destiny of Man. Reprint of the 4th edition published by G. Bles. Westport, Connecticut: Hyperion Press.Chernov, V. S., 2004. Peace, Sword and World. In: I. I. Evlampiev, ed. 2004. I. A. Il’in: pro et contra. Lichnost’ i tvorchestvo Ivana Il’ina v vospominaniyakh, dokumentakh i ocenkakh russkikh myslitelei i issledovatelei: antologiya [I.A. Ilyin: Pro et Contra. Ivan Ilyin’s Person and Work in Memoirs, Documents and Assessments of Russian Thinkers and Researchers: An Anthology]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Russkogo Hristianskogo gumanitarnogo instituta, pp. 617-640. (In Rus.)Frank, S. L., 1946. God with Us. Three Meditations. Translated by N. Duddington. New Haven: Yale University Press.Frank, S. L., 1989. The Light Shineth in the Darkness: An Essay in Christian Ethics and Social Philosophy. Translated by B. Jakim. Athens: Ohio University Press.Frank, S. L., 2020a. The Moral Teaching of Tolstoy. In: S. L. Frank, 2020. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Works]. Volume 3: 1908—1910. Moscow: PSTGU, pp. 57-66. (In Rus.)Frank, S. L., 2020b. Lev Tolstoy and Russian intelligencija. In: S. L. Frank, 2020. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii [Complete Works]. Volume 3: 1908—1910. Moscow: PSTGU, pp. 67-73. (In Rus.)Evlampiev, I. I., 1998. Bozhestvennoe i chelovecheskoe v filosofii Ivana Il’ina [Divine and Human in the Philosophy of Ivan Ilyin]. St. Petersburg: Nauka. (In Rus.)Evlampiev, I. I., ed. 2004. I. A. Il’in: pro et contra. Lichnost’ i tvorchestvo Ivana Il’ina v vospominaniyakh, dokumentakh i ocenkakh russkikh myslitelei i issledovatelei: antologiya [I. A. Ilyin: Pro et Contra. Ivan Ilyin’s Person and Work in Memoirs, Documents and Assessments of Russian Thinkers and Researchers: An Anthology]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Russkogo Hristianskogo gumanitarnogo instituta. (In Rus.)Gelfond, M. L., 2008. Critique of Tolstoy’s Doctrine of Non-Resistance to Evil by Violence in Russian Religious-Philosophical Thought in the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries: Three Main Arguments. In: Theoretical Workshop of the Division of Ethics of the Institute of Philosophy RAS, Moscow. Available at: https://iphras.ru/uplfile/ethics/seminar/gelfond_q.html (accessed 15 November 2022). (In Rus.)Guseinov, A. A., 2014. Non-resistance to Evil by Force. In: A. A. Gusejnov and T. G. Shchedrina, eds. 2014. Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 219-247. (In Rus.)Gusejnov, A. A. and Shchedrina, T. G., 2014. From Editors. In: A. A. Gusejnov and T. G. Shchedrina, eds. 2014. Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 5-8. (In Rus.)Ilyin, I. A., 1914. The Main Moral Contradiction of War. Voprosy filosofii i psihologii [The Issues of Philosophy and Psychology], 125(5), pp. 797-826. (In Rus.)Ilyin, I.A., 2018. On Resistance to Evil by Force. Translated by K. Benois. Zvolen & London: Taxiarch Press.Kant, I.,1996a. An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Edited by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15-22.Kant, I., 1996b. The Metaphysics of Morals. In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Edited by M. Gregor, General Introduction by A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 365-603.Kant, I., 1997. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated and edited by M. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2009. Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason. Translated by W. S. Pluhar, Introduction by S. R. Palmquist. Indianapolis: Hackett.Kant, I., 2015. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated and edited by M. Gregor, with a revised introduction by A. Reath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kolerov, M. A., 1996. Ne mir, no mech. Russkaja religiozno-filosofskaja pechat’ ot “Problem idealizma” do “Vekh” [Not the Peace, but the Sword. The Russian Religious-Philosophical Press from The Problems of Idealism to the Signposts], 1902—1909. St. Petersburg: Aleteya. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A. N., 2012a. Kant i kantovskaya filosofiya v russkoi khudozhestvennoi literature [Kant and Kantian Philosophy in Russian Fiction]. Moscow: «Kanon+». (In Rus.)Krouglov, A. N., 2012b. Law in the Perception of the Late Tolstoy. In: Lev Tolstoj i mirovaja literatura: materialy VII Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Lev Tolstoy and World Literature: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference] (Yasnaya Polyana, 10-15 August 2010), 2012. Tula: “Yasnaya Polyana”, pp. 267-283. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A. N., 2021. The Polemic on “Amorphism” in Ethics: The Late V. S. Solovyov vs L. N. Tolstoy. In: Lev Tolstoj i mirovaya literatura: materialy XI Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Lev Tolstoy and World Literature: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference] (Yasnaya Polyana, 11-15 August 2018), 2021. Tula: “Yasnaja Polyana”, pp. 203-218. (In Rus.)Lisitsa, Yu. N., ed. 2007. I. A. Ilyin: O soprotivlenii zlu siloju; Pro et contra: Polemika vokrug idej I. A. Il’ina o soprotivlenii zlu siloju [I. A. Ilyin: On Resistance to Evil by Force; Pro et contra. The Polemic Around I. A. Ilyin’s Ideas on Resistance to Evil by Force]. Moscow: Airis-Press. (In Rus.)Losev, A. F., 2009. Vl. Solov’ev i ego vremya [Vl. Solovyov and His Time]. Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya. (In Rus.)Nizhnikov, S. A., 2013. Shall We Resist Evil by Force? The Problem of Morals in Philosophy-Political Discourse. Space and Time: E-Almanac, 3(2). Available at: http://www.j-spacetime.com/actual%20content/t3v2/3221.php (accessed 30 June 2022). (In Rus.)Orekhanov, G., 2016. Lev Tolstoi. “Prorok bez chesti”. Hronika katastrofy [Leo Tolstoy. “A Prophet Without Honor”. Chronicle of the Catastrophe]. Moscow: Eksmo. (In Rus.)Poltoratsky, N. P., 1975. I. A. Il’in i polemika vokrug ego idei o soprotivlenii zlu siloi [I. A. Ilyin and the Controversy about His Ideas of Resistance to Evil by Force]. London (Canada): Zarya. (In Rus.)Sidorin, V. V., 2021. Semyon Liudvigovich Frank. In: A. V. Chernjaev and T. G. Shchedrina, eds. 2021. Institut nauchnoi filosofii. Nachalo [The Institute of Scientific Philosophy. The Beginning]. Moscow: Politicheskaya entsiklopediya, pp. 82-91. (In Rus.)Solovyov, V., 1918. The Justification of the Good: An Essay on Moral Philosophy. Translated by N. Duddington with a note by S. Graham. London: Constable and Company LTD.Tolstoy, L., 1904a. My Religion. In: The Complete Works of Count Tolstoy. Translated and edited by L. Wiener. Volume XVI. Boston: Dana Estes & Company, pp. 3-221.Tolstoy, L., 1904b. Critique of Dogmatic Theology. In: The Complete Works of Count Tolstoy. Translated and edited by L. Wiener. Volume XIII. Boston: Dana Estes & Company, pp. 91-451.Trubetskoi, E. N., 1911. V. S. Solovyov’s Personality. In: Sbornik pervyi. O Vladimire Solovyove [The First Collection. On Vladimir Solovyov], 1911. Moscow: Put’, pp. 45-74. (In Rus.)Trubetskoi, E. N., 1912. Tolstoy and Solovyov’s Dispute about the State. In: Sbornik vtoroi. O religii L’va Tolstogo [The Second Collection. On Lev Tolstoi’s Religion], 1912. Moscow: Put’, pp. 59-75. (In Rus.)Апология человеческого бытия vs «идеальное человекоубийство»: антропологический проект С.Л. ФранкаO.A.NazarovaInstitute of Personal Training and Consulting (IPB)The emergence of S. L. Frank’s philosophy cannot be understood without clarifying his attitude to Immanuel Kant. Following the early representatives of the theory of cognition of his time who undertook to understand Kant in order to go beyond him (W. Windelband) and their warning against turning Kant’s philosophy into a dogma and allowing for diverse interpretations of Kant (P. Natorp), Frank saw Kant not as a critic and “destroyer” of metaphysics, but as a thinker who laid the foundations of a new metaphysical synthesis. He set himself the task of “transforming” the Kantian philosophy into a new metaphysical system proceeding from the foundational principles of critical thinking. As a result, he managed to overcome the abstract concept of the human being characteristic of Neo-Kantians to put the concrete human in the absolute horizon of being at the focus of philosophical investigations. In his metaphysics anthropology begins to play a system-forming and meaning-forming role, and onto-epistemological reasoning is used as a methodology for revealing the specificities of the human being. Here, too, Frank follows Kant who in his Logic defined the question “What is man?” as the fundamental question of philosophy. Frank’s three books, The Object of Knowledge (1915), Man’s Soul (1915), and The Spiritual Foundations of Society (1930) demonstrate that a metaphysical interpretation of Kantian critique is possible and may turn out to be the foundation of raising and solving topical philosophical problems.05312026527010.5922/0207-6918-2023-1-3https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5319/40679/Boobbyer, P., 1995. S. L. Frank: The Life and Work of a Russian Philosopher, 1877-1950. Athens: Ohio University Press.Coreth, E., 1954. Kant — nach 150 Jahren. Wort und Wahrheit, 9, pp. 620-625.Coreth, E., 1956. Grundfragen des menschlichen Daseins. Innsbruck & München: Tyrolia Verlag.Coreth, E., 1969. Was ist philosophische Anthropologie? Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie, 91, pp. 252-273.Coreth, E., 1973. Was ist der Mensch? Grundzüge einer philosophischen Anthropologie. Innsbruck & Wien & München: Tyrolia Verlag.Frank, S. L., 1912. On Philosophical Intuition. Russkaya mysl’ [Russian Thought], 3, sec. 3, pp. 31-35. (In Rus.)Frank, S. L., 1915. Russian Book about Fichte. Russkaya mysl’ [Russian Thought], 5, sec. 3, pp. 31-35. (In Rus.)Frank, S., 1924/1925. Wesen und Richtlinien der russischen Philosophie. Der Gral, 1924-1925, 19(8), pp. 384-394.Frank, S. L., 1928a. Max Scheler (Obituary). Put’ [The Way], 13, pp. 83-86. (In Rus.)Frank, S., 1928b. Erkenntnis und Sein. 1. Das Transzendenzproblem. Logos, 17(1), pp. 165-195.Frank, S., 1929a. Erkenntnis und Sein. 2. Die metalogischen Grundlagen der begrifflichen Erkenntnis. Logos, 18(1), pp. 231-261.Frank, S., 1929b. Zur Metaphysik der Seele. (Das Problem der philosophischen Anthropologie). Kant-Studien, 34(3-4), pp. 351-373.Frank, S. L., 1983. The Unknowable. An Ontological Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Translated by B. Jakim. Athens, Ohio & London: Ohio University Press.Frank, S. L., 1987. The Spiritual Foundations of Society. An Introduction to Social Philosophy. Translated by B. Jakim. Athens, Ohio & London: Ohio University Press.Frank, S. L., 1990. Fr. Nietzsche and the Ethics of ‘Love of the Distant’. In: S. L. Frank, 1990. Sochineniya [Works]. Moscow: “Pravda”, pp. 9-64. (In Rus.)Frank, S. L., 1992. The Ethics of Nihilism. In: Intelligenciya. Vlast’. Narod. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 164-207.Frank, S.L., 1993a. Man’s Soul: An Introductory Essay in Philosophical Psychology. Translated by B. Jakim, Foreword by P. Swoboda. Athens: Ohio University Press.Frank, S. L., 1993b. Vvedenie v filosofiyu v szhatom izlozhenii [Introduction to Philosophy in a Concise Form]. Moscow: ABRIS-KNIGA, 1993. (In Rus.)Frank, S. L., 1995. Predmet znaniya [The Object of Knowledge]. In: S. L. Frank, 1995. Predmet znaniya. Dusha cheloveka [The Object of Knowledge. Man’s Soul]. St. Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 37-416. (In Rus.)Frank, S. L., 2006. German Idealism: From Kant to Schopenhauer. Lectures, 1910/1911. In: S. L. Frank, 2006. Saratovskij tekst [Saratov Text]. Saratov: Saratov University Press, pp. 112-168. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1992. The Jäsche Logic. In: I. Kant, 1992. Lectures on Logic. Translated and edited by J. M. Young. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 521-630.Kanzian, C., 2005. Transzendentale Metaphysik (Ein Überblick zur ersten Orientierung). Leseraum, Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck. Available at: https://www.uibk.ac.at/theol/leseraum/texte/590.html [accessed 26 June 2022].Maréchal, J., 1922—1947. Le point de départ de la métaphysique : en 5 volumes. Paris: Alcan et al.Natorp, P., 1912. Kant und die Marburger Schule. Kant-Studien, 17(3), pp. 193-221.Nazarova, O., 2017. Das Problem der Wiedergeburt und Neubegründung der Metaphysik am Beispiel der christlichen philosophischen Traditionen: der russischen religiösen Philosophie (Simon L. Frank) und der deutschsprachigen neuscholastischen Philosophie (Emerich Coreth). München: UTZ.Windelband, W., 1903. Präludien. Aufsätze und Reden zur Einleitung in die Philosophie. Zweite vermehrte Auflage. Tübingen & Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).С.Л. Франк и немецкое неокантианство: аспекты дискуссииV.N.BelovPatrice Lumumba Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)The widespread assessment of the early period of Semyon L. Frank’s work as being influenced by German Neo-Kantianism is in need of a critical scrutiny. There are several reasons why the Russian philosopher’s interest in Neo-Kantianism merits a closer look. First, two systemic theories belonging to different trends exerted a decisive influence on Russian philosophy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: German Neo-Kantianism and Vladimir Solovyov’s school of all-unity. Second, Frank himself and the German Neo-Kantians considered Nicholas of Cusa to be one of their forerunners and pointed out the importance of his mathematical ideas for their mathematical studies. Thirdly and lastly, Frank paid particular attention, especially in his formative period as a philosopher, to