Miroslav Krleža’s Interdisciplinary View of Immanuel Kant

Promišljanjima i stavovima hrvatskog polihistora Miroslava Krleže (1893–1981) o znamenitu njemačkom filozofu Immanuelu Kantu (1724–1804) i njegovu nauku dosad nije posvećena primjerena pozornost. Međutim, to ne znači da Krleža nije bio upućen u sadržaj i osobitosti Kantova nauka. Štoviše, u Krležinu opusu prisutne su brojne prosudbe o Kantu i njegovu učenju, pri čemu napominjemo da je Krleža napisao i dva teksta koja je u cijelosti posvetio Kantu: članak »O dvestogodišnjici rođenja Imanuela Kanta«, koji je otisnut 1924. godine, te neobjavljeni tekst naslovljen Kant, koji je sastavni dio Krležine rukopisne ostavštine i koji je najvjerojatnije nastao tijekom 1939. godine. Krležine prosudbe o Kantu moguće je sagledati iz različitih perspektiva. Pristup promišljanjima o temama i misliocima kojima je Krleža bio zaokupljen nerijetko nadilazi disciplinarne okvire, zbog čega njegov opus uvelike obilježava interdisciplinarnost. O Kantu i njegovu nauku Krleža se, očekivano, očitovao iz filozofske, posebice povijesnofilozofske, logičke, spoznajnoteorijske i etičke perspektive. Osim toga, Kanta i njegova učenja sagledao je i iz perspektivā književne stilistike, povijesti, politologije, antropologije, pedagogije i medicine. Pritom je iskazao upućenost u sadržaj brojnih Kantovih tekstova, posebice u sadržaj djela Kritika čistoga uma i djela Prema vječnom miru, ali i u sadržaj članka »Ideja opće povijesti s gledišta svjetskoga građanstva«, kao i članka »Nagađanja o početku povijesti čovječanstva«. Kada je sagledavao Kantovu filozofsku misao, Krleža je najčešće bio usredotočen na Kantov ‘kopernikanski obrat’ u načinu spoznaje materijalnih stvari. Iz perspektive književne stilistike Kant je isprva ocijenjen kao mislilac koji je pisao diletantski, da bi u konačnici bio ocijenjen kao mislilac koji je pisao u stilu svojega vremena: krilato i idejno uzvišeno. Kada je Kanta sagledavao iz perspektive povijesti, Krleža ga je razumijevao kao mislioca koji je obilježio 18. stoljeće, dok ga je iz perspektive politologije odredio kao pristalicu jakobinaca. Kada je iznosio antropološke i pedagoške nazore, Krleža je čovjekovu budućnost sagledavao vrlo pesimistično, jer je bio uvjeren da čovjek svoj odgoj i postupke neće temeljiti na Kantovim zamislima, pa tako ni na onima zabilježenima u djelu Prema vječnom miru. Naposljetku, kada je o Kantu i njegovu nauku promišljao iz perspektive medicine, zaključio je da su Kantove spoznaje o duševnim oboljenjima bliže skolastici nego renesansi.The reflections and attitudes of the Croatian polymath Miroslav Krleža (1893–1981) on the famous German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) and his teaching have not received adequate attention thus far. However, this does not mean that Krleža was not acquainted with the content and pecularities of Kant’s teaching. Moreover, Krleža’s opus contains numerous judgments of Kant and his teaching, noting that Krleža also wrote two texts entirely dedicated to Kant: the article “On the Occasion of the Bicentenary of Immanuel Kant’s Birth,” published in 1924, and an unpublished text entitled Kant, which is an integral part of Krleža’s manuscript legacy and which most probably originated during 1939. Krleža’s assessments of Kant can be viewed from different perspectives. The approach to reflections on topics and thinkers with which Krleža was preoccupied often went beyond disciplinary frameworks, which is why his opus is largely marked by interdisciplinarity. As expected, Krleža wrote about Kant and his teaching from a philosophical perspective, particularly from the perspectives of history of philosophy, logic, theory of knowledge and ethics. Moreover, he also viewed Kant and his teaching from the perspectives of literary stylistics, history, political science, anthropology, pedagogy and medicine. Thereby he expressed his knowledge of the content of numerous Kant’s texts, especially the content of the work Critique of Pure Reason and the work Toward Perpetual Peace, but also the content of the article “Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective,” as well as the article “Conjectural Beginning of Human History.” When reflecting on Kant’s philosophical thought, Krleža was most often focused on Kant’s ‘Copernican revolution’ in the way of comprehending material things. From the perspective of literary stylistics, Kant was initially judged as a thinker whose writing was dilettante, but was ultimately judged as a thinker who wrote according to the style of his time: winged and ideationally sublime. When he viewed Kant from the perspective of history, Krleža understood him as a thinker who marked the 18th century, while from the perspective of political science he defined him as a supporter of the Jacobins. When presenting his anthropological and pedagogical views, Krleža was very pessimistic about the future of man, since he was convinced that man would not base his upbringing and actions upon Kant’s ideas, including those recorded in his work Toward Perpetual Peace. Finally, when he considered Kant and his teaching from the perspective of medicine, he concluded that Kant’s knowledge of mental illness was closer to Scholasticism than to the Renaissance