Neo-Kantianism

1. Introduction

Neo-Kantianism (Neukantianismus) designates a diverse but methodologically unified movement in late 19th‑ and early 20th‑century philosophy that sought to “return to Kant” as a way of grounding the sciences, ethics, and culture under modern conditions. Rather than simply reviving Kant’s doctrines, its proponents reinterpreted the critical philosophy as an open, normative investigation into the conditions of valid knowledge and value.

The movement arose in a context marked by the prestige of the natural sciences, the decline of speculative German Idealism, the spread of materialism and positivism, and the emergence of historicism and value‑relativism. Neo‑Kantians proposed that philosophy’s task was neither metaphysical system‑building nor empirical science, but a transcendental critique of the presuppositions that make science, law, morality, and culture possible and objectively valid.

A number of shared commitments structure this otherwise heterogeneous current:

• an emphasis on a priori structures or norms as the basis of objectivity;
• a reorientation of metaphysics into a critique of metaphysics;
• resistance to both psychologism (reducing logic to psychology) and naive empiricism;
• a robust notion of normativity, applying not only to logic and science but also to ethics, law, and culture.

Within this broad orientation, different schools developed distinctive emphases. The Marburg School (Cohen, Natorp, Cassirer) concentrated on the exact sciences and methodological idealism; the Baden (Southwest) School (Windelband, Rickert) foregrounded value theory, the methodology of the cultural sciences, and plural value‑spheres. Subsequent sections detail these strands, the core doctrines they share, and the criticisms and transformations that shaped their historical trajectory.

2. Historical Origins and Founding Context

Neo‑Kantianism crystallized between roughly 1860 and 1880 in German‑language universities, though preparatory strands can be traced earlier in 19th‑century debates on science and epistemology. A key symbolic starting point is Otto Liebmann’s 1865 book Kant und die Epigonen, which concluded each chapter with the injunction “we must return to Kant,” directing criticism at post‑Kantian speculative systems.

Intellectual and Social Background

The founding context can be schematically represented:

Early Institutional Consolidation

Two institutional centers were decisive:

• At Marburg, Hermann Cohen’s appointment (1873) and his writings on Kant and the sciences laid the groundwork for a formally organized Marburg School.
• In southwest Germany (Heidelberg, Freiburg, Strasbourg), Wilhelm Windelband and later Heinrich Rickert developed an alternative, value‑oriented line now known as the Baden (or Southwest) School.

Around these centers, seminar cultures and lineages of students consolidated Neo‑Kantianism into a recognizable movement, often in explicit opposition to both speculative metaphysics and positivist empiricism.

By the 1890s, Neo‑Kantianism had become a dominant force in German academic philosophy, shaping curricula, scholarly journals, and broader debates on science, law, education, and culture.

3. Etymology and Use of the Name "Neo-Kantianism"

The term “Neo‑Kantianism” (German: Neukantianismus) combines the prefix “neo‑” (“new”) with “Kantianism”, signaling a consciously renewed appropriation of Immanuel Kant’s philosophy. The name indicates both continuity with and distance from Kant’s original critical philosophy.

Etymology and Early Usage

Early uses of “Neo‑Kantian” terminology in the 1860s and 1870s were often descriptive and external, employed by contemporaries to group together diverse thinkers who appealed to Kant against speculative Idealism and materialism. The movement’s participants did not initially organize under this label; rather, they spoke of “critical philosophy”, “critical idealism”, or simply “Kantian” approaches.

Over time, “Neo‑Kantianism” came to designate:

• a historical period (roughly 1860s–1930s) of renewed Kantian influence;
• a family of methodologically critical positions focused on the transcendental method rather than on Kant exegesis alone;
• a contrast class to both classical German Idealism and positivism.

Self-Identification and Retrospective Construction

Some leading figures, such as Hermann Cohen, occasionally accepted the “Neo‑Kantian” designation, but more often emphasized that their work was not a mere repetition of Kant. For example, they stressed systematic reconstruction of Kant in light of modern science or culture.