the leading trend in the early twentieth century, namely German Neo-Kantianism, which led some students of his work to believe that German Neo-Kantianism played the decisive role in Frank’s abandonment of Marxism in favour of religious ontology. Frank’s fundamental disagreement with German Neo-Kantianism was expressed in his work The Object of Knowledge in which he criticised the Neo-Kantian concepts of number and time. Although Frank rightly points out the one-sidedness of the Neo-Kantian definition of number, most notably in the works of the Marburg philosopher Paul Natorp, on the whole his criticism of the Neo-Kantian concept of number and time as being different from his own is not entirely convincing. In my opinion, Frank’s attempt to explain the abstract concept of number through a still more abstract concept of all-unity was not crowned with success because he ignored the experience of Christian theology and the Trinity dogma as well as the profound thoughts of the Rev. Pavel Florensky on this topic.05312026719110.5922/0207-6918-2023-1-4https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5319/40682/Cassirer, E., 2010. The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy. Translated with an introduction by M. Domandi. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Cohen, H., 1984. Einleitung mit kritischem Nachtrag zur „Geschichte des Materialismus“ von F. A. Lange. In: H. Cohen, 1984. Werke. Volume 5.2. Edited by H. Holzhey. Hildesheim: Olms.Cohen, H., 1922. System der Philosophie. Erster Teil. Logik der reinen Erkenntniss. Dritte Auflage. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer Verlag.Dushin, O. E., 2015. Сoincidentia oppositorum and Resolution of Contradictions: Nicholas of Cusa, Semyon Frank, Pavel Florensky. Veche, 27(2), pp. 74-85. (In Rus.)Ehlen, P., 2014. Russischen Religionsphilosophie im 20. Jahrhundert: Simon L. Frank. Freiburg & München: Karl Alber.Evlampiev, I. I., 2010. Two Poles of Perception of Nicholas of Cusa in Russian Philosophy (S. Frank and L. Karsavin). Voprosi filosofii, 5, pp. 125-138. (In Rus.)Florensky, P., 1997. The Pillar and Ground of the Truth: An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters. Translated and annotated by B. Jakim with an introduction by R. F. Gustafson. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi: https://doi-org.ezproxy.princeton.edu/10.1515/9780691187990Frank, S. L., 1972. Ontologicheskoe dokazatel’stvo bytia Bozhia [Ontological Proof of the Existence of God]. In: S. L. Frank, 1972. Po tu storonu pravogo i levogo [On the Other Side of Right and Left]. Paris: YMCA-Press, pp. 114-123. (In Rus.)Frank, S. L., 1983. The Unknowable. An Ontological Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. Translated by B. Jakim. London & Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.Frank, S. L., 1995. Predmet znania [The Object of Knowledge]. In: S. L. Frank, 1995. Predmet znania. Dusha cheloveka [The Object of Knowledge. Man’s Soul]. St. Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 37-417. (In Rus.)Gessen, S. I., 1995. Osnovi pedagogiki. Vvedenije v prigladnuju filosofiju [Fundamentals of Pedagogy. Introduction to Applied Philosophy]. Moscow: Shkola-Press. (In Rus.)Kaufman, I. S., 2011. Nicholas of Cusa and the History of Mathematics. Verbum. Almanah Zentra izuchenija srednevekovoj kulturi [Almanac of the Center for the Study of Medieval Culture]. Volume 13. St. Petersburg: Nestor-Istorija, pp. 97-101. (In Rus.)Krijnen, C., 2022. Heterologie oder Dialektik? Rickerts Lehre vom Ursprung des Denkens im Spiegel der Hegelschen Logik. Hegel-Studien, 56, pp. 97-127.Mormann, T., 2019. Mathematische Wissenschaftsphilosophie im Marburger Neukantianismus. Siegener Beiträge zur Geschichte und Philosophie der Mathematik, 11, pp. 55-75.Obolevich, T., 2014. From Neo-Kantianism to Ontologism. Misl’ [Thought], 16, pp. 62-69. (In Rus.)Obolevich, T., 2017. Semyon Frank: shtrichi k portretu filosofa [Semyon Frank: Strokes to the Portrait of a Philosopher]. Moscow: BBI. (In Rus.)Obolevich, T. and Tsygankov, A. S., 2017. The Philosophy of Religion of S. L. Frank in the Light of New Materials. Filosofskij zhurnal | Philosophy journal, 10(1), pp. 99-115. (In Rus.)Raushenbach, B. V., 1993. Trinity Logic. Voprosy Filosofii, 3, pp. 62-70 (In Rus.)Rickert, H., 1924. Die Methode der Philosophie und das Unmittelbare: Eine Problemstellung. Logos. Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur, 12, pp. 235-280.Swoboda, P. J., 1995. Windelband’s Influence on S. L. Frank. Studies in East European Thought, 47(3-4), pp. 259-290.Tsygankov, A. S. and Obolevich, T., 2019. Nemezkij period filosofskoj biografii S. L. Franka (novye materialy) [The German Period of S. L. Franca (New Materials)]. Moscow: Institute of Philosophy RAN. (In Rus.)Zenkovsky, V. V., 1967. A History of Russian Philosophy. Authorized Translation from the Russian by G. L. Kline. Third Edition. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Семен Франк и Яков Голосовкер: о кантианских мотивах в творчестве Ф.М. ДостоевскогоT.G.ShchedrinaMoscow Pedagogical State University (MPGU)B.I.PruzhininInstitute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of SciencesRussian philosophy is “a sphere of conversation” in which thought is “divined”. It is a realm of search for “universal meaning” and “cultivation” of historical reality. Such a “conversation” around the work of Dostoyevsky took place in the 1920s among philosophers (including members of the Free Philosophical Association or Volfila in its abbreviated form). The theme takes on added significance at the hands of Ya. E. Golosovker and S. L. Frank whose intellectual affinity manifests itself today in the way they interpret Kantian motives in the work of Dostoyevsky. Reflecting on “the logic of imagination” Golosovker draws attention to the fact that the concrete-metaphysical method of seeing the world is not identical to the amphiboly of Kant’s reflexive concepts. He made it the central theme of his book, Dostoyevsky and Kant, immersing the philosophical component of the novel The Brothers Karamazov in the context of Kant’s antinomies. The later Frank took up the subject of Dostoyevsky’s worldview in response, as it were, to the discussion of the problem of cultural crisis at Volfila (including at meetings “In Memory of Dostoyevsky”). Following Yakov Golosovker, Andrey Bely, Aron Steinberg, Semyon Lurie and others, he continued the discussion of the crisis in its organised forms. In this context, too, Kant is a significant presence. For Frank, as for Golosovker, Dostoyevsky’s world view has a “concrete-metaphysical character”. They come to this conclusion reflecting on the problem of freedom as seen by Dostoyevsky who sought to overcome Kant’s antinomies.053120269210610.5922/0207-6918-2023-1-5https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5319/40684/Alyaev, G. E., Obolevich, T., Rezvykh, T. N. and Tsygankov, A. S., 2021. S. L. Frank o F. M. Dostoyevskom: novyye materialy [S.L. Frank about F. M. Dostoevsky: new materials]. Moscow: IF RAN. (In Rus.)Belous, V. G., 2005a. VOL’FILA (Petrogradskaya Vol’naya Filosofskaya Assotsiatsiya): 1919—1924 [VOLFILA (Petrograd Free Philosophical Association): 1919—1924]. Book. 1. Moscow: Modest Kolerov and “Tri Kvadrata”. (In Rus.)Belous, V. G., 2005b. VOL’FILA (Petrogradskaya Vol’naya Filosofskaya Assotsiatsiya): 1919—1924 [VOLFILA (Petrograd Free Philosophical Association): 1919—1924]. Book. 2. Moscow: Modest Kolerov and “Tri Kvadrata”. (In Rus.)Bulgakov, S. N., 1902. Ivan Karamazov (in Dostoevsky’s Novel The Brothers Karamazov) as a Philosophical Type. Voprosy filosofii i psychologii [Issues of Philosophy and Psychology], 61(1), pp. 826-863 (In Rus.)Frank, S. L., 1922. The Crisis of Western Culture. In: N. A. Berdyaev, Ya. M. Bukshpan, F. A. Stepun and S. L. Frank, 1922. Osvald Shpengler i Zakat Yevropy [Oswald Spengler and the Decline of Europe]. Moscow: Bereg, pp. 34-54. (In Rus.)Frank, S. L., 1931. Dostoevsky and the Crisis of Humanism. Put’ [The Way], 27, pp. 71-78.Frank, S. L., 1996. Regarding the Article about “Signposts” by S. V. Lurie. In: S. L. Frank, 1996. Russkoye mirovozzreniye [Russian Worldview]. Edited by A. A. Ermichev. St. Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 554-569. (In Rus.)[Frank, S. L.], 2021a. Dostojewskys Weltanschauung. In: G. E. Alyaev, T. Obolevich, T. N. Rezvykh and A. S. Tsygankov, 2021. S. L. Frank o F. M. Dostoyevskom: novyye materialy [S. L. Frank on F. M. Dostoevsky: New Materials]. Moscow: IF RAN, pp. 120-148.[Frank, S. L.], 2021b. Dostojewskijs Theodizee. In: G. E. Alyaev, T. Obolevich, T. N. Rezvykh and A. S. Tsygankov, 2021. S. L. Frank o F. M. Dostoyevskom: novyye materialy [S. L. Frank on F. M. Dostoevsky: New Materials]. Moscow: IF RAN, pp. 309-324.Golosovker, Ya. E., 1963. Dostoyevskiy i Kant. Razmyshleniye chitatelya nad romanom “Brat’ya Karamazovy” i traktatom Kanta “Kritika chistogo razuma” [Dostoevsky and Kant. The Reader’s Reflection on the Novel The Brothers Karamazov and Kant’s Treatise Critique of Pure Reason]. Moscow: Nauka. (In Rus.)Golosovker, Ya. E., 2010. Imaginative absolute. In: Ya. E. Golosovker, 2010. Izbrannoye. Logika mifa [Favorites. Myth Logic]. Moscow & St. Petersburg: Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ, pp. 7-222. (In Rus.)