scholarly journals Research of German Classical Philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy

2021 ◽  
Vol - (4) ◽  
pp. 38-54
Author(s):  
Vitalii Terletsky

The article analyzes the work of the staff of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, which relates to the study of German classical philosophy. Ideologically unbiased studies of German idealism at the Institute became possible only after it was headed by Pavlo Kopnin. The Taras Shevchenko University of Kyiv became the center from which all researchers of German idealism emerged in the first half of the 1960’s. At first more attention was paid to Hegel’s philosophical system, which was reflected in the monograph of V. Shinkaruk (1964). In the mid-1970’s, Kant’s critical philosophy came to the fore, various aspects of which were analyzed in the collective monograph “Critical Essays on Kant’s Philosophy” (1975). In the early 1980’s, researchers engaged intensively in Feuerbach’s “anthropological materialism” by publishing the collective monograph “Essays on Feuerbach’s Philosophy” (1982). The works and ideas of Hegel, Kant and Feuerbach were the main subject of attention of researchers at the Institute, which was reflected in numerous publications in the journal “Philosophical Thought”. Instead, Schelling’s philosophical systems, and especially Fichte’s, remained almost neglected until 1991.

2011 ◽  
Vol 32 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 187-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Gardner

The topic that I wish to consider is the significance, both systematic and historical, for Kant's system as a whole, of the postulates of pure practical reason, more specifically, of the two theological postulates concerning the existence of God and personal immortality which form the basis of Kant's moral theology. My discussion will focus on the problems of Kant's moral theology in the eyes of his early contemporaries, for whom it constituted a crux in Kant's project. Different views were taken by Kant's contemporaries of what exactly these problems signified regarding the future of Critical philosophy. For the thinkers I will be looking at here, the miscarriage of the moral theology constituted a fatal fault in the Kantian project. For the German Idealists, the moral theology instead provided a vital clue as to how the Kantian system could be transformed into a more radical idealism, while confirming that it needed to be. The role of the practical postulates in the development of German Idealism demands a separate treatment; what I will argue here is simply that the practical postulates do indeed represent a point at which Kant's philosophical system displays a deep and interesting tension, in light of which both historical responses are prima facie intelligible.


Kant Yearbook ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elise Frketich

AbstractKarl Leonhard Reinhold (1757–1823) is hailed as one of the most influential thinkers of early post-Kantian philosophy. He is best known for popularising critical philosophy through his Letters on the Kantian Philosophy, first published in the Teutsche Merkur (1786), and for restructuring it into a kind of axiomatic-deductive system in the Elementarphilosophie (1789–1794). An axiomatic-deductive system is based on one or several self-evident principles from which all subsequent principles are deduced. Reinhold’s restructuring of Kant’s critical project was highly influential for Fichte and the early Schelling, and thus, for the transition from Kantian critical philosophy to German Idealism. Most Reinhold scholars interpret the system of the Elementarphilosophie as belonging to the pre-critical tradition. Counter to this view, I consider the possibility that Reinhold was influenced by the idea of a philosophical system put forth by Kant in the Architectonic. I proceed by first discussing Kant’s criteria of both a pre-critical and a critical system, before assessing which the Elementarphilosophie can best be described as. I conclude that although Reinhold’s system is more adequately classified as a critical than as a pre-critical system, it must ultimately be viewed as something new.


Author(s):  
Сергей Александрович Лебедев ◽  
Сергей Николаевич Коськов

В статье излагается содержание двух базовых концепций неклассической философии и методологии науки: конвенционалистской и консенсуалистской теории природы научного знания и научной истины. Каждая из них является альтернативой двум основным парадигмам классической философии и методологии науки: эмпиризму (позитивизму) и рационализму. С точки зрения конвенционализма научное знание не есть ни описание чистого опыта, ни его обобщение. Но оно не является также и результатом некой априорной интуиции и чистого разума. Согласно конвенционализму научное знание - это система доказательной информации, исходные принципы которой имеют характер условных, конвенциональных истин. Отсюда следует, что любая истина в науке не категорична, а условна и имеет форму «если, то». Консенсуалистская концепция природы научного знания возникла в философии науки второй половины XX в. Она была, с одной стороны, обобщением конвенционализма, а с другой - его отрицанием. Если в конвенционализме основным субъектом научного познания является отдельный ученый, то в консенсуалистской эпистемологии таким субъектом является социальный субъект - научное сообщество. Научное познание имеет принципиально коллективный характер как в плане его получения в силу разделения научного труда, так и в плане его легитимации и оценки. Последние операции всегда являются результатом консенсуса научного сообщества. The article examines the content of two basic conceptions of non-classical philosophy and methodology of science: the conventionalist and consensual theory of the nature of scientific knowledge. Each of them is an alternative to the two main paradigms of classical philosophy and the methodology of science: empiricism (positivism) and rationalism. From the point of view of conventionalism, scientific knowledge is neither a description of pure experience nor a generalization of it. But it is also not the result of some a priori intuition and pure reason. According to conventionalism, scientific knowledge is a system of evidence-based information, the initial principles of which have the character of conditional, conventional truths. It follows that any truth in science is not categorical, but conditional and has the form «if, then». The consensual concept of the nature of scientific knowledge emerged in the philosophy of science of the second half of the twentieth century. It was, on the one hand, a generalization of conventionalism; on the other, a negation of it. If in conventionalism the main subject of scientific knowledge is an individual scientist, then in consensual epistemology such a subject is a social subject - the scientific community. Scientific knowledge has a fundamentally collective character, both in terms of its acquisition by virtue of the division of scientific work, and in terms of its legitimization and evaluation. The latest operations are always the result of a consensus of the scientific community.


