Boundaries and Possibilities of the Constellation Research Method

Keywords: Kant, research of constellations, Dieter Henrich, methodology, anthroponomy, anthropology, human models

Abstract

The study of Kant’s anthropology, proposed by Viktor Kozlovskyi in its original and thorough monograph, is an entirely new interpretation of Kant’s answer to the fundamental question “What is man?”. On the basis of the philosopher’s heritage and taking into account the large body of research literature, Kozlovskyi reconstructs five conceptual “human models” in Kant’s anthropological discourse. However, this study contains a number of problematic statements and conclusions. I argue first, that there is some inconsistency between Kant’s understanding of the concept of “anthropology” and Kozlovskyi’s explanation. Second, the model of man as intelligible being, made explicit through the concepts of “freedom” and “spontaneity”, is a justified construction within the limits of criticism, but not quite correct with regard to the place and function of “anthropology” in it. Third, we can see a dissonance between Kozlovskyi’s explanation of the constellations as “chronotopes-events” and interpretation of this concept by Dieter Henrich’s school, where the methodology of “research constellations” was used to elucidate the early phase of German idealism. However, this leads to the cardinal question of how far this methodology is applicable for the analysis of Kant’s philosophy.

Author Biography

Vitali Terletsky, Research Institute of Ukrainian Studies
PhD in philosophy, senior researcher, Head of the Philosophy and Geopolitics Department

References

Albrecht, A. (2010). “Konstellationen”. Zur kulturwissenschaftlichen Karriere eines astrologisch-astronomischen Konzepts bei Heinrich Rickert, Max Weber, Alfred Weber und Karl Mannheim. Scientia Poetica, 14, 104-149. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110223125.1.104

Gutschmidt, H. (2007). Vernunfteinsicht und Glaube. Hegels These zum Bewusstsein von etwas “Höherem” zwischen 1794 und 1801. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, & Ruprecht.

Henrich, D. (1991). Konstellationen. Probleme und Debatten am Ursprung der idealistischen Phi-losophie (1789-1795). Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

Kant, I. (1900 sqq.). Gesammelte Schriften: Hrsg. von der Preußischen (Deutschen) Akademie der Wissenschaften. Berlin: Reimer, & De Gruyter.

Kant, I. (1998). Kritik der reinen Vernunft (J. Timmermann, Hrsg.). Hamburg: Meiner.

Kozlovsky, V. (2014). Kant’s Anthropology: sources, constellations, models. [In Ukrainian]. Kyiv: Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Press.

Muslow, M., & Stamm, M. (Hrsg.). (2005). Konstellationsforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhr-kamp.

Pietsch, L.-H. (2010). Topik der Kritik. Die Auseinandersetzung um die Kantische Philosophie (1781-1788) und ihre Metaphern. Berlin, & New York: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110233681

Terletsky, V. (2015). Ukrainian Point of View on Kant’s Anthropology. [In Ukrainian]. Filosofska dumka, (2), 67-71.

Wenzel, U. J. (1992). Anthroponomie. Kants Archäologie der Autonomie. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Published
2016-06-16
How to Cite
Terletsky, V. (2016). Boundaries and Possibilities of the Constellation Research Method. Sententiae, 34(1), 169-178. https://doi.org/10.22240/sent34.01.169
Section
DISCUSSIONS