"

“The task is not to restore Kant, but to advance the critical method.”
— Paraphrase of programmatic themes in Cohen and Windelband

Later historians of philosophy, particularly in the mid‑20th century, consolidated the term “Neo‑Kantianism” to organize a wide range of authors and debates under a single rubric. There is some disagreement in the literature about how broadly to apply the label—whether, for instance, it should include only the Marburg and Baden schools, or also related currents in theology, jurisprudence, and early phenomenology that adopted Kantian and critical motifs.

Despite these debates, “Neo‑Kantianism” is now standardly used as an umbrella term for the movement’s various sub‑schools and national variants, while “Neukantianismus” emphasizes its specifically German academic origins.

4. Major Sub-Schools: Marburg and Baden Traditions

While Neo‑Kantianism encompassed many individual positions, two major sub‑schools became especially influential: the Marburg School and the Baden (Southwest) School. They shared a commitment to Kant’s critical method but diverged on the primary domain and structure of philosophical inquiry.

Marburg School

Centered at Marburg University, this school is associated above all with Hermann Cohen, Paul Natorp, and later Ernst Cassirer. Its core orientation can be summarized as follows:

Marburg Neo‑Kantians often described knowledge as an “infinite task”, insisting that objective reality is approached asymptotically through the refinement of conceptual frameworks in science.

Baden (Southwest) School

The Baden or Southwest School, linked to universities in Heidelberg, Freiburg, and Strasbourg, is chiefly associated with Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert. Its orientation is different:

Baden thinkers argued that while natural sciences abstract from individuality to general laws, cultural sciences center on historically individual events whose significance is determined by their relation to values.

Relations and Mutual Perceptions

The two schools sometimes criticized each other—Marburg authors saw Baden’s focus on values as too close to subjectivism or historicism, while Baden figures regarded Marburg’s science‑centrism as overly narrow. Nonetheless, they are generally treated as complementary strands of a broader Neo‑Kantian project, each elaborating different implications of the critical method.

5. Core Doctrines and Central Maxims

Despite internal diversity, Neo‑Kantianism is unified by a set of doctrinal commitments and methodological slogans that orient its work across epistemology, ethics, and culture.

Philosophy as Critical, Not Speculative

Neo‑Kantians typically endorse the maxim that philosophy is “critical philosophy”:

• It investigates the conditions of validity (Geltungsbedingungen) of knowledge and value claims.
• It replaces traditional speculative metaphysics with a transcendental critique of reason’s operations in science, law, morality, and art.

Priority of Normativity and the A Priori

Another central theme is the normative and a priori character of objectivity:

• Logical and scientific truths are seen as governed by rules and standards that are not reducible to empirical facts.
• The a priori is interpreted less as timeless psychological structures and more as normative frameworks or conceptual functions that may be historically articulated but retain a claim to universal validity.

Anti-Psychologism and Anti-Reductionism

Neo‑Kantians strongly reject psychologism, arguing that:

"

“The laws of logic are not empirical generalizations about thinking, but norms that bind thought if it is to count as valid.”
— Paraphrase of common anti‑psychologistic theses

Similarly, they oppose both materialist and naturalist reductions of values, insisting that moral, legal, and aesthetic validity cannot be derived from mere facts.

Objectivity Through Intersubjective Validity

A recurring maxim holds that objectivity is grounded in intersubjectively shareable norms and methods rather than in a direct correspondence to things‑in‑themselves. Scientific laws, legal principles, and moral rules are objective insofar as they are justifiable within a community of rational agents employing shared standards.

Plurality of Value-Spheres

In line with Baden Neo‑Kantianism but influential beyond it, many proponents hold that reality is structured by distinct value‑spheres:

Each sphere has its own criteria of validity, and no single metaphysical system can reduce them to one another.

These maxims inform the movement’s various specialized programs in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, science, and culture.

6. Metaphysical Views and the Critique of Metaphysics

Neo‑Kantianism is often characterized as anti‑metaphysical, but this is typically understood in a specific, Kantian sense: it rejects speculative ontology while advocating a transformed, critical metaphysics that analyzes the conditions of possible experience and validity.