[Gudziy, N. K.], 1963. From the Editor. In: Ya. E. Golosovker, 1963. Dostoyevskiy i Kant. Razmyshleniye chitatelya nad romanom “Brat’ya Karamazovy” i traktatom Kanta “Kritika chistogo razuma” [Dostoevsky and Kant. The Reader’s Reflection on the Novel The Brothers Karamazov and Kant’s Treatise Critique of Pure Reason]. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 3-4. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Rashkovsky, E. B., 2017. Yakov Emmanuilovich Golosovker: Philosophy in Search for a Person. In: E. B. Rashkovsky, ed. 2017. Yakov Emmanuilovich Golosovker. Selected by E. B. Rashkovsky and N. V. Braginskaya. Moscow: Politicheskaya entsiklopediya, pp. 7-40. (In Rus.)Tugan-Baranovsky, M. I., 1912. Three Great Ethical Problems. Moral Worldview of Dostoevsky. In: M. I. Tugan-Baranovsky, 1912. K luchshemu budushchemu [To a Better Future]. St. Petersburg: Energy. (In Rus.)[Ugolnikov, Yu. A.], 2017. Chronicle of the Main Events in the Life and Work of Ya. E. Golosovker. In: E. B. Rashkovsky, ed. 2017. Yakov Emmanuilovich Golosovker. Selected by E. B. Rashkovsky and N. V. Braginskaya. Moscow: Politicheskaya entsiklopediya, pp. 288-294. (In Rus.)Анджолини vs Кант: к философскому наследию Полоцкой иезуитской академииA.I.KlimovichBelarusian State Medical UniversityThe movement for the revival of the Scholastic tradition (Neo-Scholasticism) was a reaction to devastating criticism by the representatives of Enlightenment which led to the destruction of traditional metaphysics and of epistemological optimism, the two pillars of European religious philosophy. Reception of Kantian ideas in Neo-Scholasticism varied from total rejection to its use in renewing the philosophical foundation of religious philosophy. In this regard the legacy of the Polotsk Jesuit Academy was one of the first attempts to interpret Kant’s ideas and confront them in the framework of the Scholastic tradition. It is therefore not irrelevant to look at how Kant’s programmatic ideas were perceived at the Polotsk Jesuit Academy, one of the few centres of Jesuit philosophy that survived in the territory of the Russian Empire in the early nineteenth century. The object of this study is the attempt at a critical analysis of Kant made in the Philosophical Instructions for Students at the Polotsk Academy by the Academy’s professor, Giuseppe Angiolini. Angiolini constantly refers to Kant in his reasoning and sees him as his main ideological rival. The ideas articulated in the Philosophical Instructions influenced the philosophical positions of the Academy’s graduates who in turn made a tangible contribution to the development of the Belarusian intellectual tradition. The relationship between Kant’s ideas and the ideas Angiolini drew from the Scholastic tradition is analysed through the use of the concepts that are common to both trends, such as the transcendental, the empirical and the sensible, self-evident truths and common sense.0531202610713110.5922/0207-6918-2023-1-6https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5320/40685/Angiolini, J., 1819. Institutiones philosophicae аd usum studiosorum Academiae Polocensis. Polock: Typis Academicis.Arapov, A.V., 2015. Neoscholasticism: history and basic concepts. Vestnik VGU. Seriya: Filosofiya, 3. pp. 51-58. (In Rus.)Bayer, T. I., 2008. Vico’s Principle of Sensus Communis and Forensic Eloquence. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 83(3), pp. 1131-1155.Bednarski, S., 1933. Upadek i odrodzenie szkół jezuickich w Polsce: studjum z dziejów kultury i szkolnictwa polskiego. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Księży Jezuitów.Blinova, T. B., 2002. Iezuity v Belarusi. (Ih rol’ v organizacii obrazovaniya i prosveshcheniya) [Jesuits in Belarus. (Their Role in the Organization of Education and Enlightenment)]. Grodno: GrGU. (In Rus.)Buczyński, V., 1843 Institutiones philosophicae. Pars prima. Continens logicam cum praevia in universam philosophiam introductione. Viennae: Typis Congregationis Mechitaristicae.Chmielowski, P., 1883. Liberalizm i obskurantyzm na Litwie i Rusi (1815—1823). Warszawa: Drukarnia artystyczna Saturnina Sikorskiego.Darowski, R., 2006a. Giuseppe Angiolini SJ (1747—1814), profesor filozofii w Akademii Połockiej. Forum Philosophicum, 11, pp. 223-229. doi:10.35765/forphil.2006.1101.14Darowski, R., 2006b. Giuseppe (Joseph) Angiolini, S. J. (1747—1814), Professor of Philosophy at The Polotsk Academy. Forum Philosophicum, 11, pp. 230-233. doi:10.35765/forphil.2006.1101.15.Dvořák, P., 2015. Self-Evident Prepositions in Late Scholasticism: The Case of “God Exists”. Acta Comeniana, 27, pp. 47-73.Descartes, R., 1998. Discourse on Method. In: R. Descartes, 1998. Discourse on Method; and, Meditations on First Philosophy. Fourth Edition. Translated by D. A. Cress. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, pp. 1-44.Evstigneev, M. D., 2021. What is Kantian Philosophy of Mathematics? An Overview of Contemporary Studies. Kantian Journal, 40(2), pp. 151-178. http://dx.doi: org/10.5922/0207-6918-2021-2-6Giżycki, J. M. A., 1905, Materiały do Dziejów Akademii Połockiej і szkół od niej zależnych. Kraków: Druk. W. L. Anczyca i Spółki.Inglot, M., 2015. How the Jesuits Survived Their Suppression: The Society of Jesus in the Russian Empire (1773-1814). Edited and translated by D. L. Schlafly. Philadelphia: Saint Joseph’s University Press.Junker-Kenny, M., 2021. Watershed or Cul-de-Sac? Disputes in the Theological Reception of Kant’s Philosophy. Kantian Journal, 40(4), pp. 121-155. http://dx.doi: org/10.5922/0207-6918-2021-4-5Kadulska, I., 2014. The Połock Academy (1812-1820): An Example of the Society of Jesus’s Endurance. In: R. A. Maryks and J. Wright, ed. 2014. Jesuit Survival and Restoration: Global History 1773-1900. Leiden: Brill, pp. 83-98. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004283879_007Kant, I., 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgement. Edited by P. Guyer, translated by P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2004. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. Translated and edited by G. Hatfield. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kuznetsova, I. S., 1980. On the Specifics of Mathematical Concepts. Kantian Journal, 5, pp. 28-38. (In Rus.)Legchilin, A. A., 2019. German Philosophy in the Intellectual Culture of the North-Western Territory of the Russian Empire: a Historiographic Review In: T. S. Suprankova, ed. 2019. Natsional’nyye kul’tury v mezhkul’turnoy kommunikatsii (Novaya paradigma okhrany kul’turnogo i prirodnogo naslediya) [National Cultures in Intercultural Communication (A New Paradigm for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage)]. Minsk: Kolorgrad, pp. 43-50. (In Rus.)Legchilin, A. A. and Klimovich, A. I., 2019. Idei neoskholastiki v belorusskom istoriko-kul’turnom prostranstve [Ideas of Neoscholasticism in the Belarusian Historical and Cultural Space]. Zhurnal Belorusskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya, 2, pp. 4-11. (In Rus.)Leinsle, U. G., 2016, Ontology and Experience — Rodrigo de Arriaga and Christoph Haunold on the «Species Sensibiles». Filosofický časopis, Special Issue, pp. 103-118.Littger, K. W., ed. 2005. Kant und der Katholizismus. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Parrier, J. L., 1909. The Revival of Scholastic Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press.Paulsen, F., 1902. Immanuel Kant: His Life and Doctrine. Translated by A. Lefevre and J. E. Creighton. London: J. C. Nimmo.Reid, T., 1810. An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense. The Sixth Edition. Edinburgh: Bell & Bradtute.Roothaan, J., 1832. Covered letter to the revised Ratio Studiorum. Available at: https://jesuitportal.bc.edu/research/documents/1832_roothanontheratio/ [accessed: 12. March 2022].Rumyantseva, T. G., 2021. Kant and His Heritage in Belarusian Philosophy of Soviet and Postsoviet periods. Kantian Journal, 40(3), pp. 127-149. http://dx.doi: org/10.5922/0207-6918-2021-3-5Savinov, R. V., 2019. The Rise of the Neo-Scholastic and Neo-Thomist Epistemology (1840—1920). Filosofskii zhurnal / The Philosophy Journal, 12(2), pp. 64-77. http://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2019-12-2-64-77 (In Rus.)Savinov, R. V., 2021. At the Origins of the Neo-Scholastic Interpretation of Kantianism: From C. Baldinotti to J. Kleutgen. Filosofskii zhurnal / The Philosophy Journal, 14(1), pp. 113-128. http://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2021-14-1-113-128 (In Rus.)Shalkevich, V. F., 1993. Obshchestvenno-politicheskaya i filosofskaya mysl’ Belarusi v pervoi polovine XIX v.: avtoreferat diss. doktora filosofskih nauk [Socio-Political and Philosophical Thought of Belarus in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century: Summary of the Habilitation (Philosophical Sciences)]. Minsk: BGU. (In Rus.)Shalkevich, V. F. and Legchilin, A. A., 2005. Reception of I. Kant’s