Die Frage nach dem wirklichen Julius Cäsar – und warum sie immer noch aktuell ist
Abstract This paper takes into account Bertrand Russell’s, Francis H. Bradley’s, and Immanuel Kant’s arguments about “what is the real Julius Caesar” to examine (i) Russell’s characterization of analytic philosophy as a “new philosophy”, born as a revolt against idealism, and (ii) the actual relationship between Bradley and Kant. In order to understand who Russell was actually revolting against, we analyse the features of Bradley’s idealism and investigate how he understood and interpreted Kant’s transcendental revolution. By using the notion of Julius Caesar as a cogent comparative case study, we show that Bradley’s reading of Kant was not well-grounded. Therefore, we argue that Bradley’s interpretation of Hegel’s idealism was also unconventional. This misunderstanding in turn shaped and characterised Russell’s revolt against idealism. As a result, we show that analytic and continental philosophy began to part ways with the birth of what Russell calls new philosophy much earlier than their encounter at Davos. The reasons for this parting can be found in British idealists’ erroneous interpretation of Kant’s transcendental philosophy.
