This is a study of the work of the German philosopher Karl Jaspers (1883-1969), from his beginnings as a young psychiatrist to his mature days as an existentialist philosopher. This critical study of Jasper's philosophy traces his effort to instill meaning into the human quest for self-understanding and reveals the difficulties and frustrations inherent in this search. The book presents to the reader Jasper's attempts to deal with these difficulties by means of a philosophical approach to the concept (...) of being as a whole, beyond the individual – the other, the world and transcendence. In this book the author conducts an ongoing dialogue with existing research on Jasper's works and proposes a new reading for them. Along with a critical interpretation, the author reveals the challenges that the figure of Jaspers posed to his readers. Unlike most researchers, who ignored Jasper's early writings dealing with psychiatry and psychology, this book proposes a philosophical reading of these works, revealing the unity of the world in which Jaspers created – first as a psychologist and later as a philosopher. This approach enables the reader to discover in Jasper's work a daring effort to formulate an original philosphy regarding two basic concepts central to philosophy and human culture throughout all times – "selfhood" and "being". (shrink)

Der Begriff der Vernunft gehört zu den Begriffen, die für Jaspers‘ philosophisches Denken und schriftliche verfaßte Philosophie eine besonders wichtige Rolle spielen. Gleichwohl kann es im Folgenden nicht um Jaspers‘ ganze Philosophie gehen, sondern nur um seinen Begriff der Vernunft. Sein Begriff der Vernunft ist jedoch für die wesentlichen Grundzüge seiner Philosophie konstitutiv und charakteristisch. Im ersten Teil werde ich kurz auf die Entwicklung der Schriften eingehen, in denen Jaspers hauptsächlich sein Verständnis von Vernunft dargelegt hat. Im (...) zweiten Teil werde ich dann Jaspers‘ Begriff der Vernunft anhand einiger wichtiger Aussagen in den genannten Werken rekonstruieren. Dabei kann jedoch nur der wesentliche Gehalt seines Begriffes der Vernunft berücksichtigt werden und nicht alle Strukturen, Formen und Funktionen der Vernunft, die dann für seine Philosophie charakteristisch und konstitutiv sind. Im dritten Teil werde ich dann kurz den systematischen Ort und Stellenwert von Jaspers‘ Begriff der Vernunft in seiner Vernunftphilosophie beleuchten. (shrink)

This article deals with the relationship between philosophy and science in the writings of Karl Jaspers and with its reception in the wider scholarly literature. The problem discussed is how to characterize the relationship that exists between science—defined on pure Kantian grounds as a universally valid knowledge of phenomenal objects—and philosophy—conceived by Jaspers as the transcending mode of thinking of personal Existenz rising towards the totality and unity of Being. Two solutions to that problem arise from (...) class='Hi'>Jaspers’s writings. The oppositionist view is based in his earlier philosophy of Existenz. It describes the discrepancy between determinateness, bestowed by science to its objects, and freedom of self-determination, which is both a synonym and a condition of possibility for Existenz. The reciprocal view is based in Jaspers’s later works, where he focuses on exploration of his concept of Being (das Umgreifende). By contrast with most of Jaspers’s commentators, the present interpretation is anchored in a developmentaland contextual understanding of Jaspers’s thought. Showing the transcendental background of this topic, the proposed interpretation allows us to abstain from viewing the two solutions as incoherent or contradictory and instead to see them as constitutive of a single philosophical course. (shrink)

Scheler, like Jaspers, gives a key importance to the relations with alterity and grounds both the individual formation and social ontology on the practices of “sharing emotions”. My work attempts to interpret the impairments related to the capacities of communication – that Jaspers places at the roots of psychopathology and that the Japanese psychiatrist Bin Kimura has more recently argued to be the core of schizophrenia – as impairment of what Scheler calls ordo amoris, that is the “order (...) of feeling” of a person: like a "Psychopathology of the Ordo Amoris". (shrink)

Resumen No hay ningún tema fundamental en la fi losofía de Karl Jaspers que no se encuentre vinculado al pensamiento de la comunicación: este pensamiento descansa en la base de la concepción jaspersiana de la verdad, de la razón; de la libertad; de la trascendencia; de la fe fi losófi ca; de la autenticidad existencial; del fi losofar como “conversión” radical del pensamiento con vistas a la posible existencia y de la propia concepción de la aclaración existencial. El (...) presente ensayo aborda la fi losofía de la comunicación de K. Jaspers en su centralidad y signifi cación para el fi losofar en nuestro tiempo. -/- Abstract There is no fundamental issue in the philosophy of Karl Jaspers without some linking to the communication’s thinking: this thought lies at the basis of jaspersian conception of truth, reason, freedom, transcendence, philosophical faith, existential authenticity. Communication means philosophizing as radical “conversion” of thinking with a view to possible existence and the very concept of existential enlightenment. This paper discusses the philosophy of communication of K. Jaspers in its centrality and its signifi cance for the philosophical consciousness in our time. -/- . (shrink)

