Search

Many scholars and practitioners in the sphere of the public education and upbringing in Russia addressed themselves to the philosophical-pedagogical ideas of German philosopher of Neo- Kantian movement Paul Natorp. These ideas were formulated mainly in his fundamental work “Social Pedagogy”. Vladimir Dinze relies on Natorp’s thesis of the national school as the way of accustoming “the all people to the national culture”, actualizes the heritage of Russian and Western pedagogues and philosophers and formulates newly the problem of the national upbringing that is after hundred years in tune with the times as before. The papers of Dinze himself and the translation of Natorp’s “Social Pedagogy” which was organized by him turned out to be the catalysts in the debates on the national education and upbringing. The debates took place in Russian in 1913— 1916, and the outstanding philosophers and pedagogues like M. Rubinstein, P. Blonskiy, V. Soroka- Rosinskiy, S. Zolotarev, P. Devin, S. Rusova and others participated in these debates. As result there worked out the principles of the general and equally accessible national education for all social groups and the harmonious and humane patriotic upbringing, which had to be open to the best achievements of the world culture. The letters of Russian scholars V. Dinze and A. Grombach to P. Natorp and one letter of Natorp to Dinze will be published as a supplement to the article. These letters show not only the process of the translation of “Social Pedagogy” into Russian, but also disclose the peculiarities of the organization of translations of the contemporary scientific literature in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. They were the personal initiative, enthusiasm, the responsibility before the future reader, the scope and intensity of the translators’ and publishers’ activity and the constant lack of adequate financing of this activity.

Many scholars and practitioners in the sphere of the public education and upbringing in Russia addressed themselves to the philosophical-pedagogical ideas of German philosopher of Neo- Kantian movement Paul Natorp. These ideas were formulated mainly in his fundamental work “Social Pedagogy”. Vladimir Dinze relies on Natorp’s thesis of the national school as the way of accustoming “the all people to the national culture”, actualizes the heritage of Russian and Western pedagogues and philosophers and formulates newly the problem of the national upbringing that is after hundred years in tune with the times as before. The papers of Dinze himself and the translation of Natorp’s “Social Pedagogy” which was organized by him turned out to be the catalysts in the debates on the national education and upbringing. The debates took place in Russian in 1913—1916, and the outstanding philosophers and pedagogues like M. Rubinstein, P. Blonskiy, V. Soroka-Rosinskiy, S. Zolotarev, P. Devin, S. Rusova and others participated in these debates. As result there worked out the principles of the general and equally accessible national education for all social groups and the harmonious and humane patriotic upbringing, which had to be open to the best achievements of the world culture. The letters of Russian scholars V. Dinze and A. Grombach to P. Natorp and one letter of Natorp to Dinze will be published as a supplement to the article. These letters show not only the process of the translation of “Social Pedagogy” into Russian, but also disclose the peculiarities of the organization of translations of the contemporary scientific literature in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. They were the personal initiative, enthusiasm, the responsibility before the future reader, the scope and intensity of the translators’ and publishers’ activity and the constant lack of adequate financing of this activity

The paper focuses on the problem of anthropodicy in the philosophical system of Hermann Cohen and its interpretation by Jacob Gordin (1896—1947). Gordin was one of the last followers of Cohen in Russia. He developes his interpretation in the lecture “Anthropodicy”, which was given in the Philosophical Circle at the Petrograd University in December 1921. For the study of the problem of anthropodicy he was apparently inspired by the discussions at the Free Philosophical Association in 1919—1921. Gordin places Cohen’s concept of man in the wide intellectual context given by the ideas of the Russian religious philosophy, German classical philosophy, Neo-Kantianism, and the West European and Jewish mysticism (cabbala). Gordin compares Cohen’s anthropodicy with Vladimir Soloviev’s one and shows that there is a similarity in their approaches. Both philosophers point out that the justification of man is possible only in form of the justification of humanity and not as for Berdyaiev in form of the justification of personality. But Gordin uses Soloviev’s concept of all-unity and Berdyaiev’s concept of creativity in order to “improve” Cohen’s conception and to reveal the contribution of a person to the justification of humanity. Stronger as Cohen Gordin connects the programm of anthropodicy with individuality and underlines the participation of the individual in creating culture.

This article reconstructs certain episodes of the early intellectual biography (1889—1960) of S. L. Rubinstein — a Russian Neo-Kantian, philosopher, and psychologist — and presents the fol-lowing archive documents: the letter of Martha Cohen (1918), the widow of the German neo-Kantian Hermann Cohen, S. L. Rubinstein’s teacher; two Rubinstein’s autobiographies of the early 1920s; a review of Rubinstein’s thesis, which was supervised by H. Cohen and P. Natorp and de-fended at Marburg University, prepared by N. N. Lange (1858—1921), an eminent psychologist and philosopher, a professor at Novorossiysk University. The first three documents are published for the first time. Lange’s review, which was initially published in Germany in the German language and was presented earlier by researchers of the “Odessa period” of Rubinstein’s intellectual biography, was checked against the archive document. The mistakes identified were corrected. These documents, as well as old and new publications and studies in the German language made it possi¬ble to reveal certain facts and dates of Rubinstein’s biography, as well as his earlier little or un-known creative projects and plans. For instance, it was established that Rubinstein intended to translate into the Russian and publish Cohen’s smaller religious philosophical works, which he obtained in post-war Odessa with the help of E. Cassirer and B. Strauss. The article stresses the need to study personal archives of philosophers in order to establish the ideational sources of their concepts and reconstruct their intellectual landscape.