: The life story of Kant’s student F. A. Hahnrieder provides us with new examples of the application of the categorical imperative. Kant has given his opinion about that. The biography of Hahnrieder suggests that Kant has not always insisted on the uniqueness of the interpretation of the categorical imperative. He has also admitted other, “paradoxical”, “unusual”, but not “fantastic” interpretations. Kant has even respected a radical interpretation of the categorical imperative. On the base of the archive data, numerous mistakes (...) about Hahnrieder were corrected in biographies of Kant and in the Akademie-Ausgabe. (shrink)

In his later work, Metafizicheskie predpolozheniia poznaniia. Opyt preodoleniia Kanta i kantianstva [Metaphysical Presuppositions of Knowledge. An Attempt to Overcome Kant and Kantianism], Evgeny N. Trubetskoy tried to overcome the Kantian tradition in philosophy in order to advance his conception of all-unity and the philosophy of absolute and unconditional consciousness. Despite insisting on the distinction between the “historical Kant” and Neo-Kantianism, in reality Trubetskoy was strongly dependent on the Neo-Kantian interpretation of Kant’s philosophy, which meant that his fight against Kantian (...) philosophy was really fought against a conception of Kant he unconsciously adopted from the Neo-Kantians. Evidence of this can be seen in his interpretation of the theory of knowledge and its tasks, his thesis concerning the antimetaphysical direction of Kantian philosophy, and his insistence on the presence of the transcendental method in Kant’s philosophy. (shrink)

: The life story of Kant’s student F. A. Hahnrieder provides us with new examples of the application of the categorical imperative. Kant has given his opinion about that. The biography of Hahnrieder suggests that Kant has not always insisted on the uniqueness of the interpretation of the categorical imperative. He has also admitted other, “paradoxical”, “unusual”, but not “fantastic” interpretations. Kant has even respected a radical interpretation of the categorical imperative. On the base of the archive data, numerous mistakes (...) about Hahnrieder were corrected in biographies of Kant and in the Akademie-Ausgabe. (shrink)

The sources of Kant’s term Gesinnung and a review of the problems of its translation into English were presented in the first part of this article; the second part examines the novel features that Kant brings to the interpretation of this concept in the critical period. In the Critique of Practical Reason these include the questions of manifestation of Gesinnung in the world, apprehended through the senses, the method of establishing and the culture of truly moral Gesinnung, as well as (...) the problem of the immutability of Gesinnung in the progress towards the good. The new theses that appear in Religion within the Bounds of Bare Reason are Gesinnung as the internal subjective principle of maxims, on virtue as evidence of the presence of Gesinnung, on act as a manifestation of Gesinnung, on the unintelligibility of Gesinnung in its noumenal, suprasensible character, on the innateness of Gesinnung in the sense that it exists not in time, but in the form of its acceptance by free expression of the will, on the singleness of Gesinnung and its indivisibility into periods, on revolution in Gesinnung as distinct from empirical reform, on the creation of the new human being as distinct from the ancient one as a result of the revolution of Gesinnung, on the link between the revolution in Gesinnung and “conversion” or second birth. After discussing the problem of distinguishing the terms Gesinnung and Denkungsart in translation as well as a review of all the existing variants of translating Kant’s concept of Gesinnung into Russian, the author comes to the conclusion that the uniform variant umonastroenie is best suited for Russian translations of Kant’s works. (shrink)