Kanto kritika Lietuvoje XIX a. I pusėje: vertinimo ir kultūrinio konteksto problemos

LTViena svarbiausių Lietuvos Apšvietos filosofijos (kurios ryškiausi reprezentantai buvo A. Daugirdas ir J. Sniadeckis) funkcijų - oponavimas idealistinės filosofijos kryptims ir I. Kanto transcendentalizmui. Švietėjiška Kanto kritika ne kartą analizuota lenkų filosofijos istorikų darbuose. Šiame straipsnyje dar kartą svarstoma šios kritikos vertinimo problema keliant klausimą, ar empiristinė Lietuvos XIX a. pradžios filosofija siūlė efektyvų XVIII a. gnoseologijos krizės sprendimą ir ar galėjo pateikti pozityvią alternatyvą Kantui. Straipsnyje abejojama šios alternatyvos galimybe. Nurodomos aplinkybės, lėmusios švietėjišką Kanto kritiką, liečiamas jos vietos to meto Lietuvos filosofinėje kultūroje klausimas. Švietėjai ne tiek kritikavo, kiek atmetė Kanto filosofiją; ši kritika turėjo filosofinės publicistikos žanro ypatybių. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Lietuvos Apšvietos filosofija; Antikantizmas; Enlightenment Philosophy in Lithuania; Antikantianism.

ENThe author raises two tasks. He investigates the problem of the evaluation of criticism on Kant that was presented by Anielius Daugirdas (Anioł Dowgird, 1776-1835) and Janas Sniadeckis (Jan Śniadecki, 1756-1830), representatives of Lithuanian Enlightenment's philosophy. Also he tries to establish the place of this phenomenon in cultural situation. The problem of evaluation is solved by answering the essential question: could the above-mentioned authors suggest the alternative solution to the philosophy of Kant? It is ascertained that Daugirdas and Sniadeckis represented the phenomenalistic theory of knowledge which was related to the theory of Locke and was open to the scepticism of Hume. They combined epistemological realism, the base of their philosophy, with a part of the dogmatic Scottish "common sense philosophy" doctrine. The problems of the theory of knowledge were reduced by them to empirical psychology. The methods of Kant were alien to them and remained only distantly understood; the narrowed and simplified concept of idealism became a hindrance not allowing to understand Kant's peculiarities. The estimation of the antikantism in Lithuanian Enlightenment is negative: A. Daugirdas and J. Sniadeckis were not able to present an adequate criticism of Kant. The second part of this work views the actual circumstances that determined the criticism of Kant and its specifics (Kantism was equated with the scholastic tradition, etc.). The antikantism in Lithuanian Enlightenment was constructed and existed rather as a repudiation of Kant, but not as a criticism. By its contents and formal characteristics the antikantism fits into the tradition of the tendentious type of literature. [From the publication]