Kant and Marburg School

Cover Page

Cite item


After the completion of I. Kant’s “Copernican” turn in metaphysics, all subsequent European philosophy to one degree or another was under his influence. The purpose of the article is to consider the reception and transformation of the Kantian theoretical philosophy by the Marburg school of neo-Kantianism. It is necessary to analyze the reasons for H. Cohen's and P. Natorp’s interpretation of Kant's criticism. To do this, one should consider (i) internalist and (ii) externalist factors in the formation of the Marburg School. Neo-Kantianism, on the one hand, emerged as a response to materialism, naturalism, and post-Kantian German idealism. In addition, the Marburg School was strongly influenced by the change in the scientific paradigm in mathematical natural science at the end of the 19th century. The justification by the Marburgers of Kant’s a priori doctrine presupposed thematization, first of all, of: a) purity of thought; b) systematic unity of thought and experience; c) the orientation of philosophy to the “fact of science”; d) transcendental method. As a result, the Marburg School interpreted the Kantian concept of the unity of consciousness; abandoned the principle of synthetic (real) unity of consciousness in favor of systematic (logical) unity; substantiated the purity of scientific thinking; put forward the requirement of orientation of philosophy to the “fact of science”; developed the concept of the origin of thinking (Ursprung); abandoned the idea of “givenness” of the subject of knowledge and proved its “assignment”; changed the understanding of the essence and functions of the transcendental method; put forward the concept of thinking as “generation” (“production”); formulated a new understanding a priori. The changes that took place in the 19th century in philosophy, mathematical natural science and mathematical sciences led to a sharp activation of constructivism. It can be concluded that Kant’s epistemological paradigm was realistic constructivism. Pure constructivism became the paradigm of the Marburg School.

About the authors

Valeriy Ye. Semyonov

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: semyonov.ve@philos.msu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0486-8697

PhD in Philosophy, Professor, Department of Philosophy

27/4 Lomonosovskiy Ave., 119991, Moscow, Russian Federation


  1. Holzhey H, Mudroch V. Historical Dictionary of Kant and Kantianism. Lanham, Toronto, Oxford: Scarecrow Press; 2005.
  2. Kohnke KCh. Entstehung und Aufstieg des Neukantianismus: Die deutsche Universitatsphilosophie zwischen Idealismus und Positivismus. Frankfurt am/M: Suhrkamp; 1986.
  3. Poma A. Critical Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Popova OA, transl. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt publ.; 2012. (In Russian).
  4. Cohen H. Kant's Theory of Experience. Belov VN, transl. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt publ.; 2012. (In Russian).
  5. Newton I. Mathematical principles of natural philosophy. Moscow: Nauka publ.; 1989. (In Russian).
  6. Feynman R, Leighton R, Sands M. Feynman Lectures on Physics: in 4 Pt. Ch. 3—4. 3 ed. Moscow: Mir publ.; 1976. (In Russian).
  7. Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolution. 2 ed. Moscow: Progress publ.; 1977. (In Russian).
  8. Kant I. Critique of Pure Reason (B, 1787). In: Collection in Russian and German Landg. T. 2. P. 1. Moscow: Nauka publ.; 2006. (In Russian).
  9. Kant I. Critique of Pure Reason (A, 1781). In: Collection in Russian and German Landg. T. 2. P. 2. Moscow: Nauka publ.; 2006. (In Russian).
  10. Cohen H. Kommentar zu Immanuel Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Zweite Aufl. Leipzig: Felix Meiner; 1917.
  11. Natorp P. Kant and the Marburg School. In: Collection. Kurennaya VA, editor. Moscow: ID «Territoriya budushego» publ.; 2006. P. 119—144. (In Russian).
  12. Cohen H. Logik der reinen Erkenntnis. 3. Aufl. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer; 1922.
  13. Edel G. Von der Vernunftkritik zur Erkenntnislogik. Die Entwicklung der theoretischen Philosophie Hermann Cohens. Freiburg, Munchen: Karl Alber; 1986.
  14. Sokuler ZA. Hermann Cohens and Philosophy of Dialogue. Moscow: Progress-Tradiciya publ.; 2008. (In Russian).
  15. Marx W. Die philosophische Entwicklung Paul Natorps im Hinblick auf das System Hermann Cohens. In: Materialen zur Neukantianismus-Diskussion. Ollig H-L, hrsg. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; 1987. S. 66—86.
  16. Cohen H. Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. 3. Aufl. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer; 1918.
  17. Natorp P. Die logischen Grundlagen der exakten Wissenschaften. Leipzig, Berlin: Teubner; 1910.
  18. Mayerhofer H. Der philosophische Begriff der Bewegung in Hermann Cohens “Logik der reinen Erkenntnis”. Wien: Universitatsverlag; 2004.
  19. Belov VN. The Philosophy System of Hermann Cohen. Moscow: LENAND publ.; 2022. (In Russian).
  20. Sakketti AL. The Philosophy of Hermann Cohen. Dmitrieva NA, editor. Kantian Journal. 2021;40(2):95—130. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2021-2-4
  21. Natorp P. Platos Ideenlehre. Eine Einfurung in den Idealismus. Leipzig: Verlag der Durr’schen Buchhandlung; 1903.
  22. Cassirer E. Hermann Cohen und die Erneuerung der Kantischen Philosophie. Kant-Studien. 1912;17(1—3):252—273.
  23. Noras AJ. Geschichte des Neukantianismus. Kubalica T, ubersetzt. Berlin, etc.: Peter Lang; 2020.
  24. Holzhey H. Cohen und Natorp: in 2 Bdn. Bd. 1. Basel; Stuttgart: Schwabe & Co. Verl.; 1986.
  25. Belov VN. The Method of the Infinitesimal as the Principle of the Theory of Knowledge in Systematic Constructions of H. Cohen. Voprosy Filosofii. 2018;(3):68—74. (In Russian).
  26. Dmitrieva NA. The concept of a priori in German and Russian neo-Kantianism. In: Kruglov AN, editor. Variety A priori. Moscow: Kanon+ publ.; 2013. P. 129—148. (In Russian).

Copyright (c) 2023 Semyonov V.Y.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies