The article deals with the problem of insufficient study of Russian neo-Kantianism in the history of philosophy. The authors point out the specificity and complexity of this topic, which explains the relatively late treatment of it by both foreign and domestic researchers. The article also notes that even though the importance of neo-Kantian influence on Russian thought, literature and culture of the late 19th - early 20th century is recognised, this topic remains understudied. The article is devoted to the peculiarities of Russian neo-Kantianism and its difference from German neo-Kantianism. The author concludes that the Russian tradition did not have such a deep and systematic study of Kant's philosophy as in Germany. The article notes that therepresentatives of Russian Neo-Kantianism used the critical method and traditions of Kant's transcendental philosophy considering the specifics of the formation of philosophy in Russia. The authors also point out the ambiguity of attributing G. I. Chelpanov to neo-Kantianism. This may be since his views do not fully correspond to the main provisions of this philosophical current.
Belov et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: