Иммануил Кант и русская метафизическая мысль: особенности интерпретации

В настоящее время существенно возрос интерес научной общественности к антропологической тематике, наблюдается своеобразный «антропологического ренессанса». В статье представлен сравнительный анализ оснований антропологии Канта (трансцендентальной) и отечественной мысли (теолого-метафизической), позволяющий увидеть общее и особенное в развитии философии на Западе и Востоке Европы.

Immanuel Kant and Russian Metaphysical Thought: Features of Interpretation

Today scientific community’s interest to anthropological subjects has essentially increased, and we can see so called ‘anthropological Renaissance’. Problems of human person and its spiritual foundations are urgent from both social point of view, and from the scientific one. As soon as any philosopher addresses to these fundamental issues, he will inevitably have to turn to Kant's philosophical heritage. Kant's thought is deeply rooted in the whole of modern philosophical culture. Therefore, none of the Russian philosopher could escape perception Kant's creativity. Thus, it is especially interesting to carry out the comparative analysis of the foundations of Kant’s anthropology (transcendental) and Russian thought (theo-metaphysical) to see common and especial in development of philosophical anthropology in the West and the East of Europe. My article is a brief sketch of attitudes of Russian religious (theo-metaphysical) philosophy to Kant’s philosophical system. The methodology I use in my research is based an analytical reading of Russian religious-philosophical texts, as well as on the comparative method. Using these approaches I have shown there are three types of attitudes to Kant’s philosophy among Russian thinkers: (i) frank and radical antagonism; (ii) attempt to interpret Kant's creativity for its assimilation into the ‘Russian world outlook’; (iii) the full acceptance and epigonism, which actually was not (including domestic neo-Kantianism), because those who have tried to understand Kant’s philosophy, concerned it mostly creatively. In this article, I focused on more detailed studying views on Kant’s philosophy from such diverse thinkers as Alexander Vvedensky, Andrey Bely, and Vladimir Ern, especially Victor Nesmelov. Thus, Vvedensky, though he remained faithful to the Kantian philosophy, carried out fundamental revision of critical philosophy: he spread the primacy of practical reason not only through the adoption of moral precepts, but also through attachment to morality and faith more ontological weight than it was in Kant. Andrey Bely named Kant ‘a policeman’, ‘Koshchei’ (in Russian folklore this is a bony, emaciated old man, rich and wicked, who knows the secret of eternal life), who produced ‘spiritual heck’, he described the Kant’s philosophy as ‘manometer, capable of displaying a degree of pressure of Ahriman’s forces.’ However, after such eschatological and absolutely uncompromising critique of Kant's critical philosophy, Andrey Bely returned not to Leibniz and Plato, but to Steiner and anthroposophy. Vladimir Ern comes to a paradoxical conclusion that the ideas of the great German humanist, along with other ideas of his national-philosophical fellows, prepared the First World War. Viktor Nesmelov not only justifies the faith as epistemological and worldview necessity. He claims the object of faith as an ontological reality. Faith serves as a specific and unique method of learning transcendental reality. Due to the fact that rational thought is not able to go beyond the limits of things in existence, and to conceive the absolute, cognition of this field is the prerogative of faith. In contrast to Kant, however, Nesmelov argues ontological status of the object of faith, so that in his philosophy, it turns into an objective epistemological method. Although Nesmelov depend on some issues from Kant, but contradicts him with respect to ontological and epistemological status of the individual. Like Kant, he describes human personality as thing that is directly given in the consciousness of a person, but from this Nesmelov doing the opposite (especially to Hume), concludes: "if a man thinks of himself not as a phenomenon, but as a being-in-itself and as the essence, he thinks true." For Nesmelov, consciousness cannot deceive man, because "people in his inner nature, is really what he is conscious of himself.” I conclude Russian classical philosophy sought at the same time both to overcome Kant on its metaphysical principles, and to assimilate the achievements of his logic. The complexity of this problem was due to the fact that Russian philosophy has absorbed diverse spiritual and intellectual influences and the pursuit of their synthesis occasionally turned round eclecticism. The major influences were those three: Eastern Christian tradition, new European rationalism and pantheistic mysticism. Depending on what tradition exerted the greatest influence on the thinker, such was his attitude to the critical philosophy of Kant.