Abstract
The philosophy of religion as presented by Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp, the founders and main representatives of the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism, is an important and at the same time controversial part of their philosophical systems. The discussion around the problems of religion began within the Marburg School and still continues among those who study that School. The reason for this is that “fitting” philosophical thinking about the phenomenon of religion into the classical triad of any system of philosophy, i. e. effectively formulating that phenomenon in logical concepts, ethical postulates and aesthetic principles touched the very foundations of that system. Drawing mainly on the rough notes and correspondence of Cohen and Natorp I argue that, in spite of internal and quite important differences over the problems of religion and its place in philosophical constructions, Cohen and Natorp, first, retained their commitment to critical idealism and remained loyal to their philosophical school to the end and, second, followed the principle of mutual respect, preserving their professional and human sympathy for each other. Besides, I substantiate my assertion that Marburg Neo-Kantians had different concepts of the special place of religion in the system of philosophy. The specific nature of this difference warrants the discussion not only of the boundary of reason and rationality but adds new dimensions to that boundary, filling it with content and thus broadening the very sphere of critical idealism. In the course of the discussion of the problems of religion, Paul Natorp (in a more immediate and extended fashion) and Hermann Cohen (largely potentially) stake a claim to projects for the serious transformation of philosophy which they tried to implement in their later works.
Highlights
IntroductionО концепциях философии религии Германа Когена и Пауля Наторпа в отдельности уже немало написано в исследованиях, посвященных как в целом философским системам этих двух представителей Марбургской школы неокантианства, так и конкретному анализу их подходов к философскому осмыслению феномена религии
The concept of life is central to his work, Philosophische Systematik, a course of lectures held in the summer of 1922 and 1923 and first published in 1958. In it we find obvious parallels with Husserl’s concept of the lifeworld and the philosophical trend known as the philosophy of life
The polemical reflections of both Cohen and Natorp were decisive in determining the main tenets of their later philosophy
Summary
О концепциях философии религии Германа Когена и Пауля Наторпа в отдельности уже немало написано в исследованиях, посвященных как в целом философским системам этих двух представителей Марбургской школы неокантианства, так и конкретному анализу их подходов к философскому осмыслению феномена религии. Наторп настойчиво пытается пояснить свое определение религии через чувство, за что его критиковал Коген, именно путем прояснения того смысла, который он вкладывал в понятие чувства. 199) notes that Cohen’s concept of Jewish monotheism as the religion of reason constitutes an “expansion of critical idealism beyond scientific idealism.” Further, he reiterates the same idea with regard to Cohen’s philosophy of religion: “In its new specific idealist meaning, monotheism must preserve its religious physiognomy, which does not distinguish it from ethics either in its content (man and his moral action) or in its method (the method of purity), but only in its overcoming the scientific condition, that of consideration of the object solely as a universal concept” Исследование поддержано из средств гранта РФФИ No 18-011-00080а «И. Кант и философия религии в Германии»
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