Philosophy in Belarus and Lithuania in the First Third of the 19th Century. In: V. N. Briushinkin, ed. 2005. Kant mezhdu Zapadom i Vostokom. K 200-letiyu so dnya smerti i 280-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya Immanuila Kanta [Kant between West and East. On the 200th Anniversary of the Death and 280th Anniversary of the Birth of Immanuel Kant]. Kaliningrad: Russian State University Press, pp. 87-98. (In Rus.)Zallinger, J. A., 1799. Disquisitiones philosophiae Kantianae. Lib. 1. Augustae Vindelicorum: Vieth & Riegeriana.A.StartsevaImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (IKBFU)A.O.SabanovImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (IKBFU)The review surveys the main ideas discussed at the international scientific conference “Immanuel Kant and the ‘New Enlightenment’” hosted by the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (IKBFU) in Kaliningrad on 20-22 April 2022. It was organised by IKBFU’s research unit Academia Kantiana with the support of the Petersburg Dialogue Forum. Speakers analysed the theses of the Report to the Club of Rome, Come on! Capitalism, Short-termism, Population and the Destruction of the Planet (2018), whose authors, Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker and Anders Wijkman, initiated a call for a “new Enlightenment”. The participants compared these theses with Kant’s philosophical ideas and looked for an answer to the question whether Kant’s critical philosophy should be consigned to the “old” Enlightenment or whether it has real potential for the desired “new Enlightenment”. The summaries of papers and discussions are arranged in order of their presentation. The Conference has shown that Kant’s Enlightenment has not lost its relevance while the ideas of the “new Enlightenment” need to be further examined philosophically.0531202613214510.5922/0207-6918-2023-1-7https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5321/40687/Chaly, V. A., Lugovoy, S. V., Popova, V. S., Pushkarsky, A. G. and Zilber, A. S., 2021. The Knight of Contemporary Russian Kantiana. On the 85th Birthday of Leonard Kalinnikov. Kantian Journal, 40(2), pp. 7-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2021-2-1Dmitrieva, N. A., 2023. The Changing Concept of Enlightenment in Russia — An Outline. SHS Web of Conferences, 161, e03001. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316103001Kalinnikov, L. A., 2023. Kant’s Philosophy as the Development of the Intentions of Enlightenment. SHS Web of Conferences, 161, e02001. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202316102001Kant, I., 2011. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. A German-English Edition. Edited and translated by M. Gregor and J. Timmermann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Krouglov, A. N., 2023. The Concept of Enlightenment in Russian Philosophy of the 18th Century. Khristianskoye Chteniye, 1, pp. 225-245.Rozhin, D. O., 2020. The Idea of Progress as Moral Improvement in the Philosophy of I. Kant and V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov. Problemy etiki [Problems of Ethics], 9, pp. 93-96. (In Rus.)Rozhin, D. O., 2022. Kant on Basic Practical Conditions for Achieving Moral Perfection. In: N. A. Dmitrieva, ed. 2022. IV Letnyaya Shkola po izucheniyu naslediya I. Kanta. Uchenie Kanta o voine i mire v filosofii Prosveshcheniya i nemetskogo idealisma [4th Kant Summer School: Kant’s Doctrine on War and Peace in the Philosophy of Enlightenment and German Idealism: Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference; Academia Kantiana of the IKBFU]. Kaliningrad: IKBFU Press, pp. 16-21. https://doi.org/10.5922/978-5-9971-0695-9-3 (In Rus.)Wallace-Wells, D., 2019. The Uninhabitable Earth: Life after Warming. New York: Tim Duggan Books.Weizsäcker, E. von and Wijkman, A., 2018. Come On! Capitalism, Short-termism, Population and the Destruction of the Planet. A Report to the Club of Rome. New York: Springer Science+Business Media LLC.Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2021. Sociability and Education in Kant and Hessen. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 55(6), pp. 1112-1125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12619Zhavoronkov, A., 2022. Kant’s Pragmatic Use of Reason from a Sociological Point of View: Third Way or Methodological Impasse? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 94, pp. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2022.05.003Zuboff, S., 2018. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. London: Profile Books.