The article attempts to define the concept of “post-neo-Kantianism” based on
the nature of its relationship to the concept of “neo-Kantianism”. Concerning this matter, the
author poses the following tasks: to characterize the phenomenon of neo-Kantianism, to point
out the problems of its definition, to identify the relevance of the term “post-neo-Kantianism”
and its relation to the philosophy of I. Kant in particular. The author emphasizes the need to
introduce this term in the classification of philosophy of the XX century with the appropriateness
of building the model of “Kantianism — Neo-Kantianism — Neo-Neo-Kantianism —
Post-Neo-Kantianism”, where each new stage is determined by the nature of the reflection of
thinkers of a certain period over the fundamental philosophical problems articulated in Kant's
“Critics”. Among the post-Neo-Kantians, A. Noras names thinkers traditionally considered to
be german phenomenologists, such as E. Husserl and M. Heidegger: it is from the philosophical
concept of Husserl that one can speak of the emergence of post-Neo-Kantianism, and the semantically
correct interpretation of Heidegger, according to author, is most clearly understood
in the framework of Baden Neo-Kantianism. Investigating the phenomenon of post-Neo-Kantianism,
the need is established for answering a question regarding the preceding Neo-Kantian
tradition, within which there is still a number of contradictions unresolved in the history of
philosophy regarding the classification of Neo-Kantian schools and the distinction between the
two periods of Neo-Kantianism: early (classical) and late (“correct”). Neo-Kantianism shows
the relevance of Kantian philosophy, highlighting the ongoing debate about understanding the
Kantian “Critique of Pure Reason”. Post-Neo-Kantianism plays an important role in terms of
the perspectives of modern Kant studies, which include Gottfried Martin, Manfred Brelage, or
Hans-Michael Baumgartner