Rejection of Speculative Metaphysics

Neo‑Kantians generally oppose:

• doctrines that claim knowledge of things‑in‑themselves (Dinge an sich);
• large‑scale systems positing absolute substances, world‑spirits, or teleological structures beyond experience.

They interpret Kant’s thing‑in‑itself as a limiting concept marking the boundary of possible knowledge, not as a positive object about which metaphysics can speak.

Transcendental or Critical Metaphysics

Instead of traditional metaphysics, Neo‑Kantians develop a transcendental metaphysics focused on the a priori conditions under which objects become possible as objects for us. This shift can be summarized:

Marburg Methodological Idealism

The Marburg School advances a form of methodological idealism. It holds that:

• “Objects” of science are not pre‑given substances but ideal unities constituted by scientific concepts.
• Reality is understood as a limit concept of an unending process of conceptual refinement in science.

Metaphysics, in this view, becomes the study of the functional relations and conceptual structures by which science constructs its objects.

Baden Pluralism of Validity

The Baden School reorients metaphysics toward the analysis of value‑spheres and validity‑types:

• It maintains that there is no single overarching metaphysical description of reality.
• Instead, reality is articulated through different domains of validity (truth, morality, beauty, etc.), each governed by distinct norms.

Some interpreters describe this as a form of critical pluralism: metaphysical questions are reframed as questions about how diverse kinds of validity are possible and how they relate.

Disagreement on Metaphysical Residues

There is scholarly debate about whether Neo‑Kantianism entirely abandons metaphysics or preserves a minimalist or structural metaphysics of relations and functions. Proponents of the latter reading argue that Neo‑Kantianism retains commitments about the formal structure of any possible experience, even if it refuses to speak about things‑in‑themselves.

7. Epistemological Program and Theory of Knowledge

Epistemology is the core of Neo‑Kantian philosophy. The movement reconceives knowledge as a norm‑governed activity rather than a passive mirroring of an independent reality.

Knowledge as Rule-Governed Synthesis

Building on Kant, Neo‑Kantians understand cognition as an active synthesis:

• Sensory data do not count as “knowledge” until organized by concepts, categories, and principles.
• There is no “raw given” independent of conceptual mediation; even “facts” are theory‑laden.

Marburg authors especially stress the constructive role of concepts in the exact sciences, while Baden thinkers generalize this to historical and cultural understanding.

The A Priori as Functional and Historically Articulated

Neo‑Kantian epistemology retains the a priori but often transforms its meaning:

Some Neo‑Kantians argue that while a priori norms are not derived from experience, their content and articulation may be historically shaped (e.g., by developments in geometry or physics).

Anti-Psychologism and Logic

Neo‑Kantian epistemology is closely tied to anti‑psychologism in logic:

• Logical laws are seen as norms of valid inference, not empirical generalizations about how people think.
• This stance aligns, in part, with contemporaneous work by Gottlob Frege, though developed independently.

Objectivity and Intersubjectivity

Objectivity, for Neo‑Kantians, is not achieved by accessing things‑in‑themselves but by satisfying intersubjective criteria of justification:

• Scientific claims are objective insofar as they can be justified by appeal to shared methods and standards.
• This applies analogously to claims in other domains, though their standards differ (e.g., historical explanation vs. physical law).

Methodological Distinctions

In epistemology of the sciences, the Baden School introduces the influential distinction between nomothetic and idiographic knowledge:

• Nomothetic: seeks general laws (typical of natural sciences).
• Idiographic: interprets singular, historically individual events (typical of history and cultural sciences).

This distinction is not merely descriptive but part of a transcendental analysis of how different forms of knowledge are possible.

8. Ethical Theory and Value Philosophy

Neo‑Kantian ethics renews Kant’s deontological approach while integrating it into a broader philosophy of values (Wertphilosophie). The focus shifts from metaphysical conceptions of the good to the normativity of moral obligations and the structure of value‑judgments.

Formal Ethics and Autonomy

Many Neo‑Kantians emphasize:

• the formal character of moral law (universalizability, consistency, respect for persons);
• the centrality of autonomy and self‑legislation of rational agents;
• the priority of the right over substantive accounts of the good life.

Ethical theory is seen as a critical inquiry into the conditions under which moral claims can be valid, rather than an empirical study of moral behavior.

Value Theory and Plurality of Values

The Baden School, in particular, develops an explicit value theory:

This framework allows Neo‑Kantians to discuss moral norms alongside other types of normativity without reducing one to the other.

Relation to Kant and Contemporary Ethics

Neo‑Kantian ethics:

• draws heavily on Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Groundwork, especially the categorical imperative;
• often interacts with contemporaneous axiological ethics (e.g., Brentano, Meinong, early phenomenologists), sometimes converging on the idea of objective values while maintaining a distinctively critical and formal orientation.

Some proponents argue that moral norms, though historically interpreted and institutionalized, claim a form of trans‑historical validity, similar to logical or scientific norms.

Debates on Material Content

Within Neo‑Kantianism, there is discussion over whether ethics can remain purely formal or must incorporate material principles (e.g., specific duties, rights, or social ideals). Some figures introduce more substantive accounts of justice, culture, or personality, while still framing them within a critical, non‑metaphysical approach.

9. Political Philosophy, Law, and Liberalism

Neo‑Kantian political and legal thought extends the movement’s ethical and epistemic commitments into the public sphere, generally supporting liberal, constitutional frameworks and the rule of law.

Foundations in Autonomy and Normativity

Political and legal norms are understood as expressions of practical reason:

• Legitimate political authority is grounded in rational justification and the autonomy of citizens, not in tradition or sheer power.
• Legal systems are evaluated according to their conformity to universalizable principles and respect for persons.

These ideas echo Kant’s own political philosophy, but Neo‑Kantians often adapt them to emerging constitutional and democratic institutions.

Philosophy of Law

In legal theory, Neo‑Kantianism influences conceptions of:

Some jurists influenced by Neo‑Kantianism, such as Hans Kelsen, develop sophisticated theories of legal normativity and hierarchy, though scholars debate how strictly Kantian these accounts remain.

Liberalism and Reform

Many Neo‑Kantian philosophers supported:

• constitutional monarchy evolving toward parliamentary democracy;
• civil liberties, academic freedom, and secular education;
• legal reforms aiming at equal rights and the protection of minority groups.

Their arguments typically draw on the idea that modern political orders must be justified in terms that any rational agent could, in principle, accept.

Engagement with Contemporary Politics

Neo‑Kantians participated in debates about:

• the Kulturkampf and the role of religion in the state;
• social democracy and the labor movement;
• nationalist and authoritarian currents in early 20th‑century Germany.

While positions varied, the overarching tendency was to employ critical, Kantian norms (autonomy, universality, respect for persons) as standards for assessing political institutions and legal systems.

10. Philosophy of Science and the Natural Sciences

Neo‑Kantianism, particularly through the Marburg School, develops a detailed philosophy of the natural sciences that seeks to reconcile Kantian a priori structures with modern physics and mathematics.

Science as Paradigm of Objectivity

Neo‑Kantians often treat the exact sciences as paradigmatic for understanding objectivity:

• Scientific knowledge is seen as the clearest case of normatively structured inquiry.
• The task of philosophy is to analyze the conceptual and methodological conditions that make such knowledge possible.

Conceptual Construction of Objects

Marburg thinkers argue that scientific objects are constructed through conceptual frameworks:

"

“The object is the correlate of method.”
— Paraphrase of Marburg methodological slogan

Key themes include:

• mathematical functional concepts (e.g., relations, limits) replacing substance‑based metaphysics;
• the view that laws of nature express stable relations produced by the systematic unification of phenomena;
• rejection of a pre‑conceptual “given”: even measurements presuppose theoretical assumptions.

Response to Developments in Physics and Mathematics

Neo‑Kantians engage with:

• non‑Euclidean geometry and its implications for Kant’s doctrine of space;
• advances in thermodynamics, electromagnetism, and relativity (especially in later figures like Cassirer);
• the shift from mechanistic to field and relational conceptions of nature.

