This article is devoted to the Russian Neokantian philosopher, teacher and member of the Kant Society, Moses M. Rubinstein, who attined his doctoral degree under Rickert in 1905 and who was very involved in promoting Kantianism in Russian. He is known for his public defence of Kant in 1914 at the time of the slavophile attacks on Kantian philosophy occasioned by World War I. Rubinstein's essay on “The Logical Foundations of the Hegelian System and the End of History” was published (...) in Kant-Studien in 1906. In his chief work “On the Meaning of Life”, Rubinstein attempted a synthesis of Neokantianism and the philosophy of life. (shrink)

This article is devoted to the Russian Neokantian philosopher, teacher and member of the Kant Society, Moses M. Rubinstein, who attined his doctoral degree under Rickert in 1905 and who was very involved in promoting Kantianism in Russian. He is known for his public defence of Kant in 1914 at the time of the slavophile attacks on Kantian philosophy occasioned by World War I. Rubinstein's essay on “The Logical Foundations of the Hegelian System and the End of History” was published (...) in Kant-Studien in 1906. In his chief work “On the Meaning of Life”, Rubinstein attempted a synthesis of Neokantianism and the philosophy of life. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the "subjective method" and the role of value preferences, as underscored in Russian proto-sociology, developed by the populists in discussions with the "ethical Marxism," on the one hand, and with positivists, on the other. The main issue—how was the apologia of individual in these studies connected to the ideals of social development?— leads to the question, whether such ideals could be based on an inborn moral law or "universal good" in the spirit of empirical-positivist theories. (...) Is the use of ethical categories in scientific knowledge admissible in principle, and if so, to what degree? How should the measure of subjectivity in historical or sociological studies be "regulated," and are there universally binding solutions to these problems? (shrink)

The article is devoted to the "subjective method" and the role of value preferences, as underscored in Russian proto-sociology, developed by the populists in discussions with the "ethical Marxism," on the one hand, and with positivists, on the other. The main issue—how was the apologia of individual in these studies connected to the ideals of social development?— leads to the question, whether such ideals could be based on an inborn moral law or "universal good" in the spirit of empirical-positivist theories. (...) Is the use of ethical categories in scientific knowledge admissible in principle, and if so, to what degree? How should the measure of subjectivity in historical or sociological studies be "regulated," and are there universally binding solutions to these problems? (shrink)