Nina Dmitrieva

Nikolai Alekseev’s article was written whilst in exile and belongs to the Eurasian period of his philosophical work. It draws on ideas developed in articles from 1926 and 1927, written for the journal “Put’ [The Way]: A Journal of Russian Religious Thought”. Based on the research of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Russian historians, Alekseev demonstrates how the Russian people’s views on state power and the figure of the ruler took shape. From his perspective, these views uniquely combine, on one hand, attachment to an absolutist monarchical form of government, and, on the other, a preference for an anarchic principle of social organisation.

The later self-assessment of Nikolai N. Alekseev concerning his independence from the philosophical trends of his time led researchers to believe that the philosophical foundations of his worldview were remote from the Neo-Kantian principles of philosophy. And yet, an attentive reading of his philosophical and public writings, as well as the study of archive materials and the origins of his views, warrant the conclusion that he was among the Russian Neo-Kantians, many of whom would subsequently follow their own intellectual paths while, however, preserving some significant Neo-Kantian references. Alekseev’s focus on the question of the people’s political ideal was conditioned by his involvement in the movement of Eurasianism during the 1920s and 1930s; but there are signs that he was edging toward this theme already during the period of the two 1917 Russian revolutions and the Civil War. Analysing the political situation of the time, Alekseev drew attention to the fact that the anarchic inclinations of the people concerning the running of public life, as well as the people’s views on the social “truth-justice”, were linked to the idea of autocratic monarchy, an idea which had been dominant for much of Russian history and was apparent even in cases where the people revolted. In his reflections on the Russian people, Alekseev links the Neo-Kantian doctrine of values with the principles of “folk psychology” (Völkerpsychologie) which influenced intellectual life at least until the Second World War. In conclusion, I demonstrate the connection between Alekseev’s German-language article “The Origin of the Russian People’s Political Ideals” (1931) — Russian and English translations of which are included in this issue of the “Kantian Journal” — and the 1917—1919 texts reworked in 1927 for the journal “Put’”.

Studies of the reception of Kant's enlightenment concept in Russia have so far been limited to one work by Victor Kaplun on Alexander Radishchev. Later figures in Russian intellectual history have not attracted the attention of researchers, firstly because it is believed that Russian thinkers of the 19th century were influenced by other, non-Enlightenment philosophical movements, and secondly, because there is no consensus on whether the 19th century in Russia can be considered part of the history of the Russian Enlightenment project. In the contemporary historico-philosophical narrative, Alexander Herzen is presented primarily as an anti-Kantian who followed an intellectual path from Voltaire, Rousseau and Schiller through Schelling, Saint-Simonism and Fichte to Hegel and Feuerbach. To demonstrate the inconsistency of this established stereotype, I analyse the sources from which Herzen could have learned about Kant's philosophy, the place that Kant's concept of enlightenment occupied in Herzen's reflections, and which of Kant's conceptions he used to construct his own project.

This review covers the content of reports and discussions at the 12th Kant Readings Conference held in April 2019 and organised by the research unit of the Academia Kantiana of the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad. Traditionally, Kant Readings have been thematically universal, embracing all the areas of Kant’s legacy. This time the conference focused on practical philosophy, i.e. the historical grounds and modern significance of Kant’s ethical thought as compared to other philosophical projects of the Enlightenment era. Due attention was paid to the reception of the ethics of Kant and the Enlightenment by philosophers in Russia and the West. Breakout groups discussed aspects of interconnection between the Enlightenment ethics and esthetics as well as interdisciplinary problems at the interface of philosophy of politics and philosophy of education, including ways to counter various forms of intellectual enslavement. The possibilities of applying Kant’s ethical principles were discussed in close connection with the interpretation of the latest trends in the development of science and technology. It was noted that the intellectual and social communication environment of today has much in common with that of the Enlightenment era, which makes the philosophical strategy proposed during that era amenable to adaptation and development.

The 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.

This review covers the content of reports and discussions at the 12th Kant Readings Conference held in April 2019 and organised by the research unit of the Academia Kantiana of the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, Kaliningrad. Traditionally, Kant Readings have been thematically universal, embracing all the areas of Kant’s legacy. This time the conference focused on practical philosophy, i.e. the historical grounds and modern significance of Kant’s ethical thought as compared to other philosophical projects of the Enlightenment era. Due attention was paid to the reception of the ethics of Kant and the Enlightenment by philosophers in Russia and the West. Breakout groups discussed aspects of interconnection between the Enlightenment ethics and esthetics as well as interdisciplinary problems at the interface of philosophy of politics and philosophy of education, including ways to counter various forms of intellectual enslavement. The possibilities of applying Kant’s ethical principles were discussed in close connection with the interpretation of the latest trends in the development of science and technology. It was noted that the intellectual and social communication environment of today has much in common with that of the Enlightenment era, which makes the philosophical strategy proposed during that era amenable to adaptation and development.

