|SergKatrechko||Дата: Вторник, 02.07.2013, 10:45 | Сообщение # 1|
|Это общая ветвь неокантианства, в рамках которой (позже) были выделены следующие подветви: |
7.3.1. - Марбургская школа;
7.3.2. - Баденская школа;
7.3.3. - русское неокантианство
Сообщение отредактировал SergKatrechko - Воскресенье, 07.12.2014, 20:41
|SergKatrechko||Дата: Суббота, 15.11.2014, 19:26 | Сообщение # 2|
|Back to Neo-Kantians: = ON GOING BACK TO KANT = |
The Philosophical Forum > Vol 39 Issue 2
The Philosophical Forum (журнал)
Summer 2008 Volume 39, Issue 2
См. первую статью из сборника в приложении: ANDREW CHIGNELL INTRODUCTION: ON GOING BACK TO KANT
- неплохой обзор неокантианства, включая (даже) и русских неокантианцев (Вееденский, Лапшин)
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF MAJOR NEO-KANTIANS
Eduard Zeller (1814–1908)
Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894)
Kuno Fischer (1824–1907)
Friedrich Lange (1828–1875)
Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911)
Otto Liebmann (1840–1912)
Hermann Cohen (1842–1918)
Alois Riehl (1844–1924)
Johannes Volkelt (1848–1930)
Wilhelm Windelband (1848–1915)
Benno Erdmann (1851–1921)
Hans Vaihinger (1852–1933)
Paul Natorp (1854–1924)
Karl Vorländer (1860–1928)
Heinrich Rickert (1863–1936)
Ernst Troeltsch (1865–1923)
Jonas Cohn (1869–1947)
Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945)
Emil Lask (1875–1915)
Richard Hönigswald (1875–1947)
Bruno Bauch (1877–1942)
Nicolai Hartmann (1882–1950)
+ (обзор номера) http://muse.jhu.edu/login?a....ser.pdf
Neo-Kantianism in Contemporary Philosophy (review)
From: Journal of the History of Philosophy Volume 50, Number 1, January 2012
pp. 145-146 | 10.1353/hph.2012.0020
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:This collection of essays testifies to the growing interest in neo-Kantianism in the Anglophone world. The editors boast that “it is the first of its kind published in English,” though they have been beat to the post by an issue of the The Philosophical Forum (Vol. XXXIX, no. 2, Summer 2008), Back to Kant: Neo-Kantianism and its Relevance Today, edited by Andrew Chignell, Terence Irwin, and Thomas Teufel. Still, claims to priority are of small moment where quality is concerned, and the many valuable essays in this volume more than compensate for second place. In their introductory essay, Makkreel and Luft make a convincing case for the continuing relevance of neo-Kantianism in contemporary philosophy. Basically, nearly every philosophical movement of the twentieth century—phenomenology, existentialism, hermeneutics, positivism, Frankfurt school—was influenced by, or grew out of a reaction to, neo-Kantianism, so that we cannot understand and assess these movements unless we have a handle on neo-Kantianism itself. The editors missed a trick, however, when they failed to mention the concept of normativity, which plays such a big role in contemporary philosophy, and whose roots lie in neo-Kantianism.
Despite the high quality of many of its essays, this volume suffers from a lack of balance and perspective. Contemporary scholars on neo-Kantianism tend to focus on the Marburg school, especially the work of Cohen, Cassirer, and Natorp. This volume reflects this bias: almost all the articles are centered on these figures. Only two essays focus on the Southwestern or Baden school: one on Emil Lask by Steven Crowell, another on Dilthey and the neo-Kantians by Makkreel. The latter article, however, is more a defense of Dilthey than a study of the neo-Kantians. The important contributions of the Southwestern school to value-theory, and the logic of history and the social sciences, receive scant treatment.
The lack of balance is especially evident in the case of the neo-Friesian school, which is never mentioned. This school of neo-Kantianism prospered in Göttingen in the early twentieth century under the leadership of Leonard Nelson. Its members—the theologian Rudolf Otto (1869–1937), the psychiatrist Arthur Kronfeld (1886–1941), the Nobel Prize winner Otto Meyerhoff (1884–1951), and the mathematician Gerhard Hessenberg (1874–1925)—were eminent in their own right and advocated noble social and political causes. Their circle is of great cultural interest, and it deserves a place in history no less than the Marburg and Southwestern schools. Following Fries, Nelson developed an anthropological interpretation of Kant competing with the logicist interpretation of the Marburg and Southwestern schools. Nowadays Heidegger is given credit for the anthropological interpretation, though its origins ultimately go back to Fries.
The bias in perspective becomes explicit in the essay by Manfred Kühn, “Interpreting Kant Correctly: On the Kant of the Neo-Kantians.” Kühn attempts to find the common interpretation of Kant in the Marburg and Southwestern schools, and locates it in the Platonized version of Kant of the later Cohen, an interpretation that eliminates sensibility and stresses the autonomy of pure thought. Kühn’s generalization is problematic for three reasons: (1) It ignores the anthropological interpretation of the Friesian school; (2) it scarcely works for the Southwestern school, which never eliminated Kant’s sensibility (Kühn bases his interpretation on a single later essay by Rickert, as if it held for all his earlier work and for Windelband and Lask); and (3) it applies only to the later Cohen, who took the plunge toward an objective idealist interpretation only in his 1896 Einleitung mit kritischen Nachtrag zur neunten Auflage der Geschichte des Materialismus. Although there are indeed Platonic tendencies to Cohen’s thinking even in the late 1860s, they do not erase the Kantian dualism between understanding and sensibility, which remains well in place even in the second edition of Kant’s Theorie der Erfahrung (1885). On the whole, Kühn’s interpretation is very anachronistic, reading the early and middle Cohen in the light of the later Cohen, especially his 1902 Logik der reinen Erkenntnis. In this last respect, Kühn’s error is representative of other authors in this volume, who write as if...
Сообщение отредактировал SergKatrechko - Воскресенье, 30.11.2014, 13:48
|SergKatrechko||Дата: Воскресенье, 30.11.2014, 14:31 | Сообщение # 3|
|См. продолжение о русском неокантианстве здесь: http://transcendental.ucoz.ru/forum/21-121-6065-16-1415008288
|SergKatrechko||Дата: Пятница, 22.05.2015, 17:03 | Сообщение # 4|
The latter half of the nineteenth and the early part of the twentieth century witnessed a remarkable resurgence of interest in Kant’s philosophy in Continental Europe, the effects of which are still being felt today. The Neo-Kantian Reader is the first anthology to collect the most important primary sources in Neo-Kantian philosophy, with many being published here in English for the first time. It includes extracts on a rich and diverse number of subjects, including logic, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, and transcendental idealism.
Sebastian Luft, together with other scholars, provides clear introductions to each of the following sections (to the authors as well as to each text), placing them in historical and philosophical context:
the beginnings of Neo-Kantianism: including the work of Hermann von Helmholtz, Otto Liebman, Friedrich Lange, and Hermann Lotze
the Marburg School: including Hermann Cohen, Paul Natorp, and Ernst Cassirer
the Southwest School: including Wilhelm Windelband, Heinrich Rickert, Emil Lask, and Hans Vaihinger
responses and critiques: including Moritz Schlick, Edmund Husserl; Rudolf Carnap, and the 'Davos dispute' between Martin Heidegger and Ernst Cassirer.
The Neo-Kantian Reader is essential reading for all students of Kant, nineteenth and twentieth century philosophy, history and philosophy of science, and phenomenology, as well as to those studying important philosophical movements such as logical positivism and analytic philosophy and its history.