Kant’s Intellectual Heritage in Latvia
Published in Social Sciences
When we speak about a philosopher’s influence, we usually measure it in terms of doctrines, schools, and followers. Yet in the case of figures such as Immanuel Kant, their influence extends beyond philosophy as an academic discipline. It takes shape in collective memory through legends, monuments, and public narratives that reveal how philosophical authority is culturally preserved and reinterpreted.
At the international forum "Reason in Riga" in 2024, which commemorated the 300th anniversary of Kant in Riga, I delivered a speech focused on the subject of my monograph, the Tartu School of Personalism (Hiršs 2022). I revisited the intricate and often contradictory connection between Kant's philosophy and late German Idealism. I spoke about Gustav Teichmüller (1832–1888), who played a key role in transmitting Kant’s thought in the Baltic states. Teichmüller harshly criticized Kant and Neo-Kantianism; yet, during his time as a professor at the University of Tartu, he conducted seminars on Kant’s works. He mentored Jēkabs Osis (1860–1910), the first Latvian philosopher, who continued the tradition of reading and discussing Kant's works with students after his teacher's passing (Hiršs 2024).
Kant’s presence in Latvia includes curious and revealing distortions. In my presentation at the forum, I mentioned as a curiosity the fact that the catalogue of the National Library of Latvia lists Kant as the author of “A Truthful Account of My Journey to Heaven” (Wahrheitsgetreuer Bericht über meine Reise in den Himmel), a satirical work describing Kant’s imagined journey to heaven and his debates with ancient Greek philosophers. The text was in fact anonymously published by Teichmüller in 1877, with authorship deliberately attributed to Kant. The Library of the Deutsches Historisches Museum (Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Museums) included it in an exhibition on historical Fake News a few years ago (Lenz). Teichmüller’s ruse found its way into the catalogues of several libraries, including the National Library of Latvia.
False attribution of authorship is not the only oddity revealed by Kant’s current presence in the Latvian public space. For years, a legend has circulated that Kant personally visited Latvia. According to one version, he came to visit his brother, Johann Heinrich Kant, a Lutheran pastor in Vecsaule (Altrahden), a small village in southern Latvia. Another claims that Kant travelled to Liepāja (Libau) to supervise the final corrections of “Critique of the Power of Judgment”, published there in 1790 by the firm “Lagarde und Friedrich”. In 2011, a commemorative plaque was installed at the site where the publishing house once stood.
In our article “Kant’s intellectual heritage in the public spaces of Latvia”, my co-authors and I examine these stories as expressions of symbolic meaning. Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic capital, we analyze how Kant’s name has functioned as a marker of prestige and cultural legitimacy across academic research, public monuments, media discourse, and literature over the past two decades.
Assessing the influence of a philosopher is never straightforward. By shifting attention from doctrines to public memory, this article shows how Kant’s authority continues to circulate, transform, and acquire new meanings beyond philosophy as an academic discipline.
Lenz, Charlotte „Von Kriegern, Kosmos und Krabbeltieren“ Eine Ausstellung zu historischen Fake News in der DHM-Bibliothek https://www.dhm.de/sammlung/bibliothek/virtrinenausstellung-archiv/von-kriegern-kosmos-und-krabbeltieren/
Hiršs, Andris 2022. Person and Personalism: Enduring the Collapse of Idealism. The First Latvian Philosopher Jēkabs Osis. Rīga: LU Akadēmiskais apgāds.
https://www.google.lv/books/edition/Persona_un_person%C4%81lisms/NdUI0AEACAAJ?hl=lv
Hiršs, Andris (2024). Influence of personalism on Latvian theory up to the early twentieth century: substantiality and panentheism. Studies in East European Thought. doi:10.1007/s11212-024-09678-7
Teichmüller, Gustav 1877. Wahrheitsgetreuer Bericht über meine Reise in den Himmel: verfaßt von Immanuel Kant. Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes.
Andris Hiršs received his Doctor of Philosophy degree in 2020 from the University of Latvia, defending the doctoral thesis “Jēkabs Osis and the Tartu School of Personalism.”
Since 2024, he has been a Leading Researcher at the Institute of Arts and Cultural Studies, Latvian Academy of Culture. His articles have been published in international peer-reviewed journals such as Studies in East European Thought, Problemos, Religious-Philosophical Articles, and Trames.
His doctoral dissertation, published as the monograph Person and Personalism: Enduring the Collapse of Idealism (University of Latvia Press, 2022), was awarded by the Latvian Academy of Sciences as one of the best achievements in the annual Science Achievements’ Competition.
Hiršs’s research focuses on the history of ideas, particularly the historiography of Latvian philosophy and personalism. He currently serves as an Associate Professor at the Latvian Academy of Culture, where he teaches courses on critical thinking, the genealogy of ideas, and the history of philosophy. He is also a visiting professor at the Latvian National Defence Academy and Riga Technical University.
Follow the Topic
-
Studies in East European Thought
This is a scholarly platform focusing on the philosophical thought and intellectual history of East and Central Europe, Russia, and post-Soviet states.
Related Collections
With Collections, you can get published faster and increase your visibility.
The Question Concerning Technology in Russia
We are pleased to announce a call for papers for a special issue of Studies in East European Thought (SEET) dedicated to the theme The Question Concerning Technology in Russia. The aim of this issue is to present new approaches to rethinking the status of technology, with a focus on its philosophical reception in Russian culture and history.
Description
This special issue explores the question of technology in Russia in a broad sense, examining what Russian philosophy can contribute to addressing the challenges posed by modern technology. The theme is inspired by German philosopher Martin Heidegger's essay "The Question Concerning Technology" and Hong Kong philosopher Yuk Hui’s paper "The Question Concerning Technology in China." According to Hui's core thesis, technology is not a universal concept across cultures. Building on this idea, our issue aims to highlight the unique perspectives on technology that have emerged within Russian and Soviet philosophy and culture.
Given the broad scope of the topic, the issue invites contributions from both historical research in philosophy and studies on the contemporary status of technology in Russian culture. The history of Russian philosophy of technology—developed by theologians, scientists, and engineers since the second half of the 19th century—encompasses diverse approaches and distinctive features. During this period, Russian thinkers formulated numerous theories about the role of technology in human culture, its essence, and its social significance. Revisiting the ideas of Engelmeyer, Vernadsky, Bogdanov, Platonov, Berdyaev, Ilyenkov, and others in the context of modern technology offers fruitful avenues for exploring alternative relationships between humans and technology—relationships that move beyond the dominant instrumental attitude toward technology, which Heidegger criticized as Gestell. Within the history of Russian philosophy and culture, there exists both theoretical and practical groundwork for envisioning an alternative understanding of scientific and technological progress—one that prioritizes public welfare and environmental preservation rather than destruction.
Additionally, the issue will explore the highly relevant topic of artificial intelligence. The technical features of AI, particularly its greater autonomy and unpredictability compared to prior technologies, provide fertile ground for philosophical inquiry. This topic is particularly pertinent in the Russian context, where AI ethics has gained significant attention.
We invite contributions that address (but are not limited to):
● Historical-philosophical perspectives on technology in Russian and Soviet thought.
● Russian and Soviet contributions to alternative frameworks for human-technology interaction.
● Theoretical reflections on the ethical and social implications of AI, with a focus on Russian perspectives.
● Comparative studies of Russian and global philosophical approaches to technology.
● Cultural, literary, or interdisciplinary explorations of technology in Russian history
The Special Issue Guest Editors:
Andrei Glukhovskii (glukhovsky.andrew@gmail.com)
Natalia Bragina (nibragina97@gmail.com)
How to Participate
To participate, please submit your proposal (including an abstract of approximately 500 words) to the issue Guest Editor, Andrei Glukhovskii at glukhovsky.andrew@gmail.com. Should you have any queries or anticipate difficulties in meeting the deadlines, you are encouraged to contact the Guest Editors in advance. We look forward to receiving your contributions.
Please note the following key dates:
The deadline for the submission of proposals is 16 March 2025.
Applicants will be informed of the outcome of their application by 16 April 2025.
Submission online in our new SNAPP platform starts as of 23rd of April 2025.The deadline for submission of the final paper is 31 August 2026.
Publication policy and submission details
We are seeking original research papers that meet the highest academic standards. Submissions should adhere to the following criteria:
● All submissions must be written in English.
● The abstract should be clear and concise and include four to six keywords.
● Please adhere to the formatting and style guidelines set forth by the journal (for further details, please consult the Instructions for Authors).
All papers will be subject to a double-blind peer review process in order to guarantee their quality and relevance. Please submit your work online via the online submission system, selecting the option designated as "SI: The Question Concerning Technology in Russia" from the Article Type menu.
We encourage you to follow SEET’s editorial procedures Peer Review Policy, Process and Guidance and read the detailed information about how reviewers are selected Peer Reviewer Selection.
This journal offers the option to publish Open Access. You are allowed to publish open access through Open Choice. Please explore the OA options available through your institution by referring to our list of OA Transformative Agreements.
Following acceptance, papers will be published online first and will remain accessible until they are formally included in an issue and showcased on the collection page.
Why Publish in This Special Issue?
● Gain greater visibility and impact for your research within a focused, relevant audience.
● Accepted papers will be published online first, ensuring timely dissemination.
● The journal is indexed in the Web of Science and has an IF of 0.200 and CiteScore of 0.3.
