Maja Soboleva

The research is focused on the analysis of Paul Natorp’s work Plato’s Doctrine of Ideas. The paper consists of three sections: 1) a definition of Platonic idea; 2) an analysis of the dialogue Parmenides ; and 3) a commentary on Natorp’s interpretation of Parmenides. The first section discusses Natorp’s transcendental method, which he uses as a critical approach to philosophical problems. The application of this method to the history of philosophy is examined, and it is shown that, thanks to Natorp, transcendentalism finds its history beginning with Plato and leading through Descartes and Kant to Cohen and the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism. According to this method, the core of Plato’s doctrine is idealism. Natorp’s definition of the Platonic idea is examined. Parmenides dialogue, in which Plato attempts to formulate his concept of the idea. The analysis focuses on the problem of the scope of ideas, the interaction between ideas and things, and the relationship between empirical and pure ideas. It traces some of Natorp’s steps in defending his thesis that ideas are methods of apprehending the object of knowledge. The third section questions the adequacy of Natorp’s proposed epistemological treatment of Plato’s concept of idea. A counterargument to each of Natorp’s main arguments is presented in turn. Finally, with reference to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, an alternative interpretation of the discussion between Socrates and Parmenides in the dialogue is given. Its essence, in contrast to Natorp’s affirmative interpretation, which presents Parmenides’ deductions as a development of Plato’s theory, is summed up in the fact that this dialogue represents Plato’s criticism of Parmenides’ approach of taking the ultimate pure concepts as essences and then, on this basis, developing his doctrine of being based, as it were, on the internal logic of these essences themselves. The paper concludes with a discussion of Natorp’s historical-philosophical method, which predetermined his interpretation of Plato’s concept of idea.

Die Frage nach dem Wesen des Denkens gehört nicht nur zum Bestand der klassischen philosophischen Fragestellungen, sondern stellt auch ein wiederkehrendes Thema in aktuellen Diskussionen dar. Dieses Überblickswerk versammelt differenzierte Darstellungen des Denkens aus einer systematisch-historischen Perspektive. Die Beiträge untersuchen die Verhältnisse von Denken und Sprechen, Denken und Handeln, Denken und Wahrnehmen, Denken und Fühlen und beleuchten so die zentralen Aspekte des Begriffs »Denken« in vielfältiger Weise.

Ernst Machs Philosophie genoss außerordentliche Popularität in Russland anfangs des 20. Jahrhunderts. Seine Anhänger sind vor allem dank Lenins Kritik in seinem Buch „Materialismus und Empiriokritizismus“, in dem er sie als „Machisten“ bezeichnete, weltweit berühmt berüchtigt geworden. Allerdings wurden Lenins Vorwürfe des Idealismus sowohl von Mach selbst als auch von seinen russischen Nachfolgern als unbegründet zurückgewiesen. Tatsächlich hat der am Bekanntesten von ihnen, als Lenins „Rivale“, Aleksander Bogdanov, seine eigene Erkenntnistheorie entwickelt, die er „Empiriomonismus“ nannte. Mit dieser suchte er einen naturwissenschaftlich fundierten erkenntnistheoretischen Orientierungsrahmen für den sozialen und politischen Marxismus zu erarbeiten und hat dafür eine „sozial-genetische“ Auslegung Machs Lehre vorgeschlagen. Die systematischen Bezüge zwischen Bogdanovs und Machs Theorien rücken ins Zentrum der Analyse. Es wird gezeigt, wie Bogdanov inspiriert vom Machs „physikalisch-psychologischen Monadologie“ diese zu einer Art sozialen Epistemologie mit dem Begriff „sozial-organisierte Erfahrung“ als ihren Kern transformiert.

The article examines the concept of the ‘Russian idea’ and its transformation into a conservative political ideology for the establishing of the so-called ‘Russian world’ in contemporary Russia. The analysis focuses on three levels of conceptual development of this idea: at the level of political technologies—a state level, at the level of university philosophy, and at the level of militarized so-called Z-philosophy. At the state level, the author argues, this idea represents a specific set of values aimed at creating a state identity of Russians and emphasizing their exclusive position in the modern world. At the level of university philosophy, it turns out to be an ontological concept used to demonstrate the necessary teleological character of the Russian idea. The Russian idea of Z-philosophers appears as a purely ideological construct serving the political establishment and justifying the war against Ukraine. In this connection some ideas of Aleksandr Dugin concerning the concept of the Russian idea are discussed.

