Kant i Hegel w sporach filozoficznych osiemnastego i dziewiętnastego wieku

Abstract

The book is composed of two parts. The first is devoted to philosophy of Kant, while the second to philosophy of Hegel. Such a structure of the book is caused not only by the dominance of the above philosophical conceptions in the times they appeared but also their vitality and influence. Kant as well as Hegel — probably event to larger extent — provoked their contemporary philosophical milieus to philosophical disputes. In the first part of the book there are analyses of Kantian thought, however they do not point to function as another work devoted to Kant but they are thought to be a try of methodological analysis of the very thought of the Königsberg thinker. It means that we can talk about pure analysis of Kant’s thought without becoming embroiled into its interpretations. Only later, on further pages of the book, can one read about its interpretational motives. Accordingly, one of the crucial attainments of the first part is a demonstration that Kant was not a German idealist. It was interpretations of Kant that led to the situation in which instead of critical systematic philosophy we had a dogmatized system philosophy. This was the intention of those who quarreled not only about the understanding of Kant’s thought but also about philosophy in general. In this way, by the mediation of K.L. Reinhold and S. Maimon, there comes to formulation of philosophical manifesto of Fichte (his Wissenschaftslehre). And finally, there appears philosophy of Schelling which was undergoing versatile influences. The point of departure for the second part of the book is philosophy of Hegel which is at the same time the crowning of German idealism. However, there appears a new thing. Philosophy of Kant was a subject for the post-Kantian philosophers. Each of them referred to and philosophized in the context of his thought. Philosophy of Hegel awakes and brings a wide spectrum of reactions: from fascination to severe criticism. From the perspective of analyses included in this work, it brings a certain disproportion if it comes to references to Hegel in comparison to the first part references to Kant. In the second part they are frequently absent since everyone philosophizes directly in the reference to Hegel (like Kierkegaard or Schopenhauer). The analyses presented in the book show heterogeneousness of reactions to a given philosophy. Kant awakes a life interest of his followers, while Hegel arises much more eager initial reactions. However, with time, the interest with Hegel’s philosophy decreases and finally positivism remains loosely connected with philosophy of the author of Phänomenologie des Geistes. It is also a meaningful signal that philosophy will develop in reference to Kant rather than to Hegel.