The paper focuses on the problem of anthropodicy in the philosophical system of Hermann Cohen and its interpretation by Jacob Gordin (1896—1947). Gordin was one of the last followers of Cohen in Russia. He developes his interpretation in the lecture “Anthropodicy”, which was given in the Philosophical Circle at the Petrograd University in December 1921. For the study of the problem of anthropodicy he was apparently inspired by the discussions at the Free Philosophical Association in 1919—1921. Gordin places Cohen’s concept of man in the wide intellectual context given by the ideas of the Russian religious philosophy, German classical philosophy, Neo-Kantianism, and the West European and Jewish mysticism (cabbala). Gordin compares Cohen’s anthropodicy with Vladimir Soloviev’s one and shows that there is a similarity in their approaches. Both philosophers point out that the justification of man is possible only in form of the justification of humanity and not as for Berdyaiev in form of the justification of personality. But Gordin uses Soloviev’s concept of all-unity and Berdyaiev’s concept of creativity in order to “improve” Cohen’s conception and to reveal the contribution of a person to the justification of humanity. Stronger as Cohen Gordin connects the programm of anthropodicy with individuality and underlines the participation of the individual in creating culture.

The paper focuses on the problem of anthropodicy in the philosophical system of Hermann Cohen and its interpretation by Jacob Gordin (1896—1947). Gordin was one of the last followers of Cohen in Russia. He developes his interpretation in the lecture “Anthropodicy”, which was given in the Philosophical Circle at the Petrograd University in December 1921. For the study of the problem of anthropodicy he was apparently inspired by the discussions at the Free Philosophical Association in 1919—1921. Gordin places Cohen’s concept of man in the wide intellectual context given by the ideas of the Russian religious philosophy, German classical philosophy, Neo-Kantianism, and the West European and Jewish mysticism (cabbala). Gordin compares Cohen’s anthropodicy with Vladimir Soloviev’s one and shows that there is a similarity in their approaches. Both philosophers point out that the justification of man is possible only in form of the justification of humanity and not as for Berdyaiev in form of the justification of personality. But Gordin uses Soloviev’s concept of all-unity and Berdyaiev’s concept of creativity in order to “improve” Cohen’s conception and to reveal the contribution of a person to the justification of humanity. Stronger as Cohen Gordin connects the programm of anthropodicy with individuality and underlines the participation of the individual in creating culture.

The Kantovsky Sbornik is among the longest-established philosophical periodicals in Russia. Committed to academic excellence in Kant studies, the Kantovsky Sbornik earned a reputation as one of the most authoritative Russian philosophical journals. From 2018, each article will appear simultaneously in Russian and English or German. In addition, the journal adopts the supplementary English title — Kantian Journal. The Journal places special emphasis on contributions concerning the philosophy of Immanuel Kant in all of its aspects and across all philosophical disciplines, the studies of Neo-Kantianism and of Enlightenment philosophy, including historical and current interdisciplinary scientific perspectives.

The article discusses the phenomenon of Russian Neo-Kantianism in the early twentieth century, looks at the main reasons for interest in Neo-Kantianism, and analyzes why German Neo-Kantian centers were so popular among Russian students and scholars at the turn of the twentieth century. The author points to the institutions where Neo-Kantianism took root and introduces the individuals who became the leaders of these institutions. The article gives a detailed overview of the themes and issues that occupied Russian Neo-Kantians before 1917, as well as the development of these issues in the postrevolutionary period both in Soviet Russia and by Russian Neo-Kantians abroad. An emphasis is made on the original ideas and concepts formulated by Russian Neo-Kantians.

The paper focuses on the problem of the “anthropological turn” in Russian Neo- Kantianism. There are three sources of this “anthropological turn”. The first one is the concept of man in German Neo-Kantianism which was developed on the basis of Kant’s ethics. The second one is the influence of Russian culture and history. The third is the state of Russian philosophy at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The Russian Neo-Kantians reflected closely on the doctrine of Leo Tolstoi and on the existence of man in the contemporary historical changes and cataclysms. They conclude the freedom of man as his essence depends on the political state of society and its moral base. There is no genuine existence of man without social politics based on morality and the human ideal.