Lossky N.O. and his Metacritique of Pure Reason

Cover Page

Cite item


The publication of the Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant marked the beginning of an intellectual revolution not only in Philosophy, but also in other spheres of intellectual activity. Every year interest to this work is only growing up, especially in the context of the development of cognitive sciences and technologies related to the development and implementation of artificial intelligence systems. However, both Kant’s contemporaries and subsequent generations of researchers had questions about the basic concepts, outlined in the first Critique. Nikolay Lossky became one of such outstanding experts in Kant’s philosophy, who carried out a metacritique of transcendental idealism. His analysis is interesting because it is characterized by consistency, depth and inclusiveness, despite the fact that he was not a supporter of Kant’s philosophy. The proposed article explicates the main points of the metacritique of pure reason carried out by Lossky. The aim is to systematize the advantages and disadvantages of transcendental idealism highlighted by him in order to assess the validity of objections and identify points that paradoxically escaped Lossky’s attention. In particular, it is shown that the highest evaluation of Lossky is awarded to Kant’s efforts to create an epistemology that does not rely as presuppositions on any other branches of human knowledge; the resolution of contradictions between Empiricism and Rationalism; the creation of the doctrine of synthetic rationality and transcendental logic; the idea of the need for the immanence of knowledge to consciousness. Lossky identified as the key shortcomings of transcendental idealism a range of contradictions grouped around such concepts as the things in themselves, affection, experience, inner sense, transcendental schema, and unity of apperception. At the same time, it is shown that such a key concept for Kant’s theoretical philosophy as transcendental reflection has disappeared from the Lossky’s field of consideration. The study is preceded by a brief description of Lossky’s characteristics, including personal ones, as a meta-critic of pure reason.

About the authors

Valentin V. Balanovskiy

Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University

Author for correspondence.
Email: v.v.balanovskiy@ya.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7859-2152

Candidate of Sciences in Philosophy, Leading Researcher, Institute of Education and Humanities

14 A. Nevskogo St., 236016, Kaliningrad, Russian Federation


  1. Haman IG. Review of I. Kant’s treatise Critique of Pure Reason. Gilmanov VKh, trasnsl. Kantian Journal. 2012;2(40):50—55. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2012-2-5
  2. Haman IG. Metacritique of Purism of Reason. Sunt lacrumae rerum o quantum est in rebus inane! Gilmanov VKh, trasnsl. Kantian Journal. 2012;4(42):78—92. (In Russian).
  3. Gilmanov VKh. Metacritique vs. criticism of pure reason (afterword to publication). Kantian Journal. 2012;4(42):93—99. (In Russian).
  4. Losskij NO. Memories, Life and the philosophical path. Munchen: W. Fink Verlag; 1968. (In Russian).
  5. Serdjukova EV. NO Lossky’s Doctrine as a Synthesis of Russian and European Traditions of Thought. Logos et praxis. 2017;16(3):5—11. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.15688/lp.jvolsu.2017.3.1
  6. Losskij NO. Sensuous, intellectual and mystical intuition. Moscow: Respublika publ.; 1995. (In Russian).
  7. Ermichev AA. AI Vvedensky’s Review of NO Lossky’s Master’s Thesis. Review the Russian Christian Academy for the humanities. 2013;(4):305—308. (In Russian).
  8. Losskij NO. The Basic Doctrines of Psychology from the Point of view of Voluntarism. Saint Petersburg; 1903. (In Russian).
  9. Losskij NO. Justification of Mystical Empiricism. Voprosy filosofii i psihologii. 1904—1905;79(IV):247—334. (In Russian).
  10. Popova VS. I. Kant in the Formation of NO Lossky’s Philosophical Worldview: Experience of Translation. Kantian Journal. 2015;2(52):62—75. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2015-2-4
  11. Losskij NO. Types of world views. In: Sensuous, intellectual and mystical intuition. Moscow: Respublika publ.; 1995. P. 3—134. (In Russian).
  12. Losskij NO. Logics. Berlin: Obelisk publ.; 1923. (In Russian).
  13. Losskij NO. Introduction to Philosophy. Part 1: Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Saint Petersburg; 1911. (In Russian).
  14. Kruglov AN. On Some Sources and Problems of Translation of the Kantian Term “Ding an sich”. Istoriko-filosofskij ezhegodnik. 2018;(33):137—164. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.21267/AQUILO.2018.33.21033
  15. Losskij NO. Izbrannoe. Moscow: Pravda publ.; 1991. (In Russian).
  16. Kant I. Collected Works, vol. 3: Critique of Pure Reason. Moscow: «Choro» publ.; 1994. (In Russian).
  17. Balanovskiy VV. Kant versus Vladimir Solovyov: Gnoseology with Reflection and without It. Kantian Journal. 2011;2(36):22—37. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.5922/ 0207-6918-2011-2-5
  18. Balanovskiy VV. The Concept of Transcendental Reflection in the Philosophy of I. Kant and its Application to the Analysis of Gnoseological Conceptions of VS Solovyov and AA Bogdanov [dissertation]. Kaliningrad; 2011. (In Russian).

Copyright (c) 2023 Balanovskiy V.V.

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