Methods
The research of anthropological foundations of philosophy of religion of Kant and Schleiermacher demands first of all the analysis of the works of two these thinkers. Methodology includes both the analysis of the role of phenomenon of religion in human life according to two thinkers and the transmission of their statements into cultural and historical background. To achieve that purpose the methodology includes not only the comparison of ideas of Kant and Schleiermacher but also the proper analysis of works devoted to philosophy of religion of contemporary authors. That is made to determine the connection and in some cases continuity between Enlightenment and Romantic School.
Consequently, the most important method is the analysis of key figures of both Schools in the historical and cultural context and determining influence and connection between authors of these schools. In that case one of the main points is researching polemic about pantheism and spinosizm in XVIII-XIX centuries. As it is know, the reaction on “On Religion: Speeches for its Cultural Despisers” was not only positive. Schleiermacher was accused for being a spinozist by conservative publicists, as were many other authors of the Romanticism.
The research includes detailed analysis of works of main thinkers of philosophy of religion of XVII-XIX centuries, the reconstruction of historical, cultural and philosophical context, in which they were written and the critical analysis of basic achievements of western researches in the field of philosophy of religion. In that case this work will be significant for Russian researchers both in the sphere of history of philosophy and in the sphere of philosophy of religion.
Results achieved
Problems of the philosophy of religion of Kant and Schleiermacher were analyzed during the research. The main idea was to compare these two philosophical and religious systems to find similarities and continuity in the Enlightenment and Romanticism. The results of the analysis and comparison were
Philosophy of religion of Kant is not only practical questions about the existence of God and soul, it is almost independent from the moral sphere of human existence. Religion is based on human good will which conciliates moral law and individual free will and feelings.
Kant’s understanding of religion includes the sense of eternity. Because of moral law connected with the sense of sublime, God is understood partly as moral law, which is given us a priori, we could conclude, that religion is the unity of eternity and individual.
This unity of individual and universal being is not just dilution of the first one in the second one, but it is the harmonious union of two aspects of a human being. This union is possible to achieve only in the religious sphere, because in the moral sphere we could see submission of individual will by the universal moral law.
Schleiermacher, being romantic, does not oppose his philosophy to Kant’s system. Just on the contrary, he founds his philosophical ideas on Kant’s system of morality and gnoseology.
Schleiermacher separates religion from another sphere of human life, such as morality, science, law etc., in “On Religion: Speeches for its Cultural Despisers”.
Religion still is the basic sphere of a human being despite this separation.
Religion is the main sphere of human being because it has no distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. This distinction appears only in the moral or science sphere, in theoretical and practical knowledge. So, consciousness can return to its original condition of unity only through religion.
Religion in Schleiermacher’s system cannot be explained with concepts. But it is not also connected with common feelings. Schleiermacher uses German word der Sinn to stress the intellectual nature of religion feelings.
The connection between these systems of philosophy of religion is very strong. We could see Kant’s attempt to explain Phenomenon of religion only in terms of reason. But Schleiermacher also stresses the intellectual origin of religious sense.
The moral sphere does not connect with an individual being: moral law command individuals to do moral things and does not take account of human feelings. Religion is not the sphere of human life, which sublime individual being: a religious man wants to do moral things.
Religion in both systems is the unity of universal and individual.