This paper deals with the so-called “external history” of the origin of Critique of the Power of Judgment that is based primarily on the philosopher’s correspondence in the period between May 1787 and October 1789. Two letters from Kant to Reinhold as well as modifications in the interpretation of the term “aesthetics” in the first Critique are crucial for the evolution of the project Critique of Taste in the book Critique of the Power of Judgment. Special attention was paid to (...) the debate between some modern scholars and editors about the importance of the reports on ‘Grundlegung’ / ‘Grundlage’ of Critique of Taste in the initial phase of work on the text. However, the available evidence does not allow us to reconstruct the “internal history” of the development of Kant’s thought during the period of writing the third Critique. Some modern scholars try to establish other objective criteria for this kind of reconstruction by identification in the text of Critique direct or hidden hints or citations to the literature of the 18th century. The author considers that the use of so-called “reflections” from the philosopher’s manuscript heritage, which can be seen as the formation and development of certain concepts of Kant’s theory, can be fruitful. The well-known problem of dating the reflections can be partially solved if terminus a quo will be not the published works, but Kant’s lectures on anthropology and logic taught at that time. (shrink)

The paper deals with reconstitution of tradition, whose representatives at any given time in their own way interpret the doctrine of time in Aristotle’s «Physics» in the phenomenological resp. hermeneutic perspective. It focuses on the relation of time and change, the problems of identity and difference of «now», temporal and timeless meaning of próteron – hýsteron, the relationship of time and soul, the sense of «being-in-time» thesis. In this tradition the need for «a systematic reconstruction» of the Stagirite’s arguments and (...) examination of coherence of certain propositions is frequently emphasized, This is motivated, on the one hand, by the development of temporal thematic within phenomenology itself, and, on the other hand, by the dissociation from only historical or philological reading of this classical text. (shrink)

The study of Kant’s anthropology, proposed by Viktor Kozlovskyi in its original and thorough monograph, is an entirely new interpretation of Kant’s answer to the fundamental question “What is man?”. On the basis of the philosopher’s heritage and taking into account the large body of research lit-erature, Kozlovskyi reconstructs five conceptual “human models” in Kant’s anthropological discourse. However, this study contains a number of problematic statements and conclusions. I argue first, that there is some inconsistency between Kant’s understanding of the (...) concept of “anthropology” and Ko-zlovskyi’s explanation. Second, the model of man as intelligible being, made explicit through the con-cepts of “freedom” and “spontaneity”, is a justified construction within the limits of criticism, but not quite correct with regard to the place and function of “anthropology” in it. Third, we can see a disso-nance between Kozlovskyi’s explanation of the constellations as “chronotopes-events” and interpreta-tion of this concept by Dieter Henrich’s school, where the methodology of “research constellations” was used to elucidate the early phase of German idealism. However, this leads to the cardinal question of how far this methodology is applicable for the analysis of Kant’s philosophy. (shrink)

The paper contains the first part of the commentary to the Ukrainian translation of D. Vico’s "The New Science", in particular, describes the history of creation and publication of this oeuvre and its main features.

Стаття має на меті розкрити вузлові пункти розвитку німецької традиції історіографії філософії після 90-х рр. XVIII ст. Вихідною точкою стала так звана «суперечка про ме-тод» історіографії, яка вибухнула в останнє десятиліття XVIII ст. не без впливу Кантової «критичної філософії». Її учасники (Райнгольд, Фюлеборн, Ґьос, Ґроман, Тенеман та інші) висували відмінні тези, але сходилися на тому, що саме Кантова філософія дозволяє ство-рити «філософувальну історію філософії». Утворився тип історіографії, базований на кри-терії «прогресу філософії» і Кантова позиція розглядалася як масштаб для будь-якої істо-ріографії. (...) Згодом сформувалися інші типи історіографії, які або дотримувалися протиле-жного критерію «регресу» чи «декадансу», або намагалися поєднати обидва ці критерії (Геґель). У другій половині XIX ст. стає поширеною «історія проблем» як принцип дос-лідження і викладу історії філософії, її головними репрезентантами стали В. Віндельбанд, Н. Гартман, Г. Гаймзьот. Натомість у другій половині XX ст. домінантним типом історі-ографії є «історія понять», яка знаходить мовно-філософське обґрунтування у філософсь-кій герменевтиці Ґадамера. В останні десятиліття німецька традиція історіографії збага-тилася проєктом «історичної філософії» К. Флаша і програмою «дослідження констеля-цій» Д. Генріха. В обох цих проєктах помітне тяжіння до мікроісторії, вихід за межі тек-стів «класиків», відкриття досі невідомих постатей і джерел, що істотно розширюють усталену практику історіографії філософії. (shrink)

The paper examines J. Hintikka’s thesis that Euclid’s procedure of geometrical proof had been «paradigm» or «model» for Kant’s notion of the mathematical method. The detailed re-construction of the researcher’s arguments allows to reveal Hintikka’s main thesis, namely, that écthesis as a structural element of Euclidean proposition allows explanation of Kant’s notion of construction. However, in-depth analysis of Euclidean proof structure, compared also with Proclus’ and Th. Heath’s comments, shows that terminologically and functionally this element does not perform its supposed (...) role of construction and is not fundamental to the struc-ture of proposition. Also Hintikka’s thesis that intuition is just a representation of the individu-al has weak explanatory potential because Kant’s explication of construction is always correla-tive with intuition a priori, that is, with imagination of a geometric concept in space as a form of pure intuition. In conclusion, the author mentions the three sources of Hintikka’s interpreta-tion that could be links between Kant and ancient origins of the mathematical method: notion of construction by Ch. A. Hausen, translation of the «Elements» by J. F. Lorenz and J. Ch. Schwab’s considerations concerning the structure of geometric proof. (shrink)