The study offers an overview of philosophical currents formed under the influence of Kant’s critical philosophy. Such directions of Kantianism as German Idealism represented by F. Jacobi, Neo-Kantianism represented by E. Cassirer and A. Riehl, ontological interpretation of Kant’s theory by M. Heidegger and analytical tradition of Neo-Kantianism represented by J. McDowell are considered in detail. These examples demonstrate different approaches to understanding Kant which have been developed throughout history. Among them, one can identify the epistemological approach that views Kant’s theoretical philosophy as a theory of knowledge and, above all, as a theory of experience. It can be contrasted with various metaphysical approaches developed against the background of an idealistic reading of the Critique of Pure Reason. From time to time, realistic interpretations of Kant’s theory of experience that try to avoid ontological dualism concerning the relation between “appearance” and “thing in itself” have arisen, which seem adequate to its spirit and letter. Within the analytic Kantian paradigm, a whole spectrum of interpretations of Kant’s concept of experience has emerged, for which the stumbling blocks are, above all, Kant’s theory on the cognitive faculties - sensibility and understanding, the deduction of categories and the transcendental unity of apperception. In the first case, the main issue is the question of the cooperation of cognitive faculties in the process of experience formation, which still causes difficulties for researchers; in the second case, the question of the role of non-discursive and discursive concepts in this process; in the third case, the question of the relationship of apperception, consciousness and self-consciousness and their functions in cognition. The study shows that all these questions still await their final resolution. The study is in fact an introduction to the block devoted to the reception of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason in connection with the approaching anniversary of the philosopher.

Metaphysics, understood as the first philosophy, that is, the science of the ultimate foundations and principles of being, has long been declared an anachronism in the postmodern period.1 The pluralistic character of being, the heterogeneity of types of philosophical discourse and their mutual irreducibility, the spatiotemporal discreteness of various ontologies and epistemologies, the understanding of tradition as a given that needs to be overcome rather than continued—all these indicators point to the paradigm of new thinking within which flows the mainstream of twentieth-century philosophical thought. Outside this stream stands the figure of K.-O. Apel, who is devoted to the idea of a single philosophy and continues to uphold it in the face of criticism from all sides. Apel's quixotic unwillingness to relinquish his stance is demonstrated by his new book, published in 1998, in which he continues to develop his ideas, which constitute a complete conception of transcendental pragmatism.2 Inasmuch as a theory that had apparently been relegated to books on the history of philosophy has become topical again, my task is to return to its sources and to reconstruct3 and analyze its basic propositions.

The article focuses on a phenomenological study of political action. The analysis includes three directions: the concept of action, paradigms that determine political actions, and the purpose of action. In the analysis of action, I first use the distinction between the concepts of “act” and “operate.” “To act” means a conscious, deliberate, rational action. In contrast, “operate” means to behave unconsciously, mechanically or automatically, passively or instinctively. The political implications of the distinction between an “acting” and “operating” person can be formulated in the terms “freedom of action” and “coercion to operate,” and the latter can be used as a criterion for determining the type of social system, as well as for evaluating the correlated psychological state of society. As the next step, I analyse the action as a process and a result. I argue that in the social sphere, action appears as the sum of these moments, and the social sphere is a derivate of action. The last aspect of the analysis of action is responsibility. I claim that responsibility can be interpreted as the awareness and recognition by the individual of her role in history. The second part of the work is the study of paradigms and rules of political action in so-called open and closed societies. I claim that political action within the framework of an open society is limited only by legislation. In a closed society, political action is practically impossible: citizens do not act, but “operate” since there are no conditions for actions. After that, I analyse the role of social myths as a factor affecting people’s political activities. In the last part, I analyse the ultimate goal of political action. Traditionally, political philosophy assumes that the goals of politics are exhausted by the problems of relationship between the state and the individual. However, based on the theory of Hannah Arendt, it is possible to formulate the task of political action as the achievement of humanism in a human being, taken not in her relation to the state but in relation to herself. I argue that the minimal political action that can be qualified as humanism consists of the ability and courage to use one’s own mind.

The purpose of my essay is to contribute to dispelling the puzzle of our self-knowledge by analyzing the transcendental and empiricist approaches of Kant and John Perry. The guiding argument is to examine whether a position advocating the empirical consciousness we have of our mental states may explain self-knowledge and personal identity sufficiently or whether it should amount to Kantian standards set by his transcendental theory of knowledge. My hypothesis includes three aspects. First, I argue that our whole experience originates from the same transcendental structure of the human mind. From this, it follows that systematic knowledge is impossible for a “selfless” subject. Second, I differentiate between transcendental self-consciousness and empirical self-knowledge and apply these methodological tools to analyze knowledge from the first-person perspective. Third, I reconstruct the Kantian notion of personal identity and demonstrate that the epistemological problem of personal identity can only be sound when formulated as a transcendental-logical problem.

The subject of the work's analysis is the phrase Time, forward!. It seems that, on the one hand, this statement can be given a sociological interpretation. In this case, its content is the idea of acceleration and purposefulness of the big, collective time, which dominates the individual and determines his life. On the other hand, referring to Hegel, one can identify the project of Enlightenment behind this phrase. It involves the movement of the spirit from a state of alienation from itself in the object's idea to itself through the achievement of autonomy in the belief of concepts tested by its reflection alone. The socially significant meaning of such a speculative thinking project is to get rid of the despotism of dominant opinions on the path of critical, dialectical, and speculative thinking.

The article analyzes the metaphor “Copernican revolution,” used by Kant to highlight the core idea of his philosophy. The author argues that Kant uses the analogies with mathematics and natural science for establishing criteria of scientific character of knowledge. These criteria include the hypothetic-deductive or a priorimethod of thinking, which determines the apodictic, i.e. necessary and objective, character of the basic laws of nature, as well as the verification of laws a priorithrough experiments.The author focuses on Kant’s idea of the possibility of scientific metaphysics based on these criteria. She claims that the structure of scientific metaphysics and the epistemological status of its statements depend on what kind of objects it deals with: with phenomena given to us by sensuality, with only conceivable “things in themselves” or with supersensitive “objects of an idea.” In the last part, the author interprets the meaning of the metaphor “Copernican turn” as the upgrading of logic, the idea of “transcendental idealism” and discusses the possibility of using the metaphor “Ptolemaic system” to characterize the practical philosophy of Kant.

Im Zentrum der Abhandlung steht die dialogische Bedeutungstheorie Bachtins. Es wird gezeigt, wie die grundlegenden Begriffe der Phänomenologie durch den dialogischen und sprechhandlungstheoretischen Ansatz modifiziert wurden. Folgende Aspekte werden herausgearbeitet: Konstitution des Gegenstandes im Dialog, doppelte Intentionalität des sprachlichen Bewusstseins, Phänomenologie der Relation von Frage und Antwort, produktive Hermeneutik der Sinnkonstruktion. Abschließend wird auf die Bachtinsche Neuformulierung des Subjekts auf dialogischer Grundlage eingegangen

The concept of “Heimat” has recently become a subject of lively debate in society and science. In the course of this debate it has become clear that this concept has been endowed with very different, even controversial meanings, the consequences being methodological and political confusion on the issue. The aim of this paper is to clarify the concept using linguistic-hermeneutic analysis. Two terms borrowed from Georg Misch, “discursive” and “evocative” language, allow for the differentiation of two forms of discourse on “Heimat”. In the first case, the word “Heimat” is used as a description and appears to be an objective reality with distinct temporal and spatial qualities. This understanding dominates recent social discourse on the topic. In the second case, “Heimat” has a function of pure meaning and serves as a myth. The hermeneutics of the myth of “Heimat” and its role in human life is the primary focus of this paper.