liarly associated with the meagre influence that has been exercised in that country by the writings of Kant. It is true that the Russians, after becoming acquainted with the French philosophy of the enlightenment, turned therefrom speedily and characteristically to German philosophy. When this happened, however, Schelling, Hegel, and Feuerbach were their teachers, rather than Kant; to Fichte, again, they paid little attention, whereas the influence of Schopenhauer was considerable, Auguste Comte and his positivism cooperated with Hegel and Feuerbach; positivism in its various forms (Marxism was one of them) held the field.
I am not contending that Kant remained utterly unknown. We have learned that in the ethical sphere Solov'ev and Lavrov were Kantians. Tolstoi, too, in great measure adopted the Kantian ethic. But there was little understanding of Kant's theory of cognition, of his critique of pure reason. Recently, however, the so-called neokantianism has wielded considerable influence in Russia, so that of late the epistemological problem has received more adequate consideration on Kantian lines.[1]
§ 188.
THE world-wide importance of Kant depends upon the Kantian criticism. Epistemologically considered, criticism as a philosophical doctrine signifies critical and cognitive reflection of a sceptical character, as opposed to the blind faith that has hitherto prevailed. Criticism is the opposition of philosophy to theology, opposition based on grounds of principle. Regarded, finally, from the outlook of universal history, Kant, as opponent, alike of theology and of the scepticism of Hume, signifies that with the coming of Kant mankind is ripening to an age of reflection, and that men are beginning to abandon the myths that have hitherto dominated
- ↑ The history of Kantian thought in Russia is exceedingly interesting. Karamzin was one of the earliest admirers of Kant. Opponents of the Königsberg philosopher soon took the field; in 1807 Osipovskii of Kharkov criticised Kant's doctrine of space and time. Kant's fundamental ethical principles, on the other hand, secured acceptance, and Kunicyn, in St. Petersburg, based natural law upon Kant. Jurkevič opposed Kant, whilst Kavelin took Kant as guide in ethical matters. The most notable works on Kant containing critical discussions of the theory of cognition are those of Karinskii, professor at the seminary in St. Petersburg. More recently, A. I. Vvedenskii and Losskii have written on the Critique of Pure Reason; these writers' books have been translated into German.