We are available to provide assistance. Should you have any queries pertaining to your submission or the submission process, you are encouraged to contact the Guest Editors.
Publishing Model: Hybrid
Deadline: Aug 31, 2026
A Critical Reassessment of Russian Thought: History, Ideas, and Contemporary Challenges
A Critical Reassessment of Russian Thought: History, Ideas, and Contemporary Challenges aims to provide a rigorous and historically informed examination of Russian intellectual and cultural traditions. The collection seeks to move beyond both uncritical admiration and simplistic dismissal, situating literature, philosophy, and other forms of cultural expression within their complex historical, social, and political contexts. Contributors explore the interplay between ideas and power, the tensions between creativity and ideology, and the enduring relevance of Russian thought in shaping both national identity and global intellectual discourse. While the focus is on Russia due to the urgency of current historical and political circumstances, the collection models an approach to cultural critique that is attentive, critical, and dialogical, emphasizing engagement with ideas rather than ideological closure.
Publishing Model: Hybrid
Deadline: Ongoing
Please sign in or register for FREE
If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in
Sorry for the mistake — it should be Hiršs (2024) rather than Andris (2024). That was careless of me.
Thank you for this important and thought-provoking question.
First, it should be noted that personalism as a philosophical current is internally diverse and encompasses several distinct traditions. My focus is on the nineteenth-century Tartu School of Personalism.
Personalist thinkers within this tradition frequently polemicized against Darwinism and the natural sciences, particularly in discussions of the relationship between the body and consciousness. Their critique of materialism and dualistic models typically rests on two interconnected arguments.
a) The only reality directly given to us is consciousness.
b) The concept of “matter” is a metaphysical construct.
Whether we speak of the brain, the nervous system, or any physical organ, all such entities fall under the broader concept of the matter. But what is “matter”? According to Tartu personalists, it is not something immediately given; rather, it is a conceptual synthesis through which we designate multiple sensory perceptions. In other words, “matter” is an abstraction that is formed within consciousness.
The first Latvian philosopher, Jēkabs Osis, formulated this in his lecture notes:
"Speaking of matter, we think of sensations. The idea of matter is just an idea, and a metaphysical idea; based on the data that are within us, we judge what is outside us".
This raises a further question: what can unify diverse sensory perceptions and form abstract concepts? For the Tartu School, this is the substantial unity of the “I.” The substantial “I” serves as the foundation of personality and the ontological ground of reality. Because it is the condition for the formation of the concept of matter, it cannot itself be material or physical. The “I” produces the idea of matter within consciousness and subsequently projects or “transfers” it to external reality.
As a metaphysical form of personalism, the Tartu School emphasizes the ontological primacy of the substantial self. Without this substantial core, existence would be unintelligible. At the same time, personality characteristically externalizes the contents of its consciousness and may mistakenly assume that these objectified contents, such as “matter”, are ontologically more fundamental than the person. This gives rise to the impression that reality consists of matter.
Twentieth-century personalist movements, such as Emmanuel Mounier’s personalism, developed the tradition in a different direction. While retaining a focus on the dignity of the person, they emphasize existential and political dimensions and criticize attempts to define the individual primarily through collective identities such as class, nation, or state.
Prof. Hiršs, thank you for your professional and excellent revelation. It is truly a pleasure to read your thoughtful comments.
I agree with you and the personalists that the only reality directly given to us is consciousness, and that the concept of "matter" is a metaphysical construct.
Though the esteemed Tartu School maintains that the contents of consciousness come from outside the mind, I humbly seek some clarification on this matter.
So I asked an AI about the possibility of testing the existence of matter. It responded that we can never verificationally confirm the existence of mind-independent matter itself, because all verification remains within the circle of experience.
If experience—such as appearance—is merely the mind's self-limitation, then its imperfection and suffering are not imposed from outside, but rather reveal the mind's own irrationality, blindness, or folly. A mind that could limit itself to bliss yet chooses misery is not wise; it is unintelligent.
The AI then suggested that suffering is necessary for the mind to become conscious of itself.
However, if the mind's self-limitation is meant to produce a conscious self, it would only require distinction, order, and boundary—not suffering, randomness, or cruelty. For example, when I wish to fly but cannot, this alone informs me of a limit. Such recognition of boundary does not require pain or suffering. A world that supports agency, clarity, and joy is fully capable of giving rise to a self. To choose imperfection, helplessness, and misery when goodness is possible is not necessity; it is folly.
Thus, I believe this establishes that sensations arise, in some sense, from outside affection upon the mind. Is there something wrong with this reasoning? I agree with your suggestion that the Tartu School may assume matter is ontologically prior to mind. It seems to me that mind is more fundamental, given that free will enables us to govern matter.