Neo-Kantianism, Russian

4. Neo-Kantianism in the social sciences

Pavel Novgorodtsev (1866–1924) took an active role in politics in addition to his duties as professor of jurisprudence at Moscow University. He came under the influence of the Baden and Marburg schools (see Neo-Kantianism §§3–8) during a lengthy stay in Western Europe, particularly in Freiburg. Although endorsing Kant’s epistemology Novgorodtsev’s interests lay mainly in practical philosophy. Whereas Kant’s morality is centred around the notion of duty (see Kantian ethics), Novgorodtsev sought to reconstruct it around that of the unique, harmonious person understood as the sole norm. He seeks to retain the rigour of Kant’s ethical doctrine while recognizing the force of Hegel’s criticism of its formalism by allowing, especially in his early writings, for natural law with a changing content. All practical actions are necessarily limited and incomplete and must be evaluated with their finitude in mind. Nevertheless, laws themselves must be framed keeping in mind the moral foundation of law, the indisputable authority of moral consciousness. In his later writings as the First World War approached Novgorodtsev retreated from his Neo-Kantian programme to a somewhat more traditional conception of natural law (see Russian Philosophy of Law).

Bogdan Kistiakovskii (1868–1920) studied for a time under Simmel in Berlin and completed his doctoral studies under Windelband in Strasbourg. After returning to Russia he taught at several institutions including for a short time Moscow University. Kistiakovskii termed his stance, basically a defence of Windelband’s, ’scientifico-philosophical idealism’. He held that just as the basic category in the natural sciences is natural necessity, so in the various disciplines of ’scientific philosophy’ it is found in a consciousness of what should be. Broadly speaking, logic determines what is valuable in a cognitive relation, whereas ethics is concerned with the valuable in practical activity. The normative character of logic is Kant’s greatest discovery in the Critique of Pure Reason. Epistemology is concerned not with the very existence of scientific knowledge as a given fact but with the means by which humanity obtains such truths, and with the justification of science.

Nevertheless, Kistiakovskii’s chief interest was not logic but philosophy of the social sciences, where he stood close to the position of Rickert and Weber in Germany. For the social sciences to be legitimate, separate branches of inquiry we must understand how concepts are formed in them. Kistiakovskii denied that categories applicable in the natural sciences can be immediately applied in the social sciences unaltered. Absolute necessity, for example, in the natural sciences is something sought, whereas in the social sciences the search for necessity is but one viewpoint.

Also among those influenced by the Baden school was the historian Aleksandr Lappo-Danilevskii (1863–1919), who taught at St Petersburg University. Although chiefly noted for his concrete historical studies he accorded a singular role to epistemology in the elaboration of principles and methods without which scientific advancement is inconceivable. While sharing the Baden view that the natural sciences are nomothetic and the social sciences primarily but not exclusively idiographic, he also saw a difference in their goal. The natural scientist sought to explain nature whereas the social scientist strives for understanding of a phenomenon.

The most partisan Russian disciple of the Marburg School, particularly in the philosophy of the social sciences, was Vasilii Savalskii (1873–1915). In his chief work from 1908 he engaged in polemics against Kistiakovskii and Novgorodtsev while expounding the position of Hermann Cohen in ethics and jurisprudence.