NONE20260530181638590Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal Universityno-reply@journals.kantiana.ruImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityKantian Journal0207-69182310-370105302026424Владимир Никифорович Брюшинкин: семьдесят лет со дня рожденияV. A.Chaly0530202671010.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-1https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5501/46174/Открытое применение разума: Сократ и КантA. A.ElbakyanInstitute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of SciencesKant is compared with Socrates because the two philosophers have much in common. Both thinkers were central figures in their time. Kant revolutionised the philosophy of the modern period dealing with questions of ethics and epistemology; Socrates brought about a similar revolution in ancient Greek philosophy. The image of Socrates continues to inspire modern scholars, the main features of this image being rationality and publicity. Socrates is seen as an arch-rationalist and the founder of science and philosophy as a whole. Besides, he practised philosophy publicly, being an antipode of another ancient Greek philosopher, Pythagoras, whose doctrines were secret. Coming together in the image of Socrates, publicity and rationality mutually condition each other. This again is a feature shared with Kant who put forward the concept of the public and private use of reason. Today, the term “publicity” should be replaced by the more accurate term “openness.” Like publicity, openness implies accessibility of knowledge to the largest possible number of people. However, openness is a broader concept: it makes it possible both to explain the interconnection between the freedom of reason and its publicity advocated by Kant and to draw a demarcation line between Socrates and the Sophists who were also public intellectuals. Whereas the Sophists sought personal gain and popularity, Socrates viewed the practice of philosophy as a form of self-sacrifice for the good of society; this led the Sophists to relativism and Socrates to the discovery of rational thinking. The conclusion is that openness, interpreted as accessibility of knowledge and the possibility of its development, constitutes the key component of rationality.05302026113410.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-2https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5503/46175/Addey, C., 2014. The Daimonion of Socrates: Daimones and Divination in Neoplatonism. In: D. A. Layne and H. Tarrant, ed. 2014. The Neoplatonic Socrates. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 51-72. https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812210002.51.Aristotle, 2000. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated and edited by R. Crisp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Averintsev, S. S., 1989. The Two Births of European Rationalism and the Simplest Realities of Literature. In: I. T. Frolov, ed. 1989. Chelovek v sisteme nauk [Man in the System of Sciences]. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 332-342. (In Rus.)Baehr, J., 2011. The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology. New York: Oxford University Press.Bartling, S. and Friesike, S., eds., 2014. Opening Science: The Evolving Guide on How the Internet Is Changing Research, Collaboration and Scholarly Publishing. Heidelberg: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00026-8.Bergson, H., 2002. The Two Sources of Morality and Religion. Translated by R. A. Audra and C. Brereton. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Björk, B. C., Shen, C. and Laakso, M., 2016. A Longitudinal Study of Independent Scholar-Published Open Access Journals. PeerJ, 4, e1990. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1990.Brickhouse, T. C. and Smith, N. D., 2005. Socrates’ Daimonion and Rationality. Apeiron, 38(2), pp. 43-62. https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron.2005.38.2.43.Cicero, M. T, 1990. Tusculan Disputations II & V. Edited and translated by A. E. Douglas. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Curtin, D., 2014. Overseeing Secrets in the EU: A Democratic Perspective. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(3), pp. 684-700. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12123.Duden. öffentlich. [online]. Available at: https://www.duden.de/node/154722/revision/1291071 [Accessed 22 December 2022].Epicurus, 1987. Vatican sayings 29, 54. In: A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Volume 1. Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 155.Erasmus of Rotterdam, 1905. Enchiridion militis christiani — The Manual of a Christian Knight. London: Methuen & Co.Erler, M., 2011. Parrhesy and Irony: Plato’s Socrates and the Epicurean Tradition. In: R. A. H. King, D. Schilling, ed. 2011. How Should One Live? Comparing Ethics in Ancient China and Greco-Roman Antiquity. Göttingen: De Gruyter, pp. 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252897.155.Foucault, M., 2001. Fearless Speech. Edited by J. Pearson. Los Angeles, CA: Semiotext.Iamblichus, 1989. On the Pythagorean Life. Translated by G. Clark. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.Jacobs, S., 2003. Two Conceptions of Openness in Argumentation Theory. In: F. H. Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard and A. F. S. Henkemans, ed. 2003. Anyone Who Has a View. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_12.Kant, I., 1996. An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment? In: I. Kant, 1996. Practical Philosophy. Translated and edited by M.J. Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11-22.Karavaeva, S. V., 2018. Socrates in the Philosophical Schools of Late Antiquity. Pushkin Leningrad State University Journal, 3(2), pp. 5-13. (In Rus.)Karavaeva, S. V., 2020. The Renaissance Revival of Socrates. Herald of the Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities, 21(4), pp. 44-53. https://doi.org/10.25991/VRHGA.2021.2.21.005. (In Rus.)Knox, D. K., 1998. Socrates: The First Professor. Innovative Higher Education, 23(2), pp. 115-126. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022900208893.Kraut, R., 2022. Socrates. In: Encyclopedia Britannica, [online]. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/bio graphy/Socrates [Accessed 22 December 2022].Kreeft, P., 2009. Socrates Meets Kant: The Father of Philosophy Meets His Most Influential Modern Child. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2009.Kupriyanov, V. A., 2020. The First Scientific Journals and the Idea of the Publicity of Reason in Modern Science. Dialogue with Time, 70, pp. 41-56. https://roii.ru/r/1/70.3 (In Rus.)Lamberton, R., 1995. The АпоррнтоΣ ΘеΩріа and the Roles of Secrecy in the History of Platonism. In: H. Kippenberg and G. Stroumsa, ed. 1995. Secrecy and Concealment. Leiden: Brill, pp. 139-152. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004378872_011.Lebedev, S., 2019. Communicative Vectors in the History of Philosophy. In: International “Conference Communicative Strategies of Information Society” (CSIS 2018): Proceedings. Dordrecht: Atlantis Press, pp. 174-177. https://doi.org/10.2991/csis-18.2019.36.Longino, H. E., 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Mochalova, I. N., 2020. The Philosophy of Socrates: Formation and Transformation of the Soviet Canon. Platonic Investigations, 12(1), pp. 141-158. https://doi.org/10.25985/PI.12.1.06. (In Rus.)Mochkin, A. N., 2005. Fridrih Nicshe. Intellektual’naya biografiya. [Friedrich Nietzsche. An Intellectual Biography]. Moscow: Institut filosofii RAN. (In Rus.)Montmarquet, J. A., 1987. Epistemic Virtue. Mind, 96(384), pp. 482-497.Moskovkin, V. M., 2008. Development of Formal Scientific Communications in the Context of Exponential Growth of Knowledge and the Digital Revolution. Mezhdunarodnyj forum po informacii [International Forum on Information], 33(2), pp. 6-11. (In Rus.)Nails, D., 1995. Socrates and Plato: Understanding the World and Changing It. In: K. Gavroglu, J. Stachel and M. W. Wartofsky, ed. 1995. Science, Mind and Art. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 295-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0469-2_17.Nietzsche, F. W., 1999. The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings. Edited by R. Geuss and R. Speirs; translated by R. Speirs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nussbaum, M., 1988. Undemocratic Vistas. Prometheus, 6(2), pp. 382-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08109028808629323.Panteleev, A. D., 2013. Socrates in Early Christian Hagiography (2nd to 4th Centuries). In: N.N. Kazansky, ed. 2013. Indoevropejskoe yazykoznanie i klassicheskaya filologiya [Indo-European linguistics and classical philology]. Vol. 17. Saint-Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 668-679. (In Rus.)Plato, 2004. Gorgias. Translated by W. Hamilton and C. Emlyn-Jones. London: Penguin Classics.Plato, 2014. Theaetetus. Translated by J. McDowell. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Popper, K. R., 1985. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London and New York: Routledge.Popper, K.R., 2020. The Open Society and Its Enemies. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Rahmanov, I.V., Minina, N. M., Maltseva D. G. and Rahmanova L. I., 1983. Nemecko-russkij sinonimicheskij slovar’: ok. 2680 ryadov [German-Russian Synonymic Dictionary: ca. 2680 rows]. Moscow: Russkij yazyk. (In Rus.)Shulga, E. N., 2019. Scientific Rationality in the Context of European Rationalism. In: Pervye Stepinskie chteniya. Sovremennyj etap razvitiya nauki i krizis tekhnogennoj civilizacii [First Stepin Readings. Modern Stage of Science Development and the Crisis of Technogenic Civilisation]. Proceedings of the Conference with International Participation (Moscow, 5-6 November 2019). Kursk: Universitetskaya kniga, 2019, pp. 226-229. (In Rus.)Shvyrev, V. S., 2003. Racional’nost’ kak cennost’ kul’tury [Rationality as a Cultural Value]. Moscow: Progress-tradiciya. (In Rus.)Solovyev, V. S., 1988. Stat’i iz enciklopedicheskogo slovarya. Kant [Articles from the encyclopaedic dictionary. Kant]. In: A. V. Gulyga and A. F. Losev, ed. 1988. Sochineniya v dvuh tomah [Works in Two Volumes]. Volume 2. Moscow: Mysl, pp. 441-479. (In Rus.)Steinsaltz, A. and Funkenstein, A., 1997. Sociologiya nevezhestva [The Sociology of Ignorance]. Translated by M. Kravcov. Jerusalem; Moscow: Institut izucheniya iudaizma v SNG. (In Rus.)Valauskas, E. J., 2015. On Scholarly Communication, from the Perspective of an Open Access Journal, First Monday. Uncommon Culture, 16(2:12), pp. 28-44. Available at: [Accessed: 22.12.2022].Velkley, R. L., 1985. On Kant’s Socratism. In: R. Kennigton, ed. 1985. The Philosophy of Immanuel Kant. Washington: Catholic University of America Press, pp. 87-105.Wildberg, C., 2006. Socrates and Euripides. In: S. Ahbel-Rappe and R. Kamtekar, ed. 2006. A Companion to Socrates. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996218.ch2.Zaitseva, Z. N., 1998. Nemecko-russkij i russko-nemeckij filosofskij slovar’ [German-Russian and Russian-German Dictionary of Philosophy]. Moscow: Editorial of the MSU. (In Rus.)Между Кантом и Тренделенбургом: к вопросу о генеалогии теории познания Кудрявцева-ПлатоноваD. O.RozhinImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityViktor D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov is one of the most prominent representatives of Russian religious-academic philosophy of the second half of the nineteenth century whose theory of cognition bears an imprint of the Kantian theoretical philosophy. Kudryavtsev was not only thoroughly familiar with the Königsberg thinker’s work, but offered a critically reinterpreted version of Kant’s teaching on space, time and categories of understanding. But was the Russian philosopher original in his reading and critique of Kant? In his later works Kudryavtsev often cites the works of Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg whose works turn out to be very close to the Russian philosopher. Could it be that Kudryavtsev read Kant through Trendelenburg’s optics? To answer this question consistently I give outlines of Trendelenburg’s and Kudryavtsev’s theories of cognition and compare their views on the basis of the sources. I then draw on archive materials to characterise Kudryavtsev’s acquaintance with the works of Kant and Trendelenburg. It turns out that Kudryavtsev was well-versed in Kant’s philosophical ideas already in the early years of his teaching activities — but not from primary sources, but largely through German historical-philosophical renderings. I establish similarities between the teachings of Trendelenburg and Kudryavtsev on space, time and the categories of understanding and their critique of the relevant Kantian teaching. Finally, Kudryavtsev’s early manuscripts attest to his acquaintance with Trendelenburg’s ideas. I conclude that Trendelenburg influenced Kudryavtsev’s own theory of cognition, a fact that should be borne in mind when reading the Russian philosopher’s epistemological works.05302026356810.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-3https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5503/46178/Abramov, A. I., 1994. Kant in Russian Spiritual-Academic Philosophy. In: Z. A. Kamensky and V. A. Zhuchkov, eds. 1994. Kant i filosofia v Rossii [Kant and Philosophy in Russia]. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 81-113. (In Rus.)Beiser, F., 2013. Late German Idealism: Trendelenburg and Lotze. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Belov, V. N., Tetyuev, L. I., 2017. Book Review: Trendelenburg A. Elements of Aristotle’s Logic. Kantian Journal, 2(36), pp. 96-99. https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2017-2-8. (In Rus.)Bird, G., 2006. The Neglected Alternative: Trendelenburg, Fischer, and Kant. In: G. Bird. ed., 2006. A Companion to Kant. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 486-499.Demin, M. R., 2010. The Right to Kant: To the Dispute between Adolf Trendelenburg and Kuno Fischer. In: I. N. Grifcova and N. A. Dmitrieva, eds. 2010. Neokantianstvo nemeckoe i russkoe: mezhdu teoriej poznaniya i kritikoj kul’tury [German and Russian Neo-Kantianism: Between the Epistemology and the Criticism of Culture]. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 66-84. (In Rus.)Demin, M. R., 2017. “Outline of Logic”: Between School Discipline and University Science. Introductory Article. In: [F.] A. Trendelenburg. Elementy logiki Aristotelya [Outline of Logic]. Edited by M. R. Demin and N. A. Dmitrieva. Moscow: Kanon+, pp. 7-87. (In Rus.)Dlugach, T. B., 2002, Problema bytiya v nemeckoj filosofii i sovremennost’ [The Problem of Being in German Philosophy and Modernity]. Moscow: RAS Institute of Philosophy. (In Rus.)Dlugach, T. B., 2022. The Problem of Being: Kant and Heidegger. Kantian Journal, 41(3), pp. 42-75. https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2022-3-2.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.)Kabanova, M. L., 2006. Religioznaya metafizika V. D. Kudryavtceva-Platonova [Religious metaphysics by V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov]. Abstract of Dissertation. Blagoveshchensk: s. n. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 2002. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as Science. In: H. Allison and P. Heath, eds., 2002. Theoretical Philosophy after 1781. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-169.Kant, I., 1998. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kanterian, E., 2013. The Ideality of Space and Time: Trendelenburg versus Kant, Fischer and Bird. Kantian Review, 18(2), pp. 263-288. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1369415413000022.Köhnke, K. C., 1991. The Rise of Neo-Kantianism: German Academic Philosophy between Idealism and Positivism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Konovalova, E. N., 2010. Immanuel Kant and the Development of the Idea of Subjectivity in Russian Ecclesiastical-Academic Philosophy. Vestnik of Astrakhan State Technical University. 2(50), pp. 58-64. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1854—1874. Analitika chuvstvennogo poznaniya. Analitika rassudochnogo poznaniya. Analitika umstvennogo poznaniya. Kurs lekcij 1854, 1856, 1874 gg. [The Analysis of Sensual Cognition. The Analysis of Rational Cognition. The Analysis of Mental Cognition. A Course of Lectures in 1854, 1856, 1874]. In: Russian State Library, Manuscript Department. F. 824, B. 4, № 3. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1858. Iz istorii Novoj filosofii. Lekcii 1858 g. [From the History of the New Philosophy. Lectures of 1858]. In: Russian State Library, Manuscript Department. F. 823, B. 4, № 7. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1905. Method of Philosophy. In: V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1905. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Volume 1, part 1. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 195-241. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914a. On the Basic Principles of Philosophical Cognition. In: V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Volume 1, part 2. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 1-66. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914b. Metaphysical Analysis of Empirical Cognition. In: V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Vol. 1, part 2. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 67-209. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914c. Space and Time. In: V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Volume 1, part 2. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 210-310. (In Rus.)Kudryavtsev-Platonov, V. D., 1914d. Metaphysical Analysis of Rational Cognition. In: V.D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov, 1914. Sochineniya [Works] in 3 Volumes. Volume 1, part 3. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 1-174. (In Rus.)Reinhold, E., 1830. Handbuch der allgemeinen Geschichte der Philosophie für alle wissenschaftlich Gebildete. Volume 3, Part II/2. Gotha: In der Hennings’schen Buchhandlung.Rozhin, D. O., 2021a. Critical Perception of V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov of the Doctrine on the Categories and Fundamentals of I. Kant’s Pure Reason. Philosophical Thought, 5, pp. 1-18. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2021.5.35346. (In Rus.)Rozhin, D. O., 2021b. Reception and Criticism of I. Kant’s Theory of Space and Time in the Philosophy of V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov. Philosophical Thought, 6, pp. 42-53. https://doi.org/10.25136/2409-8728.2021.6.35381. (In Rus.)Rozhin, D. O., 2021c. Reception of Kant’s Epistemological Ideas in Fyodor Golubinsky’s Metaphysics. Kantian Journal, 40(1), pp. 97-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2021-1-3.Soboleva, M. E., 2017. Analytical Kant Studies, Transcendental Idealism, and the Thing in Itself. Kantian Journal, 36(4), pp. 88-99. https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2017-4-6. (In Rus.)Specht, A., 2014. F. A. Trendelenburg and the Neglected Alternative. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 22(3), pp. 514-534. https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2014.928260.Trendelenburg, F. A., 1840. Logische Untersuchungen. Volume 1. Berlin: bei Gustav Bethge.Trendelenburg, F. A., 1862a. Logische Untersuchungen. Second Edition. Volume 1. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Trendelenburg, F. A., 1862b. Logische Untersuchungen. Second Edition. Volume 2. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Trendelenburg, F. A., 1867. Ueber eine Lücke in Kants Beweis von der ausschliessenden Subjectivität des Raumes und der Zeit. In: F. A. Trendelenburg, 1867. Historische Beiträge zur Philosophie. Volume 3. Berlin: G. Bethge, pp. 215-276.Trendelenburg, F. A., 1870. Logische Untersuchungen. Third Edition. Volume 1. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Trendelenburg, [F.] A., 2017. Elementy logiki Aristotelya [Outline of Logic]. Translated by B. A. Fogt and A. G. Vashestov, edited by M. R. Demin and N. A. Dmitrieva. Moscow: Kanon+. (In Rus.)Troitsky, E., ed. 1890. Sistematicheskij katalog knig biblioteki Moskovskoj duhovnoj akademii [Systematic Catalog of Books in the Library of the Moscow Theological Academy]. Volume 3, part 6. Moscow: Tip. M. G. Volchaninova. (In Rus.)Tsvyk, I. V., 1995. Religiozno-filosofskaya sistema V. D. Kudryavtseva-Platonova [The Religious and Philosophical System of V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov]. Abstract of Dissertation. Moscow: s. n. (In Rus.)Vvedensky, Aleksey I., 1905. On the Nature, Content and Significance of the Philosophy of V. D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov. In: Kudryavtsev-Platonov V. D. Sochineniya v 3 tomakh [Works in 3 Volumes]. Volume 1, part 1. Sergiev Posad: Tip. Sv.-Tr. Sergievoj Lavry, pp. 57-125 (In Rus.)Zenkovsky, V. V., 2001. Istoriya russkoj filosofii [The History of Russian Philosophy]. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt, Raritet. (In Rus.)И. Кант в разговорах и размышлениях Н. Н. СтраховаP. A.OlkhovInstitute of Logic, Cognitive Science and Personal DevelopmentE. N.MotovnikovaThe National Research University “Belgorod State University”L. E.KuskovaInstitute of Logic, Cognitive Science and Personal DevelopmentThe place occupied by Kant’s philosophical ideas in the reflections of the Russian philosopher, Nikolay Strakhov, needs further study. The material for a historical-philosophical reconstruction of Strakhov’s reception of Kant’s philosophy is the Russian thinker’s home library catalogue, his correspondence and his own philosophical works. Among Strakhov’s interlocutors were not only philosophers and natural scientists, but also writers, including Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy and Afanasy Fet, who in many ways determined the cultural and intellectual horizon of the epoch. The many years of correspondence with the last two writers went a long way to shape and develop Strakhov’s perception of Kant as a thinker. Indeed, without a virtual dialogue with Kant no modern philosophical system can be built. Strakhov’s reflections on the Kantian style of thinking, adoption of Kantian criticism as the model of epistemic analysis in many ways determined the features of his own philosophical work and became a catalyst of renewed interest in Russia in the Kantian philosophy in the last third of the nineteenth century.05302026698510.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-4https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5503/46180/Donskov, A. A., Gromova, L. D. and Nikiforova, T. G. eds., 2003. L. N. Tolstoj — N. N. Strahov: polnoe sobranie perepiski [L. N. Tolstoy — N. N. Strakhov: Complete Collection of Correspondence]: In 2 Volumes. Volume 1&2. Moscow: State Museum of L. N. Tolstoy; Ottawa. (In Rus.)Generalov, N. P., ed. 2011. Correspondence with N. N. Strakhov. 1877—1892. In: T. G. Dinesman, ed. 2011. A. A. Fet i ego literaturnoe okruzhenie: v 2 kn. [A. A. Fet and His Literary Circle: In 2 Books]. Book 2. Moscow: Institute of World Literature RAS, pp. 233-550. (In Rus.)Kalinnikov, L. A., 2016. Filosofsko-poeticheskoe mirovozzrenie A.A. Feta. Vliyanie I. Kanta i A. Schopenhauera [Philosophical and Poetic Worldview of A. A. Feta. Influence of I. Kant and A. Schopenhauer]. Kaliningrad: IKBFU Press. (In Rus.)Kant, 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.Krouglov, A. N., 2012. Kant i kantovskaya filosofiya v russkoj hudozhestvennoj literature [Kant and Kantian Philosophy in Russian Fiction]. Moscow: Kanon+; ROOI “Reabilitatsiya”.Motovnikova, E. N. and Olkhov, P. A., 2015. I. Kant in Nikolai Strakhov’s Philosophical Research (An Experience of Epistemological Orientation). Kantian Journal, 3(53), pp. 22-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207 6918-2015-3-2. (In Rus.)Nikolaev, N. I., 2010. Library N. N. Strakhov in the Testimony of His Contemporaries. In: E. A. Antonov, ed. 2010. Shestye Strahovskie chteniya: filosofskie problemy ponimaniya v kul’ture i nauke: materialy mezhdunar. nauch. konf. [Sixth Strakhov Readings: Philosophical Problems of Understanding in Culture and Science. Proceedings]. Belgorod: Belgorod State University Press, pp. 388-394. (In Rus.)Rukopisnyj inventar biblioteki Sankt-Peterburgskogo Imperatorskogo universiteta za 1897 g. [Manuscript Inventory of the Library of the St. Petersburg Imperial University for 1897]. In: Scientific Library named after M. Gorky St. Petersburg State University, Department of Rare Books (special storage). (In Rus.)Strakhov, N. N., 1895. The Main Feature of Thinking. In: N. N. Strakhov, 1895. Filosofskie ocherki [Philosophical Essays]. St. Petersburg: Tip. br. Panteleevykh, pp. 100-122. (In Rus.)Strakhov, N. N., 1906. About Time, Number and Space. In: N. N. Strakhov, 1906. Filosofskie ocherki [Philosophical Essays]. Second Edition. Kyiv: I. P. Matchenko. pp. 405-414. (In Rus.)Strakhov, N. N., 2007. Mir kak tseloe [The World as a Whole]. Introduction and commentary by N.P. Ilyin. Moscow: Ayris-press; Ayris-didaktika. (In Rus.)Vvedensky, A. I., 1896. The Significance of the Philosophical Activity of N. N. Strakhov. Obrazovanie [Education], 3, sec. 2, pp. 1-8. (In Rus.)Windelband, W., 1895. Filosofiya Kanta: (Iz istorii novoj filosofii Windelbanda) [Philosophy of Kant: (From the History of Windelband’s New Philosophy)]. Translated from German by N. Platonov, Introduction by A. I. Vvedensky. St. Petersburg: Tip. I. N. Skorokhodova. (In Rus.)Рубежи экологической этики: философия И. Канта в диалоге с тезисом о «конце человеческой исключительности»S. A.MartynovaHerzen State Pedagogical University of RussiaThe developers of ecological ethics claim that the rationale of anthropocentrism is false. Its main message is that natural complexes and resources exist to be useful to the human being who sees them only from the perspective of using them and does not take into account their intrinsic value. Kant’s anthropocentric teaching argues that the instrumental attitude to nature has its limits. These limits are hard to determine because the anthropocentrists claim that the human being is above nature. Indeed, the “human exclusiveness thesis” (J.- M. Schaeffer) assumes that its advocates underestimate nature’s impact on humans and their connection to other living beings. Constructing a dialogue between Kant and Schaeffer helps to solve two problems. First, to determine whether Kant’s ethical and teleological concept is immune to Schaeffer’s critique. Second, to clarify the German philosopher’s contribution to environmental ethics. I come to the conclusion that it is premature to claim that consciousness and free will exist only in the framework of their being conditioned by nature. I also demonstrate that in his teleological teaching Kant sees the mechanism of nature as the dependence of living things on forces that act in an unpremeditated manner. Recognition of these forces sets limits to humans’ instrumental attitude to nature and paves the way for them to become moral subjects. Thus, Kant’s teaching combines “the human exclusiveness thesis” and the intuitions of the representatives of deep ecology and the opponents of anthropocentrism as such.053020268611110.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-5https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5503/46181/Attfield, R., 1983. The Ethics of Environmental Concern. New York: Columbia University Press.Barker, M., 2018. The Argumentative Significance of Relative Purposiveness. International Philosophical Quarterly, 58(2), pp. 139-155.Breitenbach, A., 2009. Die Analogie von Vernunft und Natur: Eine Umweltphilosophie nach Kant. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Breitenbach, A., 2014. Biological Purposiveness and Analogical Reflection. In: I. Goy and E. Watkins, eds. 2014. Kant’s Theory of Biology. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 131-148.Cohen, A., 2020. Kant on Evolution: A Re-evaluation. In: J. J. Callanan and L. Allais, eds. 2020. Kant and Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123-135.Cooper, A., 2016. Nature’s Ultimate End: Hope and Culture in Kant’s Third Critique. Philosophica, 48(1), pp. 31-45.Denis, L., 2000. Kant’s Conception of Duties regarding Animals: Reconstruction and Reconsideration. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 17(4), pp. 405-423.Gillroy, J. M., 1998. Kantian Ethics and Environmental Policy Argument: Autonomy, Ecosystem Integrity, and Our Duties to Nature. Ethics and the Environment, 3(2), pp. 131-155.Gilson, É., 1971. D’Aristote à Darwin et retour. Essai sur quelques constantes de la biophilosophie. Paris: Vrin.Ginsborg, H., 2006. Kant’s Biological Teleology and Its Philosophical Significance. In: G. Bird, ed. 2006. A Companion to Kant. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 455-469.Goy, I., 2015. The Antinomy of Teleological Judgment. Studi Kantiani, 28, pp. 65-88.Guyer, P., 2014. Freedom, Happiness, and Nature: Kant’s Moral Teleology (CPJ §§83-4, 86-7). In: I. Goy and E. Watkins, eds. 2014. Kant’s Theory of Biology. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 221-237.Hamid, N., 2018. Being and The Good: Natural Teleology in Early Modern German Philosophy. Ph.D. University of Pennsylvania. Available at: [Accessed 1.06.2022].Hay, С, 2020. Do We Owe to Animals? Kant on Non-Intrinsic Value. In: J. J. Callanan and L. Allais, eds. 2020. Kant and Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 176-190.Huneman, P., 2006. Naturalising Purpose: From Comparative Anatomy to the ‘Adventure of Reason’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37(4), pp. 649-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.09.004.Kant, I., 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgment. Translated by P. Guyer and E. Matthews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Kant, I., 2015. Critique of Practical Reason. Edited and translated by M. Gregor, translation revised by A. Reath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Korsgaard, C. M., 2018. Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to the Other Animals. New York: Oxford University Press.Kozyra, W., 2018. Is Spinoza’s Ethics Heteronomous in the Kantian Sense of the Term? Kantian Journal, 37(4), pp. 35-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2018-4-2.Kreines, J., 2005. The Inexplicability of Kant’s Naturzweck: Kant on Teleology, Explanation and Biology. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 87(3), pp. 270-311.Lennox, J. G., 1993. Darwin Was a Teleologist. Biology and Philosophy, 8(4), pp. 409-421.Marshall, A., 1993. Ethics and the Extraterrestrial Environment. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 10(2), pp. 227-236.Martynova, S., 2020. Kant’s Teleology and the Problems of Bioethics. Con-Textos Kantianos. International Journal of Philosophy, 11, pp. 37-54.Mathews, F, 2001. Deep Ecology. In: D. Jamieson, ed. 2001. A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 218-232.McLaughlin, P., 1990. Kant’s Critique of Teleology in Biological Explanation. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Moreno, A. and Mossio, M., 2015. Biological Autonomy. Biological Autonomy: A Philosophical and Theoretical Enquiry. Dordrecht: Springer.Naess, A., 1973. The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 16, pp. 95-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201747308601682.Nagel, T., 2012. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.O’Neill, J., 2001. Meta-Ethics. In: D. Jamieson, ed. 2001. A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 163-176.Popa, E., 2021. Human Goals are Constitutive of Agency in Artificial Intelligence (AI). Philosophy & Technology, 34, pp. 1731-1750.Quarfood, M., 2006. Kant on Biological Teleology: Towards a Two-level Interpretation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37(4), pp. 735-747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shp sc.2006.09.007.Quarfood, M, 2014. The Antinomy of Teleological Judgment: What It Is and How It Is Solved. In: I. Goy and E. Watkins, eds. 2014. Kant’s Theory of Biology. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 167-184.Schaeffer, J. -M., 2007. La fin de l’exception humaine. Paris: Gallimard.Sehon, S., 2016. Free Will and Action Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Svoboda, T., 2015. Duties Regarding Nature: A Kantian Environmental Ethic. New York & London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Van Den Berg, H., 2014. Kant on Proper Science: Biology in the Critical Philosophy and the Opus Postumum. Dordrecht: Springer.Varden, H., 2020. Kant and Moral Responsibility for Animals. In: J. J. Callanan and L. Allais, eds. 2020. Kant and Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 157-175.Walter, H., 2001. Neurophilosophy of Free Will: From Libertarian Illusions to a Concept of Natural Autonomy. Translated by C. Klohr. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Wood, A. V. and O’Neill, O., 1998. Kant on Duties Regarding Nonrational Nature. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 72(1), pp. 189-228.Соотношение индивидуального и коллективного в социальной философии Г. Д. ГурвичаM.Yu.ZagirnyakImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityThe relationship between the individual and society is the leitmotif of Georges Gurvitch’s work. Beginning from the early Russian-language books on the philosophy of law and ending with the works on sociology published in France and the USA at the final stage of his career, Gurvitch studied the individual person and collective units as interacting sides of the collective social subject. He sought to overcome the struggle between individualism and collectivism which found its ideological expression in the rivalry of the French (Emile Durkheim) and German (Max Weber) schools of sociology. Gurvitch formulated the concept of society as dynamic interaction and mutual determination of the individual and collective unit. In his Russian-language works, written before his emigration, he maintained that it was in the sphere of law that one could determine how the individual and society mutually condition each other and determine the direction of social development. In the late 1920s and early 1930s in his teaching on social law, Gurvitch formulated the concept of sociability which enabled him to focus attention not on the confrontation, but on the interaction of the individual and society. In the concept of “normative fact” he defined the being of society and embodied the dialectical interaction between singularity and multitude. In the late 1930s in his teaching on microsociology, he introduced criteria of sociability, recording individual (intensity of the fusion of individual minds) and collective (the force of social pressure) aspects of the process of social development. Proceeding from these criteria Gurvitch developed a gradation of sociability, expressing it in the scheme “mass — community — communion” which enabled him to analyse the formation of collective units and determine the features of their existence. In his article “Mass, Community, and Communion” (1941) he presented the forms of sociability which enabled him to describe the mutual conditioning of individuals and collective units. Gurvitch’s article spells out the key principles of his philosophy and sociology of law which overcome individualism and collectivism in his account of society.0530202611213210.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-6https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5506/46184/Antonov, M. V., 2013. Pravo i obshchestvo v koncepcii Georgiya Davidovicha Gurvicha [Law and Society in the Conception of George Davidovich Gurvitch]. Moscow: HSE Press. (In Rus.)Cohen, H., 1902. Logik der reinen Erkenntnis. Berlin: Cassirer.Cohen, H., 1904. Ethik des reinen Willens. Berlin: Cassirer.Gurvitch, G., 1915. “Pravda voli monarshej” Feofana Prokopovicha i ee zapadnoevropejskie istochniki [The Truth of Monarchic Will by Feofan Prokopovich and Its Western European Sources]. Yuryev: K. Matthiesen (In Russ.)Gurvitch, G., 1918. Rousseau i deklaraciya prav: Ideya neot’emlemyh prav individa v politicheskoj doktrine Rousseau [Declaration of Rights: The Idea of the Inalienable Rights of the Individual in Rousseau’s Political Doctrine]. Petrograd: B. M. Volf (In Rus.)Gurvitch, G., 1932. L’idée du droit social. Notion et système du droit social: histoire doctrinale depuis le 17e siècle jusqu’à la fin du 19e siècle. Avec préface de L. Le Fur. Aalen: Scientia.Gurvitch, G., 1938. Essai d’une classification pluraliste des formes de la sociabilité. Annales sociologiques. Série A. Sociologie générale, 3, pp. 1-48.Gurvitch, G., 1941. Mass, Community, Communion. The Journal of Philosophy, 38(18), pp. 485-496. https://doi.org/10.2307/2017118.Gurvitch, G., 1943. Is Moral Philosophy a Normative Theory? The Journal of Philosophy, 40(6), pp. 141-148. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2017707.Gurvitch, G., 1947. Sociology of Law. London: Kecun Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co.Gurvitch, G., 1959. Pour le centenaire de la naissance de Durkheim. Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, 27, pp. 3-10.Lask, E., 1902. Fichtes Idealismus und die Geschichte. Tübingen: Mohr.Swedberg, R., 1982. Sociology as Disenchantment: The Evolution of the Work of Georges Gurvitch. Atlantic Highlands, N. J.: Humanities Press.Zagirnyak, M. Y., 2022. The Concept of Sobornost’ in the Georges Gurvitch’s Philosophy of Law. Philosophy Journal, 15(3), pp. 34-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-34-49. (In Rus.)Масса, сообщество, общностьG.GurvitchImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityM. Yu.ZagirnyakImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityGeorges Gurvitch’s research paper summarises the Paris period of his scientific activity and introduces the results obtained during this period to the anglophone reader. Gurvich analyses the degrees of cohesion of various social groups and shows the relationship between group cohesion and the sociality (or sociability) of the individuals who make up these groups. The first Russian translation of this article, as well as its English-language original, are provided with the publisher’s notes, revealing the historical and ideological context of the formation of Gurvitch’s theory of sociability and the circumstances of the emergence of this article.0530202613315910.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-7https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5506/46185/Antonov, M., 2016. La théorie du droit de Georges Gurvitch et ses origines philosophiques russes. Droit et société, 94 (3), pp. 503-512. https://doi.org/10.3917/drs.094.0503Bergson, H., 1935. The Two Sources of Morality and Religion. Translated by R. A. Audra and C. Brereton with the assistance of W. H. Carter. London: Macmillan and Co.Blumer, H., 1936. Social Attitudes and Nonsymbolic Interaction. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 9(9), pp. 515-523. https://doi.org/10.2307/2262360.Blumer, H., 1969. Symbolic Interactionism; Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Brown, J., 1936. Psychology and The Social Order: An Introduction to The Dynamic Study of Social Fields. New York & London: McGraw-Hill Book Co.Cramer, R., 1986. Eléments biographiques et bibliographiques pour une étude de l’apport de Georges Gurvitch à la théorie et à la sociologie du droit. Droit et société, 4, pp. 373-380. https://doi.org/10.3406/dre so.1986.931Durkheim E. Division of Labour in Society. 2nd Edition. Edited and with a new introduction by S. Lukes. Translation by W. D. Halls. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.Faris, E., 1937. The Nature of Human Nature. New York & London: McGraw Hill Book Company Inc.Geiger, Th., 1967. Die Masse und ihre Aktion: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie der Revolutionen. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.Geiger, T., 1926. Die Masse und Ihre Aktion; Ein Beitrag zür Soziologie der Revolution. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke.Golosenko, I. A. and Gergilov, R. E., 2000. Georgii (Georges) Gurvitch as Sociologist. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 3(1), pp. 21-31. (In Rus.)Gurvitch, G., 1926. Ethics and Religion. Sovremennye zapiski / Annales contemporaines, 9, pp. 259-283. (In Rus.)Gurvitch, G., 1937. Morale théorique et science des mœurs. Leurs possibilités, leurs conditions. Paris: Félix Alcan.Gurvitch, G., 1938a. Essai d’une classification pluraliste des formes de la sociabilité. Annales Sociologiques. Série A. Sociologie Générale, 3, pp. 1-48.Gurvitch, G., 1938b. Essais de sociologie: Les formes de la sociabilité: Le problème de la conscience collective. La magie et le droit. La morale de Durkheim. Paris: Librairie du Recueil Sirey.Gurvitch, G., 1940. Éléments de sociologie juridique. Paris: Aubier.Gurvitch, G., 1941a. Mass, Community, Communion. The Journal of Philosophy, 38(18), pp. 485-496. https://doi.org/10.2307/2017118.Gurvitch, G., 1941b. Major Problems of the Sociology of Law. Journal of Social Philosophy, 6, pp. 197-215.Gurvitch, G., 1942. Sociology of Law. New York: Philosophical Library. Inc.Gurvitch, G., 1951. Die gegenwärtige Lage der Soziologie und ihre Aufgaben. In: Karl Gustav Specht ed., Soziologische Forschung in Unserer Zeit. Ein Sammelwerk Leopold von Wiese zum 75. Geburtstag, Köln: Westdeutscher Verlag.Halbwachs, M., 1930. Les causes du suicide. Paris: Félix Alcan.Halbwachs, M., 1980. The Collective Memory. New York: Harper & Row.Heidegger, M., 1962. Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Kierkegaard, S., 1987. Either/Or. Edited and translated with Introduction and notes by H. V. Hong and E. H. Hong. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Le Bon, G., 1895. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. London: T. Fisher Unwin.Lévy-Bruhl, L., 1925. How Natives Think. New York: Knopf.Litt, Th., 1926. Individuum und Gemeinschaft. Grundlegung der Kulturphilosophie. Leipzig: B.G. Teubner.MacIver, R., 1917. Community: A Sociological Study. Being an Attempt to Set Out the Nature and Fundamental Laws of Social Life. London: Macmillan and Co.Mauss, M., 1924. Rapports réels et pratiques de la psychologie et de la sociologie. Journal de Psychologie, 21, pp. 892-922.Mauss, M., 1990. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York & London: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.Mead, G., 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. From the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Rutkoff, P. M., 1986. New School: A History of The New School for Social Research. New York: Free Press; London: Collier Macmillan.Scheler, M., 1973. Formalism in Ethics and Non-formal Ethics of Values: A New Attempt toward the Foundation of an Ethical Personalism. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Tönnies, F., 2001. Community and Civil Society. Edited by J. Harris, translated by J. Harris and M. Hollis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Wiese, L., 1933. System der allgemeinen Soziologie als Lehre von den sozialen Prozessen und den sozialen Gebilden der Menschen (Beziehungslehre). Munich & Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Wiese, L., 1956. Das Soziale im Leben und im Denken. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2022. The Concept of Sobornost’ in the Georges Gurvitch’s Philosophy of Law. Philosophy Journal, 15(3), pp. 34-49. https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-34-49. (In Rus.)«Заметки о Канте» Густава Шпета: к вопросу о смысле «положительной критики» .T. G.ShchedrinaMoscow Pedagogical State University (MPGU)I. O.ShchedrinaHSE UniversityThe archive of Gustav Shpet contains scattered preparatory materials for his “Lectures on the Theory of Cognition” and his major philosophical work History as a Problem of Logic. Some of these handwritten rough notes are devoted to Kant, indeed some of them have already seen the light of day in the “Kant­ian Journal” (2022, № 3). The notes published below continue to acquaint the reader with Shpet’s creative laboratory. His method of work with the concepts and ideas is instructive in that it enables us to raise questions about the meaning of “positive critique”, its difference from Kant’s own “critical method” and why contemporary historical-philosophical attempts to actualise Kant’s concept of critique have more to do with Shpet’s rather than Kant’s methodology. Of particular relevance today is the authors’ attempt to immerse the Kantian understanding of critique in the context of Shpet’s phenomenologically oriented hermeneutic methodology.0530202616017710.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-8https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5508/46187/Debolsky, N. G., 1914. Green as a Metaphysician. In: Novyye idei v filosofii. Sb. 17: Sovremennyye metafiziki II [New Ideas in Philosophy. 17: Modern Metaphysicians II]. St. Petersburg: Obrazovaniye, pp. 47-80. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 2005. Notes and Fragments. Edited by P. Guyer, translated by C. Bowman, P. Guyer and F. Rauscher. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.Krouglov, A. N., 2006. On the Concept of Phenomenology. In: History of Philosophy. Yearbook 2006. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 101-104. (In Rus.)Krouglov, A. N., 2023. On Kantʼs Concept of Critique and Critical Method. Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 7(2), pp. 225-260. (In Rus.)Leser, H., 1911. Einführung in die Grundprobleme der Erkenntnistheorie. Leipzig: Veit & Comp.Plato, 2015. Sophist. In: Plato, 2015. Theaetetus and Sophist. Edited and translated by C. Rowe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 99-177.Schopenhauer, A., 2010. The World as Will and Representation: Volume 1. Translated and edited by J. Norman, A. Welchman and C. Janaway, Introduction by C. Janaway. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Shchedrina, T. G. and Shchedrina, I. O., 2022. Immanuel Kant in the Historical Philosophy of Gustav Shpet. Kantian Journal, 41(3), pp. 124-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2022-3-5.Shpet, G. G., 1907. The Problem of Causality in Hume and Kant (Introduction). In: Trudy Psihologicheskoj seminarii pri universitete Sv. Vladimira. Filosofskie issledovanija. [Proceedings of the Psychological Seminary at the University of St. Vladimir. Philosophical research]. Volume 1, 4. Kiev: tip. Imperatorskogo universiteta sv. Vladimira, pp. I-II. (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., 1998. Philosophy and History. Translated by I. Martin. Philosophical Writings, 9, pp. 40-48.Shpet, G. G., 2005. Germenevtika i ee problemy [Hermeneutics and Its Problems]. In: G. G. Shpet, 2005. Mysl’ i Slovo. Izbrannye trudy [Thought and Word. Selected Works]. Edited by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 248-469. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2006. Consciousness and Its Owner. In: G. G. Shpet, 2006. Philosophia Natalis. Izbrannye psihologo-pedagogicheskie trudy [Philosophy of Natalis. Selected psychological and pedagogical works]. Edited by T. G. Shchedrina. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 264-310. (In Rus.)Shpet, G. G., 2010. Lectures on the Theory of Cognition. 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. 211-271. (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.)Tetens, J. N., 1777. Philosophische Versuche über die menschliche Natur und ihre Entwickelung. Volume 1. Leipzig: Weidmann.Vaihinger, H., 1881. Commentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Volume 1. Stuttgart: Spemann.Wolff, J., 1891. Lotze’s Metaphysik. Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 4, pp. 138-160.Wolff, J., 1892. Lotze’s Metaphysik. Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 5, pp. 26-41, 133-151, 285-315.Zhuchkov, V. A., 1996. I. N. Tetens ‒ an Outstanding Predecessor of Kant. History of Philosophy. Yearbook 1995. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 9-32. (In Rus.)Vivos voco. Послевоенная переписка C. И. Гессена и И. И. Лапшина: 1946 годN. A.DmitrievaMoscow Pedagogical State University (MPGU)Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityThe letters of S. I. Hessen and I. I. Lapshin, two Russian Neo-Kantian philosophers, were written in the early post-war years. These letters bear witness to the later period in the life and work of their authors, a period of hardship, tragic losses and hopes. Both philosophers were deeply embedded in the intellectual landscape of Russian emigration. They were also known and valued by their peers in the countries that gave them refuge, Poland and Czechoslovakia, where they not only published their works, but also taught young scholars. Hessen, being considerably younger than Lapshin, continued teaching and actively publishing after the war, including outside Poland. Lapshin in Czechoslovakia was less in demand, but continued preparing his works for publication. The reflections of the two authors shed light on the idea content of their later works, which is particularly valuable in reconstructing the conception of the texts which were not completed at the time of their death and have survived only in the shape of plans and rough notes. It is also interesting that in their letters Hessen and especially Lapshin expound the Kantian element of their philosophical views as well as sharing their impressions of the development of philosophy in the middle of the twentieth century.0530202617819910.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-9https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5508/46189/Barsova, L. G., ed. 2006. Neizdannyi Ivan Lapshin [The Unpublished Ivan Lapshin]. St. Petersburg: St Petersburg Theatre Arts Academy Press.Berdyaev, N. A., 1924. Novoe srednevekovie [The New Middle Ages = The End of Our Time]. Berlin: Obelisk. (In Rus.)Chekhov, A. P., 1914. Pis’ma A.P. Chekhova [Letters by A. P. Chekhov]. Volume 4: 1892—1896. Edited by M. P. Chekhova. Moscow: Knigoizdatel’stvo pisatelei. (In Rus.)Danilkina, N. V., 2007. Sergey Hessen and His School in Poland. In: V. I. Povilaitis, ed. 2007. Kul’turnyi sloi. Vyp. 8: Filosofiya russkogo zarubezh’ya [Cultural Layer. Volume 8: Philosophy of the Russian Abroad]. Kaliningrad: I. Kant RSU Press, pp. 46-63.Dimianenko, A. A., 2019. Soviet Studies of Children’s Books and Children’s Reading in the Pages of the Magazine “Russian School Abroad”. Review of the Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities, 20(3), pp. 383-390. (In Rus.) https://doi.org/10.25991/VRH GA.2019.20.3.063.Frank, S. L., 1946. God with Us: Three Meditations. Translated from the Russian by N. Duddington. New Haven: Yale University Press.Hessen, S., 1909. Individuelle Kausalität. Studien zum transzendentalen Empirismus. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Hessen, S. I., 1946—1948. Letters. In: Russian State Library, Manuscript Department. F. 753 (I. I. Lapshin), B. 1, № 19. (In Rus.)Hessen, S., 1947. Struktura i treść szkoły współczesnej: (zarys dydaktyki ogólnej). Warszawa: Nasza Księgarnia.Hessen, S., 1948. Slavonic Countries. Year Book of Education 1948. London: Evans Brothers, pp. 362-395.Hessen, S., 1952. Le virtù platoniche e le virtù evangeliche. Roma: Avio.Hessen, S., 1968a. Współczesna demokracja. In: S. Hessen, 1968. Studia z filozofii kultury. Edited and commented by A. Walicki. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, pp. 314-346.Hessen, S., 1968b. Cnoty starożytne a cnoty ewangeliczne. In: S. Hessen, 1968. Studia z filozofii kultury. Edited and commented by A. Walicki. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, pp. 194-268.Hessen, S.I., 2001. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi. In: S.I. Hessen, 2001. Pedagogicheskie sochineniya [Pedagogical Works]. Edited by E. G. Osovsky, M. V. Boguslavsky, O. E. Osovsky and V. P. Kirzhaeva. Saransk: Krasnyi Oktyabr’, pp. 354-371. (In Rus.)Hessen, S. I., 2010. My Life Story. In: S. Hessen, 2010. Izbrannoe [Selected]. Edited and introduced by E. L. Petrenko, commented by M. I. Ivanov and T. V. Ivanova. Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 772-825. (In Rus.)Hessen, S. I., 2011a. Modern Democracy. Translated from Polish into Russian by N. V. Danilkina. Kantian Journal, 3(37), pp. 93-97. (In Rus.) https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2011-3-11.Hessen, S. I., 2011b. Modern Democracy. Translated from Polish into Russian by N. V. Danilkina. Kantian Journal, 4(38), pp. 99-105. (In Rus.) https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2011-4-9.Hessen, S. I., 2012. Modern Democracy (Conclusion). Translated from Polish into Russian by N. V. Danilkina. Kantian Journal, 1(39), pp. 75-83. (In Rus.) https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2012-1-9.Korostelev, O. and Shruba, M., eds. 2013. “Sovremennye zapiski” (Parizh, 1920—1940). Iz arkhiva redaktsii [“Sovremennye zapiski” (Paris, 1920—1940). From the Archives of the Editorial Board]. Volume 3. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 1924. Kant and Modern Philosophy. (The 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Immanuel Kant), Part 2. Ogni [Lights] (Prague), 21, pp. 1-2. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 1927. Balzac’s “The Red Inn” and Dostoevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov”. Volya Rossii [Russia’s Will], 2, pp. 66-77. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 1928. Dostoevsky and Pascal. Nauchnye trudy Russkogo Narodnogo universiteta v Prage [Academic Proceedings of the Russian Public University in Prague], 1, pp. 235-243. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 1931. Dostoevsky’s Metaphysics. Volya Rossii [Russia’s Will], 1-2, pp. 59-84. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 1941. The Controversy over Freedom of Will in Contemporary Philosophy. Zapiski Russkogo nauchno-issledovatel’skogo ob’edineniya v Prage [Notes of the Russian Research Association in Prague], 11(81). (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 1944. On the Originality of Russian Art. Russkoe nauchno-issledovatelskoe ob’edinenie v Prage. Doklady i lektsii [Russian Research Association in Prague. Presentations and Lectures], 2. Prague: Russkaya Uchenaya Akademiya.Lapshin, I. I., 1946—1950. Letters. In: Połączone Biblioteki WFiS UW, IFiS PAN i PTF. Rkp 809 : Korespondencja Sergiusza Hessena. T. 3: L—O, k. 35—86: Łapszyn Iwan. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 1947. The Problem of the Alien ‘I’ in Indian Philosophy. Archiv orientální (Praha), 16(1-2), pp. 96-102. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 2006a. What is Truth. In: L.G. Barsova, ed. 2006. Neizdannyi Ivan Lapshin [The Unpublished Ivan Lapshin]. St. Petersburg: St Petersburg Theatre Arts Academy Press, pp. 244-279. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 2006b. Phenomenology of Moral Conscience. In: L. G. Barsova, ed. 2006. Neizdannyi Ivan Lapshin [The Unpublished Ivan Lapshin]. St. Petersburg: St Petersburg Theatre Arts Academy Press, pp. 280-323. (In Rus.).Lapshin, I. I., 2006c. Ars moriendi (The Art of Dying). In: L. G. Barsova, ed. 2006. Neizdannyi Ivan Lapshin [The Unpublished Ivan Lapshin]. St. Petersburg: St Petersburg Theatre Arts Academy Press, pp. 341-354. (In Rus.)Lapshin, I. I., 2015. Kant and Modern Philosophy. (The 200th Anniversary of the Birth of Immanuel Kant). Preparation of Remarks and the Accompanying Article by A. V. Shitov. Review of the Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities, 16(3), pp. 268-278. (In Rus.)Lapshin, J., 1939. An Essay on the Russian Actor (A Psychological and Aesthetical Study). Zapiski Russkogo nauchno-issledovatel’skogo ob’edineniya v Prage [Notes of the Russian Research Association in Prague], 9(68).Lapšin, I. I., 1947. Ruská hudba — Profily skladatelů. Praha : Za svobodu.Losskij, N. O., 1946. Dostojevskij a jeho kresťanský svetonáhľad. Liptovský Sv. Mikuláš: Tranoscius.Lossky, N. O., 1953. Dostoevsky i ego khristianskoe miroponimanie [Dostoevsky and His Christian Worldview]. Introduction by S. A. Levitsky. New York: Izdatel’stvo im. Chekhova. (In Rus.)Tchaikovsky, M. I., 1902. Zhizn’ Petra Ilyicha Tchaikovskogo. Po dokumentam, khranyaschimsya v archive pokojnogo kompositora v Klinu [Life of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. According to the Documents Kept in the Archive Named after the Late Composer in Klin]: In 3 Volumes. Volume 3. Moscow & Leipzig: P. Jurgenson. (In Rus.)Zagirnyak, M. Yu., 2020. Georges Gurvitch and Sergey Hessen on the Possibility of Forming Social Unity. Kantian Journal, 39(3), pp. 72-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2020-3-4.Zagirnyak, M., 2022. The Nation as a Social Subject in Sergey Hessen’s Philosophy. Dialogue with Time, 81, pp. 103-116. https://doi.org/10.21267/AQUI LO.2022.81.81.007.Роль кантовской «способности суждения» в «ненововременном» исследовании сознательного опытаA. A.SobkaSaint Petersburg State UniversityOne of the major problems in contemporary philosophy of mind is the dualism of first-person and third-person perspectives — the question of whether conscious experience is public and epistemically accessible or private and qualitative. Recognising the relevance of the arguments of both sides, naturalists and anti-naturalists, I attempt to resolve this dichotomy using Bruno Latour’s methodology on the theories of Immanuel Kant and Moritz Schlick. To do so, I propose not to reduce the theory of consciousness to one interpretation, but to consider conscious experience as a “boundary object” between the spheres of the private and the public, the accessible and the qualitative, the unique and the reproducible. Through the “practice of translation” I demonstrate the failure of ontologies of conscious experience proposed by both naturalism and anti-naturalism, and propose an “intersectional theory” as an alternative theory of conscious experience that affirms, on the one hand, the uniqueness of the individual’s epistemic position and, on the other hand, its reproducibility and communicability. I introduce the term “intersectional locality” to denote the ontological status of conscious experience. In the next step, I return to the necessary (according to Latour) “practice of purification” of those epistemic zones whose fusion was outlined earlier, which allows me to recognise the intuition behind the dichotomy of the two perspectives as legitimate and requiring conceptualisation. The mediation of Schlick’s positivist theory and Kant’s transcendentalist theory allows us to present first-person and third-person perspectives as two epistemic registers, subordinated to the position of a historically specific conscious subject. I treat the first-person perspective as a reflective power of judgment, and the third-person perspective as a determinative power of judgment; doing so, I establish the connection between the qualitative interpretation of phenomenal experience and the aesthetic principle of the reflective power of judgment. I conclude that conscious experience as a subject matter of research is a hybrid object, and only the project of “nonmodern” science will make it possible to create a relevant theory of consciousness that does not resort to reduction.0530202620021410.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-10https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5509/46191/Chalmers, D., 2015. Soznayushchiy um: V poiskakh fundamental’noy teorii [The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory]. Moscow: Librokom. (In Rus.)Crenshaw, K., 1989. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum: Journal, 1, pp. 139-167. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500480-5.Dennett, D., 1991. Consciousness Explained. Edited by A. Lane. London: The Penguin Press.Feyerabend, P., 1981. Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139171526.Galison, P., 2004. Exchange Area: Coordination of Beliefs and Actions. Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki [Issues of the history of natural science and technology], 1, pp. 64-91. (In Rus.)Gasparyan, D. E., 2015. What Does It Mean to Be a Transcendentalist in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy of Mind? Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2, pp. 146-165. https://doi.org/10.5840/eps201544215. (In Rus.)Ivanov, D. V., 2013. Priroda fenomenal’nogo soznaniya [The Nature of Phenomenal Consciousness]. Moscow: Librokom. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1994a. Kritika sposobnosti suzhdeniya [The Critique of Judgment]. Moscow: Iskusstvo. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1994b. Kritika chistogo razuma [The Critique of Pure Reason]. Moscow: Mysl’. (In Rus.)Latour, B., 2006. Novogo Vremeni ne bylo: Esse po simmetrichnoy antropologii [We Have Never Been Modern: An Essay on Symmetrical Anthropology]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Evropeiskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge. (In Rus.)Nagel, T., 2001. Chto vse eto znachit? Ochen’ kratkoe vvedenie v filosofiyu [What Does It All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy]. Moscow: Ideya-Press. (In Rus.)Razeev, D. N., 2008. Kant’s Critique of Judgment Is an Essay on Philosophy of Science? Mysl’: Zhurnal Peterburgskogo filosofskogo obshchestva [Thought. Journal of the St. Petersburg Philosophical Society], 7(1), pp. 185-211. (In Rus.)Razeev, D. N., 2010. The Teleological Principle of Cognition in the Context of Kant’s Critique of Judgment. Kantian Journal, 1, pp. 7-14. (In Rus.)Schlick, M., 1993. On the Foundation of Knowledge. In: A. F. Gryaznov, ed. 1993. Analiticheskaya filosofiya: Izbrannye teksty [Analytical Philosophy: Selected Papers]. Moscow: MSU Press. (In Rus.)Sekatskaya, M. A., 2015. The Study of Consciousness in Philosophy and Cognitive Sciences: Why the Hard Problem of Consciousness Does Not Need to Be Solved. Voprosy filosofii, 4, pp. 185-194. (In Rus.)Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R., 1989. Institutional Ecology, “Translation” and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907—1939. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), pp. 387-420. https://doi.org/10.7551/mit press/10113.003.0011.Zdravomyslova, E. A. and Tyomkina, A. A., 2015. 12 lektsiy po gendernoy sotsiologii: uchebnoe posobie [12 Lectures on Gender Sociology: A Textbook]. St. Petersburg: Izdatel’stvo Evropeyskogo universiteta v Sankt-Peterburge. (In Rus.)Непреодолимый Кант: Делёз о согласованности способностей разумаM. S.NeapolitanskiySaint Petersburg State UniversityThe influence of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy on the ideas of Gilles Deleuze was quite substantial. However, analyses of the correlation between the ideas of the two philosophers have not yet received proper research attention, especially in Russian-language literature. To reveal the essence and history of the development of Deleuze’s attitude to Kant, the former’s work, Kant’s Critical Philosophy: The Doctrine of the Faculties (1963), in which the French philosopher aims to find the potential limits of interpretation of Kant’s philosophy. Deleuze appeals to Kant’s study of faculties, in which he finds contradictions and “gaps” that find their solution in the Critique of Judgment. Deleuze refers to the free coherence of the faculties as to “something third”, which gives options for reactualising Kant’s philosophy without striving to overcome it. I also provide a brief history of the issues related to Kant­ian philosophy, appearing in the works of Deleuze — from a course of lectures on the problem of grounds, given by the young Deleuze at the Lyceum Louis the Great in Paris, to his last article published in his lifetime, “Immanence: A Life”, in which Deleuze brings up the question of the transcendental field. Despite the fact that Kant and Deleuze are more often contrasted than considered as possible allies, and despite the cases of criticisms of Kant by Deleuze, I defend the thesis that their philosophical projects are firmly linked. Considering Kant’s presence in Deleuze’s study, I conclude that Kant’s philosophy has shaped some key aspects of the French philosopher’s thinking — in particular, the concept of “transcendental empiricism” — and also has influenced Deleuze’s ideas about difference, becoming, ground and immanence.0530202621522410.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-11https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5509/46194/Agamben, G., 1999. Absolute Immanence. In: D. Heller-Roazen, ed. 1999. Potentialities: Collected Essays in Philosophy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 220-242.Barad, K., 2018. Agent Realism. How Material-Discursive Practices Matter. Opyty nechelovecheskogo gostepriimstva: Antologiya [Experiences of Inhuman Hospitality: Anthology]. Moscow: V-A-C, pp. 42-121. (In Rus.)Blinov, E., 2020. The Shock of a Radical Novelty: Early Deleuze and The Gaps of Sense. Logos, 4, pp. 63-85. (In Rus.)Decomb, V., 2000. Sovremennaya frantsuzskaya filosofiya [Modern French Philosophy]. Moscow: Ves’ Mir. (In Rus.)Deleuze, G., 1998. Razlichiye i povtoreniye [Difference and Repetition]. St. Petersburg: PetroPolis. (In Rus.)Deleuze, G., 2001. Empirizm i subyektivnost: Opyt o chelovecheskoy prirode po Yumu. Kriticheskaya filosofiya Kanta: ucheniye o sposobnostyakh. Bergsonizm. Spinoza [Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature. Kant’s Critical Philosophy: The Doctrine of the Faculties. Bergsonism. Spinoza]. Moscow: PER SE. (In Rus.)Deleuze, G., 2002a. Kritika i klinika [Critique and Clinic]. St. Petersburg: Machina. (In Rus.)Deleuze, G., 2002b. L’Île déserte et autres textes. Textes et entretiens 1953—1974. Paris : Les Éditions de Minuit.Deleuze, G., 2004. Peregovory [Negotiations]. 1972-1990. St. Petersburg: Nauka. (In Rus.)Deleuze, G., 2015. What Is Grounding? Grand Rapids, MI: K& Publishing.Deleuze, G., 2021. Immanence: A Life... Einai. Filosofiya. Religiya. Kul’tura [Einai. Philosophy. Religion. Culture], 1, pp. 229-235. (In Rus.)Dosse, F., 2021. Zhil Delez i Feliks Gvattari. Perekrestnaya biografiya [Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari. Intersecting Lives]. Moscow: Delo. (In Rus.)Fokin, S., 2003. Gilles Deleuze between Philosophy and Literature: Cartography. Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye [New Literary Observer], 5, pp. 272-279.Grant, I., 2020. The Chemistry of Darkness. Logos, 5(138), pp. 57-78. (In Rus.)Harman, G., 2020. Spekulyativnyy realizm: vvedeniye [Speculative Realism: Introduction]. Moscow: Ripol-klassik. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 2001. Critique of Judgment. In: I. Kant, 2001. Sochineniya na russkom i nemetskom yazykakh [Work in Russian and German]. Volume 4. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 68-833. (In Rus.)Kerslake, C., 2020. Grounding Deleuze. Logos, 4(137), pp. 89-108. (In Rus.)Land, N., 2018. Kibergotika [Cybergothic]. Perm: Hyle Press. (In Rus.)Lord, B., 2012. Deleuze and Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Merzenina, A., 2021. Immanentist Philosophy of Deleuze as the Legacy of Kantian Transcendentalism. Kholon [Holon], [online] Available at: [Accessed 17 July 2023].Poma, A., 2015. K prirode myshleniya bez predstavleniya [On the Nature of Thinking without Representation]. Kantian Journal, 1, pp. 28-42. (In Rus.)Rajchman, J., 2000. The Deleuze Connections. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Проблема возможности существования искусственного морального агента в контексте практической философии И. КантаYu. S.FedotovaLomonosov Moscow State UniversityThe question of whether an artificial moral agent (AMA) is possible implies discussion of a whole range of problems raised by Kant within the framework of practical philosophy that have not exhausted their heuris­tic potential to this day. First, I show the significance of the correlation between moral law and freedom. Since a rational being believes that his/her will is independent of external influences, the will turns out to be governed by the moral law and is autonomous. Morality and freedom are correlated through independence from the external. Accordingly, if the actions of artificial intelligence (AI) are determined by something or someone external to it (by a human), then it does not act morally and freely, but heteronomously. As a consequence of AI’s lack of autonomy, and thus lack of access to the moral law, it does not and cannot have a moral understanding that proceeds from the moral law. Another consequence is that it has no sense of duty, which would follow from the moral law. Thus, moral action becomes impossible for the AMA because it lacks autonomy and moral law, moral understanding and sense of duty. It is concluded that, first, AMA not only cannot be moral, but should not be that, since the inclusion of any moral principle would imply the necessity for the individual to choose it, making the choice of the principle itself immoral. Second, although AI has no will as such, which prima facie makes not only moral but also legal action impossible, it can still act legally in the sense of conforming to legal law, since AI carries a quasi-human will. Thus, it is necessary that the creation of AI should be based not on moral principles, but on legal law that prioritises human freedom and rights.0530202622523910.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-12https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5509/46195/Allen, C., Smit, I. and Wallach, W., 2005. Artificial Morality: Top-down, Bottom-up, and Hybrid Approaches. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, pp. 149-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-0004-4.Allen, C., Varner, G. and Zinser, J., 2000. Prolegomena to Any Future Artificial Moral Agent. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 12, pp. 251-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09528130050111428.Allen, C., Wallach, W. and Smit, I., 2006. Why Machine Ethics? IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), pp. 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2006.83.Anderson, M. and Anderson, S.L., 2007a. The Status of Machine Ethics: A Report from the AAAI Symposium. Minds and Machines, 17, pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-007-9053-7.Anderson, M. and Anderson, S.L., 2007b. Machine Ethics: Creating an Ethical Intelligent Agent. AI Magazine, 28(4), pp. 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v28i4.2065.Bostrom, N., 2014. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Benossi, L. and Bernecker, S., 2022. A Kantian Perspective on Robot Ethics. In: H. Kim and D. Schönecker, ed. 2022. Kant and Artificial Intelligence. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 147-169. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110706611-005.Butler, J., 2022. Sila nenasiliya: Stsepka etiki i politiki [The Force of Nonviolence: An Ethico-Political Bind]. Translated from English by I. Kushnareva. Moscow: HSE Press. (In Rus.)Calverley, D. J., 2008. Imagining a Non-Biological Machine as a Legal Person. AI & Society, 22(4), pp. 523-537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-007-0092-7.Floridi, L. and Sanders, J. W., 2004. On the Morality of Artificial Agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3), pp. 349-379. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d.Herman, B., 1993. The Practice of Moral Judgement. London: Harvard University Press.Johnson, D.G., 2006. Computer Systems: Moral Entities but Not Moral Agents. Ethics and Information Technology, 8, pp. 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-9111-5.Kant, I., 1997a. The Critique of Practical Reason. In: I. Kant, 1997. Sochineniya v 4-h tomah na nemetskom i russkom yazykakh [Works in 4 Volumes in German and Russian Languages]. Volume 3. Moscow: Moskovskii filosofskii fond, pp. 279-733. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1997b. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. In: I. Kant, 1997. Sochineniya v 4-h tomah na nemetskom i russkom yazykakh [Works in 4 Volumes in German and Russian Languages]. Volume 3. Moscow: Moskovskii filosofskii fond, pp. 41-275. (In Rus.)Moor, J. H., 2006. The Nature, Importance, and Difficulty of Machine Ethics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), pp. 18-21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2006.80.Nagl, L., 2022. Digital Technology: Reflections on the Difference between Instrumental Rationality and Practical Reason. Kantian Journal, 41(1), pp. 60-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2022-1-3.Schönecker, D., 2022. Kant’s Argument from Moral Feelings: Why Practical Reason Cannot Be Artificial. In: H. Kim and D. Schönecker, ed. 2022. Kant and Artificial Intelligence. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110706611-006.Schmidt, E. E., 2022. Kant on Trolleys and Autonomous Driving. In: H. Kim and D. Schönecker, ed. 2022. Kant and Artificial Intelligence. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. pp. 189-223. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110706611-007.Strawson, P., 2020. Freedom and Resentment. Translated into Russian by E. Loginov. Date Palm Compote, 15, pp. 204-221. https://doi.org/10.24412/2587-9308-2020-15-204-221. (In Rus.)Tonkens, R., 2009. A Challenge for Machine Ethics. Minds and Machines, 19(3), pp. 421-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-009-9159-1.Ulgen, O., 2017. Kantian Ethics in the Age of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. QIL, Zoom-in, 43, pp. 59-83. Available at: (Accessed 23.07.2023).White, J., 2022. Autonomous Reboot: Kant, the Categorical Imperative, and Contemporary Challenges for Machine Ethicists. AI & Society, 37(2), pp. 661-673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01142-4.Wright, A. T., 2022. Rightful Machines. In: H. Kim and D. Schönecker, ed. 2022. Kant and Artificial Intelligence. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 223-239. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110706611-008.Творческий потенциал систем искусственного интеллекта в контексте идеи нового просвещенияD. A.StelmakhovInstitute of Philosophy of Russian Academy of SciencesThe modern world is confronted with a series of global problems, exacerbated by technological advancements. In this context, concerns arise in the public consciousness regarding the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to surpass humans in intellectual and creative activities. The topic of AI creativity becomes pertinent and sparks debates within the scientific community regarding its creative potential. In response to these challenges, members of the Club of Rome in 2018 propose the concept of a new Enlightenment and the principle of balance as a response to the demands of technological development. These ideas underscore the need for a balanced approach to technical progress, taking into account global values and ethical principles. I explore the definitions of creativity and AI, formulate criteria for assessing creativity, and analyse recent achievements in modelling creative processes in AI. I also focus on the utilisation of various algorithms for implementing diverse forms of creative activities, including text, image and music generation. Additionally, I present diverse opinions of researchers regarding creativity in AI. To systematise these perspectives, I propose a classification which allows their ranking. The conclusion emphasises that currently the issue of evaluating the creative potential of AI lacks a definitive solution, underscoring the relevance of further research. The future outlook may alter this situation, prompting the necessity to focus on predicting potential consequences of technological developments and developing mechanisms for controlling AI activities; humans, after all, bear responsibility for AI actions. Such an approach aligns with the concept of a new Enlightenment which seeks a balance between technological advancements and the preservation of global harmony.0530202624025110.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-13https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5509/46197/Alekseev, A. Yu., 2014. Cognitotechnological Projects of Artificial Personality. Human Being: Image and Essence. Humanitarian Aspects, 1(25), p. 156-174. (In Rus.)Boden, M., 2009. Computer Models of Creativity. AI Magazine, 3, pp. 23-34.Boden, M. 2004. The Creative Mind: Myths and Mechanisms. Second Edition. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.Bostrom, N., 2016. Iskusstvennyy intellekt. Etapy. Ugrozy. Strategii [Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies]. Translated by S. Filin. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov i Ferber. (In Rus.)Chaly, V. A., 2023. Reclaiming the “Cultural Mandate”: The Idea of Sustainable Development in the Kantian Perspective. Kantian Journal, 42(2), pp. 68-94. http://dx.doi:10.5922/0207-6918-2023-2-4.Cohen-Or, D., Zhang, H., 2016. From Inspired Modeling to Creative Modeling. The Visual Computer, 32, pp. 7-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00371-015-1193-9.Evans, J., 2018. Can AI be Creative? In: Orange Business, [online]. Available at: [Accessed: 19.08.2023].Galushkin, A. I., 2022. Neural Networks. In: Bol’shaya Rossiyskaya Entsiklopediya: Nauchno-obrazovatel’nyy Portal [Big Russian Encyclopedia: Scientific and Educational Portal]. Available at: [Accessed: 16.08.2023]. (In Rus.)Hertzmann, A., 2020. Computers Do Not Make Art, People Do. Communications of the ACM, 63(5), pp. 45-48. https://doi.org/10.1145/3347092.Lebedinskii, A. V., Frankfurt, U. I. and Frank, A. M., 1966. Helmholtz (1821—1894). Moscow: Nauka. (In Rus.)Lopez-Persem, A., Moreno-Rodriguez, S., Ovando-Tellez, M., Bieth, T., Guiet, S., Brochard, J. and Volle, E., 2023. How Subjective Idea Valuation Energizes and Guides Creative Idea Generation. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0001165.Lysachev, M. N., Prokhorov, A. N., 2023. Iskusstvennyy intellekt. Analiz, trendy, mirovoy opyt [Artificial Intelligence. Analysis, Trends, Global Experience]. Edited by D. A. Larionov. Corporate Edition. Moscow; Belgorod: KONSTANTA-print. (In Rus.)Merkulov, I. P., 2010. Cognitive Science. In: Novaya filosofskaya entsiklopediya [New Philosophical Encyclopedia]. Vol. 2. Moscow: Mysl’, pp. 264-265. (In Rus.)Minski, M., 2020. Mashina emotsiy [The Emotion Machine]. Moscow: AST, 2020. (In Rus.)Ovando-Tellez, M., Kenett, Y. N., Benedek, M., Bernard, M., Belo, J., Beranger, B., Bieth, T. and Volle, E., 2022. Brain connectivity-based prediction of real-life creativity is mediated by semantic memory structure. Science Advances, 5(8). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abl4294.Poincaré, A., 1990. O nauke [On Science]. Second Edition. Translated from French by L. S. Pontryagin. Moscow: Nauka. (In Rus.)Samokhvalova, V. I., 2007. Creative Activity: an Event of Cosmic and Generational History of Human. Landmarks. Metaphysical Studies of Human and the World, 4, pp. 140-161. (In Rus.)Serban, A., Kepes, S., Wang, W., Baldwin, R., 2023. Cognitive Ability and Creativity: Typology Contributions and a Meta-analytic Review. Intelligence, 98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2023.101757.Shelepin, K. Y., Sokolov, A. V., Fokin, V. A., Vasiliev, P. P. and Pronin, S. V., 2019. The Insight Phenomenon and the Digital Visualization of the Human Brain Activity. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Psychology, 10(4), pp. 47-55. https://doi.org/10.14529/psy170405 (In Rus.)Sotoy, M. 2020. Kod kreativnosti. Kak iskusstvennyy intellekt uchitsya pisat’, risovat’ i dumat’ [Code of Creativity: How Artificial Intelligence Learns to Write, Draw, and Think]. Moscow: KOLibri. (In Rus.)Wallas, G., 1945. The Art of Thought. London: C. A. Watts & Co. Ltd.Watson, M., 2018. Why Business Leaders Should Think of AI as an Umbrella Term. In: Medium, [online]. Available at: https://medium.com/opex-analytics/why-business-leaders-should-think-of-ai-as-an-umbrella-term-dba8ba... [Accessed: 20.08.2023].Weizsäcker, E. U., Wijkman, A., 2018. Come On! Capitalism, Short-termism, Population and the Destruction of the Planet. New York, NY: Springer.Zilber, A. S., 2023. Kant and the New Enlightenment: On the Balance between Duty and Utilitarian Ends. Kantian Journal, 42(2), pp. 40-67. http://dx.doi:10.5922/0207-6918-2023-2-3.Памяти Тамары Борисовны Длугач (19.08.1935—18.05.2023)N.Z.Brosova0530202625226110.5922/0207-6918-2023-4-14https://journals.kantiana.ru/kant_collection/5512/46199/Dlugach, T. B., 1986a. Denis Diderot. Second Edition. M.: Mysl‘. (In Rus.)Dlugach, T. B., 1986b. Problema edinstva teorii i praktiki v nemetskoy klassicheskoy filosofii (I. Kant i J.G. Fikhte) [The Problem of the Unity of Theory and Practice in German Classical Philosophy (I. Kant and J. G. Fichte)]. M.: Nauka. (In Rus.)Dlugach, T. B., 2006. Tri portreta epokhi Prosveshcheniya. Monteskye. Volter. Russo (ot kontseptsii prosveshchennogo absolyutizma k teoriyam grazhdanskogo obshchestva) [Three Portraits of the Age of Enlightenment. Montesquieu. Voltaire. Rousseau (From the Concept of Enlightened Absolutism to Theories of Civil Society)]. M.: Kanon+. (In Rus.)Dlugach, T. B., 2008. Podvig zdravogo smysla, ili rozhdeniye idei suverennoy lichnosti (Golbakh. Gelvetsiy. Russo) [The Exploit of Common Sense, or The Birth of the Idea of the Sovereign Individual (Holbach, Helvetius, Rousseau)]. M.: Kanon+. ROOI “Reabilitatsiya”. (In Rus.)Dlugach, T. B., 2010. Ot Kanta k Fikhte: sravnitelno-istoricheskiy analiz [From Kant to Fichte: A Comparative-Historical Analysis]. Second Edition. M.: Kanon+. (In Rus.)Dlugach, T. B., 2011. Dve filosofskiye refleksii: ot Golbakha k Kantu: sravnitelno-istoricheskiy analiz [Two Philosophical Reflections: From Holbach to Kant. A Comparative-Historical Analysis]. M.: Kanon+. (In Rus.)Kant, I., 1994. Werke. Zweisprachige deutsch-russische Ausgabe. Edited by N. Motroschilova and B. Tuschling. Volume 1: Treatises and Articles (1764—1796). Moscow: Kami.Kant, I., 2001. Werke. Zweisprachige deutsch-russische Ausgabe. Ed. by N. Motroschilova and B. Tuschling. Volume 4: Critique of Judgment. First Introduction to the Critique of Judgment. Edited by N. Motroshilova, T. Dlugach, B. Tuschling and U. Vogel. Мoscow: Nauka.Kant, I., 2006. Werke. Zweisprachige deutsch-russische Ausgabe. Ed. by N. Motroschilova and B. Tuschling. Volume 2: Parts 1 and 2: Critique of Pure Reason. Edited by N. Motroschilova, B. Tuschling, T. Dlugach and U. Vogel. Мoscow: Nauka.