Some propose that a priori structures should be understood as functional norms guiding inquiry, flexible enough to accommodate changing empirical theories while still providing a basis for objectivity.

Distinction from Positivism and Empiricism

Compared to positivism, Neo‑Kantian philosophy of science:

Objectivity and Idealization

Neo‑Kantians emphasize the role of idealizations (perfect gases, rigid bodies, etc.) in scientific explanation. Such idealizations demonstrate, in their view, that science operates through ideal constructs governed by rational norms, rather than by simple induction from raw data.

11. Cultural Sciences and the Concept of Value-Relevance

Beyond the natural sciences, Neo‑Kantianism offers a systematic account of the cultural (or human) sciences and introduces the notion of value‑relevance (Wertbeziehung).

Nomothetic vs. Idiographic Sciences

Wilhelm Windelband famously distinguishes:

This distinction is methodological, not ontological: both types of science deal with the same world but differ in their epistemic orientation.

Value-Relevance (Wertbeziehung)

Heinrich Rickert elaborates the concept of value‑relevance to explain how cultural sciences select and organize their subject matter:

• The empirical world contains infinitely many facts.
• Cultural sciences must select which facts to study.
• This selection is guided by their relation to values—for example, significance for moral, aesthetic, religious, or political concerns.

Value‑relevance does not mean that researchers impose arbitrary values; rather, it indicates that:

• cultural significance is always understood in light of shared or contested values;
• objectivity in cultural sciences is compatible with value‑orientation, provided methods of selection and interpretation are critically examined.

Objectivity in Cultural Sciences

Neo‑Kantians argue that objectivity in history and cultural studies:

• does not consist in value‑neutrality, but in methodical control of value‑based selection and interpretation;
• requires clear articulation of the normative horizons within which events are deemed significant.

Some critics interpret this as opening the door to relativism, whereas proponents insist that values themselves can be studied transcendentally as conditions of meaningful experience.

Relation to Sociology and Hermeneutics

Neo‑Kantian concepts of value‑relevance and idiographic understanding influence:

• early sociological theories of value‑freedom and interpretation (e.g., debates around Max Weber);
• later hermeneutic and cultural theories that emphasize interpretation, meaning, and normativity in human sciences.

Within the Neo‑Kantian framework, however, these remain anchored in a broader theory of validity and value‑spheres, rather than in purely descriptive accounts of understanding.

12. Key Figures and Institutional Centers

Neo‑Kantianism developed primarily within German university philosophy, structured around influential chairs and seminar traditions.

Principal Figures

Other associated scholars include logicians, theologians, and jurists who adopted Neo‑Kantian themes, though their classification within the movement varies among historians.

Institutional Centers

Key universities functioning as hubs:

Academic Practices

Neo‑Kantian influence was transmitted through:

• seminar culture, emphasizing close reading of Kant and systematic discussion of contemporary sciences;
• doctoral supervision, leading to lineages of students and successors;
• involvement in philosophical societies and journals, where debates on epistemology, ethics, and science were conducted in a distinctively critical idiom.

These institutional patterns contributed to Neo‑Kantianism’s prominence in pre‑World War I German philosophy.

13. Relations to Contemporary Movements and Rival Schools

Neo‑Kantianism developed in active dialogue—and sometimes polemic—against several major 19th‑ and early 20th‑century currents.

Positivism and Empiricism

Neo‑Kantianism frequently positions itself against positivism:

German Idealism

While inspired by Kant, Neo‑Kantians reject post‑Kantian German Idealism (Hegel, Schelling, Fichte in their system‑building phases):

• They criticize attempts to deduce the structure of reality from purely speculative principles.
• Yet some acknowledge affinities in the emphasis on activity and normativity, while insisting on stricter limits to knowledge.

Psychologism

Psychologistic approaches in logic and epistemology are a principal foil:

"

Logical and mathematical truths, Neo‑Kantians argue, are not empirical regularities of thought but norms that constitute valid reasoning.

This stance intersects with, but is distinct from, the anti‑psychologism of Frege and later analytic philosophy.

Historicism and Relativism

Neo‑Kantians engage both with historical scholarship and with fears of relativism:

• They accept that knowledge and culture are historically situated.
• They nonetheless defend trans‑historical norms of validity, using the transcendental method to analyze historically manifest but normatively binding structures.

Lebensphilosophie and Nietzsche

Against Lebensphilosophie (philosophy of life) and Nietzschean critiques of reason, Neo‑Kantians:

• uphold the primacy of rational critique over immediate life, will, or feeling;
• argue that even critiques of reason presuppose normative standards of argument and evidence.

Phenomenology and Early Analytic Thought

Relations with phenomenology and early analytic philosophy are complex:

• Some Neo‑Kantians influenced or interacted with Husserl, especially on issues of logic and anti‑psychologism.
• Overlaps with early analytic philosophy appear in logic, language, and philosophy of science, though methodological self‑understandings differ.

These intersections and oppositions position Neo‑Kantianism as a central node in the transition from classical German philosophy to 20th‑century analytic and continental traditions.

14. Criticisms and Internal Debates

Neo‑Kantianism faced both external criticism and significant internal disagreements, contributing to its later transformation.

External Criticisms

Major external lines of critique include:

Internal Debates

Within the movement, several disputes shaped its development:

• Marburg vs. Baden focus: Whether the critical method should be grounded primarily in science (Marburg) or value theory and cultural sciences (Baden).
• Scope of the a priori: Disagreements over how flexible or historically conditioned a priori structures can be without losing their normative status.
• Status of metaphysics: Some advocated a more robust transcendental metaphysics of structures, while others pushed toward a more modest, methodological conception.
• Formal vs. material ethics: Debates about whether ethics can remain purely formal (universalizability, respect for persons) or must adopt substantive principles tied to cultural or social ideals.

Relativism and Historicism Worries

Critics claimed that the acknowledgment of historical variability in conceptual frameworks led to relativism. Neo‑Kantians responded by:

• insisting on the distinction between historically manifested norms and their validity;
• developing accounts in which history provides the context for the articulation, but not the relativization, of a priori structures.

The tension between these positions became a recurring point of contention both inside and outside the movement.

Methodological Self-Critique

Some later Neo‑Kantians themselves questioned:

• whether the transcendental method could adequately account for empirical discoveries in logic or mathematics;
• whether the sharp divide between validity (Geltung) and being (Sein) remained tenable.

These self‑critiques contributed to shifts toward new philosophical orientations in the early 20th century.

15. Twentieth-Century Decline and Transformations

Neo‑Kantianism’s dominance in German philosophy diminished between the 1920s and 1940s due to a combination of intellectual and socio‑political factors.

Intellectual Shifts

Several emerging movements challenged Neo‑Kantian frameworks:

These movements attracted many younger philosophers who had been trained in Neo‑Kantian seminars but sought new directions.

Political and Institutional Disruptions

The rise of National Socialism and the persecution, exile, or marginalization of many Jewish and liberal academics severely weakened Neo‑Kantian institutional bases:

• Universities where Neo‑Kantianism had been strong (e.g., Marburg, Heidelberg) were restructured or purged.
• Key figures died (Cohen 1918, Natorp 1924, Rickert 1936) or, like Cassirer, went into exile.

These events disrupted seminar lineages and curtailed the transmission of Neo‑Kantian doctrines.

Internal Evolution and Diversification

Even before its decline, Neo‑Kantianism was undergoing transformation:

• Cassirer shifted from strict Marburg methodological idealism to a broader philosophy of symbolic forms, integrating phenomenological and cultural‑historical insights.
• Some thinkers moved toward phenomenology, critical theory, or analytic philosophy, carrying over selected Neo‑Kantian themes (e.g., normativity, a priori structures) while abandoning others.

Changing Perceptions

Mid‑20th‑century histories of philosophy often portrayed Neo‑Kantianism as:

• overly scholastic and tied to a now outdated conception of science;
• a transitional phase from classical German philosophy to more “modern” movements.

Later scholarship has reassessed this narrative, but during the interwar and immediate postwar periods, Neo‑Kantianism as a self‑conscious school largely dissipated.

