The author of the article analyses the historical and philosophical principles used by B. Russell, L. Couturat, E. Cassirer, H. Heimsoeth, W. Kabitz, B. Jansen, D. Mahnke and others to interpret the relation between logic and metaphysics in the philosophy of G. W. Leibniz. The article proves that the approach of W. Kabitz is a significant regression compared to the approach of E. Cassirer due to the ignoring of Leibniz's contribution to the history of logic, methodology and theory of cognition, (...) as well as due to the too narrow modernised understanding of logic. The author disagrees with the interpretation of B. Jansen, who based Leibniz's philosophy on non-cholastic pre-established harmony. The disadvantage of D. Mahnke's approach is, in the author's opinion, a failure to understand that synthesis for the sake of synthesis can never be creative, and the construction of a universal philosophical system can never be the goal of true philosophical creativity. (shrink)

The article is devoted primarily to the analysis of Reinhold’s Letters on Kantian Philosophy, published in the “Der Teutsche Merkur” (German Mercury) 1786-1787. The purpose of this analysis is to reveal the peculiarities of Reinhold’s interpretation of Kant’s philosophy, as well as the possibility of the influence of these letters on Kant's practical philosophy and the further development of German idealism in general. To more clearly define Reinhold's own position, the article turns to Reinhold's early works, written before Letters, as (...) well as to the 1790 and 1923 editions of the Letters. Particular respect is given to three topics that are closely related to each other: “Why did Reinhold’s Letters bring fame to Kant?”, “To what extent was Reinhold an independent philosopher?” і “What kind of infusion did his Letters make into the development of Kant’s philosophy and German idealism?” The article proves that before 1786, Reinhold had, in general terms, formed a program for the reform of philosophy, which was critical in its nature and had a clearly expressed practical focus. However, Reinhold's criticism was closer to the criticism of the eclectics and Leibniz than of Kant: it was aimed at overcoming the limitations of the original points of view and assumed a deep knowledge of the history of philosophy. The main reason for the popularity of Reinhold’s Letters lies in his idea of the “scientific revolution” in Germany, which should have become an alternative to social revolutions in other countries of Europe. Formed in “pre-revolutionary” articles, this idea received its justification in the second edition of the Letters. It was the nationalist idea of transforming the Germans into a “nation of scientists”, that became the reason for the rise of national consciousness in Germany and attracted “thinking youth” to it Reinhold's program for the reform of all philosophical sciences from a generally valid point of view gave impetus and largely determined the further development of German classical philosophy: not only Fichte, but also Schelling and Hegel relied primarily on his program. The first edition of his Letters largely determined the main themes of the Critique of Practical Reason, and the second - the Metaphysics of Morals. The second edition inspired Kant to develop a system of criticism and the basic ideas of Kant’s philosophy of law. (shrink)

Leibniz sought to solve the metaphysical problem of reality, avoiding ontological premises. His intensional method was aimed at the logical solution of the problem, preserving the objectivity and unobstructed metaphysical research. Metaphysics can provide a certain level of coherence to the phenomena of physics and make them more real. Leibniz was convinced that physics, for its part, should be grounded in metaphysical principles. This promotes a reciprocal relationship between physics and metaphysics, where metaphysical principles derive their reality from physical principles, (...) and the two fields are interrelated. If we recognize the reality of the laws of physics, then we must also recognize the reality of the concept of substance. His position is that the laws of mathematical physics predict the existence of real substances, which makes it possible to move from mathematical objects to real substances. This method of substantiating the reality of substance and metaphysical principles can be considered as the foundations of the transcendental method. Leibniz's metaphysical approach is that necessary truths exist by themselves and do not depend on specific objects of study or perception. He regarded these truths as eternal. (shrink)