The aim of this paper is to analyse the differences in an approach to the issue of transcendental method, which can be found in the neokantian thought of Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp. The author of the paper argues that the basic difference lies in a different way of determining the boundaries of transcendental deduction. Cohen sees this boundary in the absolute impossibility of ultimate justification of thinking, while Natorp subordinates his investigations to the ideal of ultimate justification (letzte Begründung).
Wojciech Hanuszkiewicz – Ph.D., Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy and Sociology, Pedagogical University of Cracow. Main research interests: conceptions of metaphysics in the 19th and 20th century, phenomenology, neo-Kantianism. Author of the monograph Filozofia Hermanna Cohena w perspektywie sporu o jedność metody transcendentalnej [Hermann Cohen’s Philosophy in the Perspektive of the Dispute about theUnity of the Transcendental Method], Warszawa 2011.
The journal founded by Leszek Kołakowski, Bronisław Baczko and Jan Garewicz appears continuously since 1957.