16. Later Revivals and Influence on Analytic and Continental Thought

From the mid‑20th century onward, elements of Neo‑Kantian thought reappeared in various philosophical traditions, often without the explicit label “Neo‑Kantianism.”

Post-War Kantian and Neo-Kantian Renaissance

In the 1950s–1970s, renewed interest in Kant coincided with the recovery of neglected Neo‑Kantian ideas:

• In analytic philosophy, figures like Wilfrid Sellars drew on Kantian themes about the space of reasons and the critique of the “myth of the given,” paralleling Neo‑Kantian skepticism about uninterpreted sense data.
• Historians of philosophy began to reassess the role of Marburg and Baden Neo‑Kantianism in shaping debates on logic, science, and value.

Philosophy of Science and Normativity (1980s–2000s)

A more explicit Neo‑Kantian revival occurred in philosophy of science and theory of rationality:

These approaches echo Neo‑Kantian accounts of how conceptual frameworks both shape experience and remain subject to rational evaluation.

Critical Theory and Discourse Normativity

In continental and critical theory contexts:

• Jürgen Habermas and others draw on Kantian and Neo‑Kantian ideas about intersubjective validity, communicative rationality, and the role of norms in law and democracy.
• Early Frankfurt School thinkers were educated in a Neo‑Kantian environment and adapted its focus on critique and normativity to social and economic analysis.

Ongoing Influence in Ethics and Political Philosophy

Contemporary Kantian constructivism, theories of public reason, and debates about value pluralism often reflect Neo‑Kantian motifs:

• emphasis on the priority of the right over the good;
• recognition of multiple value‑spheres with distinct norms;
• attempts to reconcile historical situatedness with claims to universal validity.

While these later developments frequently integrate other influences (e.g., phenomenology, pragmatism, analytic metaethics), scholars increasingly highlight Neo‑Kantianism as an important background source.

Renewed Historical Scholarship

Recent decades have seen a surge of research on Neo‑Kantian texts, correspondence, and institutional networks. This scholarship has:

• nuanced earlier portrayals of Neo‑Kantianism as rigid or obsolete;
• traced lines of influence to contemporary debates in logic, science, ethics, and culture;
• opened new comparative work between Neo‑Kantianism, phenomenology, and analytic philosophy.

17. Legacy and Historical Significance

Neo‑Kantianism’s legacy lies less in a single doctrinal system than in a set of methodological orientations that have shaped multiple philosophical traditions.

Consolidation of the Critical, Transcendental Project

The movement:

• reinterpreted Kant’s critical philosophy as an ongoing project of analyzing the conditions of possibility and validity of knowledge and value;
• helped establish epistemology and philosophy of science as central, systematic disciplines in modern philosophy.

Many later theories of rationality, justification, and normativity develop against this backdrop.

Influence on the Division of Philosophical Labor

Neo‑Kantian work contributed to:

• the differentiation between natural and cultural sciences and their respective methodologies;
• the articulation of distinct domains of validity (truth, morality, aesthetics, religion), paving the way for later discussions of value pluralism and the autonomy of value‑spheres.

These distinctions continue to inform debates in philosophy of social science, hermeneutics, and cultural theory.

Institutional and Educational Impact

As a dominant force in German universities before World War I, Neo‑Kantianism:

• shaped generations of students who later became influential in phenomenology, analytic philosophy, critical theory, theology, and jurisprudence;
• helped normalize a seminar‑based, textually and scientifically informed model of philosophical training.

Bridge Between Classical and Contemporary Philosophy

Historians increasingly view Neo‑Kantianism as a crucial bridge:

Its debates over psychologism, the a priori, and the status of metaphysics anticipate central 20th‑century controversies.

Continuing Relevance

Current scholarship and philosophical practice draw on Neo‑Kantian themes in addressing:

• the normative structure of scientific and moral reasoning;
• the relation between historicity and objectivity;
• the role of values in knowledge, law, and culture.

While no longer a unified school, Neo‑Kantianism remains a significant reference point for understanding how modern philosophy grapples with science, normativity, and culture in the wake of Kant.