2021 ◽  
pp. 23-61

The excerpts from Staël’s work presented here include her discussion of women intellectuals and gender bias, her original assessment of Kant’s critical philosophy, and her understanding of the significance of German idealism on the scientific thinking of the day. The chapter demonstrates the breadth of Staël’s thought: from an analysis of the prejudices that intellectual women encounter to a detailed consideration of contemporary philosophy and science.


Author(s):  
V.V. Shlyapnikov

The article analyzes the subject area of one of the modern lines of philosophical thought — cyberphilosophy. Ontological, epistemological, ethical and other problems of classical philosophy are considered from a cyberphilosophical position.


Author(s):  
Karin Nisenbaum

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argued that human reason is inherently conflicted, because it demands a form of unconditioned knowledge that transcends its capacity; his solution to this conflict of reason relies on the idea that reason’s quest for the unconditioned can only be realized practically. This book proposes to view the conflict of reason, and Kant’s solution to this conflict, as the central problem shaping the contours of post-Kantian German Idealism. I contend that the rise and fall of German Idealism is to be told as a story about the different interpretations, appropriations, and radicalization of Kant’s prioritizing of the practical. The first part of the book explains why Kant’s critics and followers came to understand the aim of Kant’s critical philosophy in light of the conflict of reason. I argue that F. H. Jacobi and Salomon Maimon set the stage for the reception of Kant’s critical philosophy by conceiving its aim in terms of meeting reason’s demand for unconditioned knowledge, and by understanding the conflict of reason as a conflict between thinking and acting, or knowing and willing. The manner in which the post-Kantian German Idealists radicalized Kant’s prioritizing of the practical is the central topic of the second part of the book, which focuses on works by J. G. Fichte and F. W. J. Schelling. The third part of the book clarifies why, in order to solve the conflict of reason, Schelling and Rosenzweig developed the view that human experience is grounded in three irreducible elements—God, the natural world, and human beings—which relate in three temporal dimensions: Creation, Revelation, and Redemption.


2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 436-456
Author(s):  
Ilya Dvorkin

Abstact. Although it is generally known that M.M. Bakhtin viewed himself as primarily a philosopher and not a philologist, the overwhelming majority of studies of his work belong to literary criticism. The purpose of this article, relying on the oral testimony of Bakhtin himself and his philosophical texts written in the Nevel-Vitebsk period (1919-1924), is to restore the origin of his philosophical sources and the content of his philosophical ideas of this period. The main idea is the concept of moral philosophy as a philosophical system, whose main subject is participative thinking and an answerable act as an event of being. One of the most important sources of these ideas was probably the philosophy of Neo-Kantianism represented by the teachings of H. Cohen. The article provides four examples of Bakhtin's continuity in relation to the Marburg philosopher - the idea of an answerable act concerning another person as the source of a human's self-consciousness and personal integrity, the idea of a correlative relationship between a person and his neighbor as an expression of a caring participatory being, the idea of distinguishing a moral attitude from an ethical-legal one and the idea of the philosophical system, whose subject is the process of interpersonal relations. In this case, the system consists not only in the integrity of the object but also in its openness. Revealing the continuity of Bakhtin's philosophical ideas regarding Cohen leads to a better understanding of these ideas and Bakhtin's originality of their development. It is also fruitful to compare the perception of Cohen's ideas by Bakhtin and their reception by another philosopher of dialogue, F. Rosenzweig.


Author(s):  
Svitlana Blashchuk ◽  

The history of the law in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has always attracted the attention of researchers. The productive period in its study was the activity of the Commission for the Study of the History of Western-Ruthenian and Ukrainian Law of All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (hereafter AUAS). The theoretical achievements of the commission are significant. Nowadays some of its members’ works have been republished with modern commentaries, and separate studies have been devoted to them. But there are such members whose works do not have any historiographical researches despite their great scientific achievements. One of them is the historian Stefan (Stepan) Hnatovych Borysenok (May 17, 1891 – November 14, 1937). Borysenok was a talented and extraordinary researcher. This article presents his biographical data as well as the theoretical achievements of the scientist are analyzed. The scientific achievements of the researcher in the field of law history are not very large. They are about 10 works (thorough scientific articles) and several reviews. They were significant for that time. However a few decades later after writing of these articles modern researchers point to a significant number of inaccuracies and errors in his works. S. Borysenok’s works were highly appreciated by his contemporaries and scientific mentors M. Vasylenko and O. Malynovsky. First of all they were impressed by the fact that he always tried to turn to primary sources and was critical to the works of his predecessors. His works show an excellent knowledge of the historiography of a particular research problem. In addition S. Borysenok being a lawyer by education was able to analyze in more details the certain problems that were not always clear to historians. The issues related to the First Lithuanian Statute and the history of the Bar in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had been researched by S. Borysenok since the middle of 1920s. In particular the main subject of his research in Moscow archives was "History of the Bar in Ukraine in the 16th–18th Centuries. The special articles of the researcher are interesting and original. Among them are such articles as "Formation of a Professional Bar in the Lithuanian-Ruthenian State", "Lawyer's Fee in the Lithuanian Principality in the 16th–17th Centuries" (The latter was published in the 7th issue of the "Proceedings of the Commission for the Study of the History of Western-Ruthenian and Ukrainian Law". But that issue was destroyed). One of the greatest work by S. Borysenok concerns the history of the Bar formation in the first half of the 16th century. Also in the late 1920's the researcher had been preparing for publication a thorough work with focus on the Lithuanian Statute (history of drafting the code, sources, lists). Correspondence with Lithuanian researcher A. Janulaitis (the ancestor of the Lithuanian Statutes historiography) indicates that the manuscript of this work (or a significant part of it) probably existed. At the same time the facts of cooperation with Lithuanian historians are recorded and they give us the opportunity to hope that the lost achievements of the researcher can still be found and introduced into scientific circulation. And we are convinced that they will be the impetus for the new scientific research and will cause a significant number of scientific discussions. In the early 1930's S. Borysenok was an employee at the library. He actively worked at the acquisition of the library fund with foreign professional publications. He tried to establish and systematize international exchange. On September 23, 1937 S. Borysenok was arrested on trumped up charges of alleged involvement in an "anti-Soviet nationalist organization". On October 25 of the same year he was sentenced to death via shooting (executed on November, 14).


Author(s):  
Cedric J. Robinson

In this chapter, Robinson explores the German intellectuals who form the basis of Marxism. He links the history of German pietism and the Church with the development of Kantian materialism, which advocated for a radical reformulation of the German social order. Robinson then demonstrates how Kantian German idealism set in motion in German thought a series of determinations essential for Marx’s philosophy. While Marx is applauded for positing a revolutionary theory from the less radical ideas of Hegel, Robinson instead suggests that Hegel in fact contributed far more directly to Marxism than Marx admitted. Indeed, Robinson demonstrates how Hegel’s conception of a universal class (to be Marx’s proletariat), secularization of history (making history happen), and privileging of Western civilization as the only society based on Reason (the secularization of social change) all made their way into Marxism, notwithstanding Marx’s dismissal of Hegel as a mystical idealist. Robinson historicizes Marxism by demonstrating how Kant’s formulation of the German bureaucracy as a class, followed by Hegel’s argument that this class’s consciousness came from its political work, were appropriated by Marx and Engels for their later work.


Author(s):  
Richard Devetak

This chapter revisits the intellectual resources marshalled by critical international theory. It starts with the Frankfurt School and Max Horkheimer’s distinction between two conceptions of theory—critical and traditional. The chapter then turns to extended discussions of German idealism and historical materialism—in particular, Kant, Hegel, and Marx—to outline the normative and dialectical forms of social philosophy inherited by the Frankfurt School. Arising out of Kant’s transcendental philosophy was a form of critique concerned with the epistemic conditions under which the reasoning subject attains a pure intelligence detached from experience. This provided the context in which Hegel and Marx introduced their dialectical social theories. The chapter’s final section revisits the Kantian Enlightenment, which has exerted such an important influence over critical international theory. Running through the chapter is the transformative role critical philosophy plays in restoring freedom and reason to the world.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document