The revolutionary outbreak in a variety of civilizations centered around 600 B.C.E., a period in which the great world religions as well as philosophy emerged, from Hebrew scriptures and the teachings of Buddha to the works of Greek and Chinese philosophers, has been named the Axial Age by Karl Jaspers. Yet 75 years earlier, in 1873, unknown to Jaspers and still unknown to the world, John Stuart Stuart-Glennie elaborated a fully developed and more nuanced theory of what (...) he termed The Moral Revolution to characterize the period. This book also brings to light the previously undiscussed ideas of D. H. Lawrence on the phenomenon from 20 years before Jaspers, the seldom mentioned contributions of Lewis Mumford, and proposes a new context for understanding the phenomenon. Halton rewrites the history of this fascinating theory and opens new ways of conceiving the meaning of The Moral Revolution for today. (shrink)

Max Weber, who was a well-known sociologist both of his own time and of today, has been one of the most influential names – besides, Immanuel Kant, Søren Kierkegaard, and Friedrich Nietzsche - for Karl Jaspers, who is one of the original names that come into minds when the 20th-century existential philosophy is mentioned. In fact, it can easily be asserted that Weber had a huge personal role in Jaspers’ carrier as a philosopher. Karl Jaspers (...) is known for his uniquely discussed concepts such as freedom (Freiheit), communication (Kommunikation), Existenz, limit situations (Grenzsituationen), the encompassing (das Umgreifende), guilt (Schuld), and responsibility (Verantwortung). And it is obvious that Jaspers was affected by Weber considering his two specific concepts: guilt and responsibility. This is the case because Jaspers himself explains how and in what ways he was influenced by Weber. In this article, we will discuss Weber from the perspective of Jaspers. This discussion will be held in two aspects: i) personal features of Weber given by Jaspers, and ii) Weber’s effects on Jaspers from the viewpoint of Jaspers and what they share considering politics and ethics at the theoretical level. (shrink)

The article highlights the metaphysical approach that lies beneath Karl Jaspers' conception of history as an unstoppable flow of individual states into a world unity. The analysis is based on a reading of Jaspers' contribution to the Geneva conference of 1946 and his 1949 book "The Origin and Goal of History".

Karl Jasper is one of the greatest German existentialists. His philosophy of existence is both immanent and transcendental, making self realization not just a thing of the individual alone, but communal and dependent on a being that transcends material world. We exist to actualize our full potentials not by preying on others, but by coexisting peacefully.

Obwohl Jaspers in seiner Philosophie Methoden und Motive der Phänomenologie Husserls und der Hermeneutik Diltheys aufgenommen hatte, hat er sich nicht besonders für die Leibphilosophie interessiert. Das bedeutet jedoch nicht, dass der menschliche Leib in seinem Denken gar nicht vorkommt. Aber es handelt sich bei ihm jedoch nicht um ein Schlüsselthema, sondern um ein randständiges Phänomen. Der menschliche Leib ist bei Jaspers die vitale Basis der überlieferten Trias von Leib, Seele und Geist. Damit steht Jaspers in der (...) klassischen Traditionslinie des europäischen Denkens von Platon und Aristoteles bis zu Descartes und Kant. Anders als beim platonischen Sokrates gibt es bei Jaspers jedoch keine Herabsetzung des Körpers oder Abwertung des Leiblichen. Und anders als in der subversiven Tradition der empiristischen Skepsis gibt es bei ihm aber auch keine Vernachlässigung des Geistes. Im Vergleich des Menschen mit den Tieren ist der Geist nicht nur irgendein beliebiges, auf Sprache, Denken und Vernunft basierendes Merkmal, das den Menschen zufällig von den Tieren unterscheidet, sondern die wesentliche menschliche Eigenart, die es zu verstehen gilt, wenn man die spezifisch menschliche Art und Weise des Daseins in der Welt verstehen möchte, die Jaspers 'Existenz' nennt. Existenz zu verstehen ist die eigentliche Aufgabe der Philosophie, zumal die Wissenschaften dies nicht leisten können. (shrink)

This chapter articulates two concerns that Karl Jaspers raised (with Hannah Arendt) about the common practice of viewing moral evil as unintelligible. The first is that this involves exoticizing the act and/or perpetrator in such a way that moral condemnation becomes difficult. The second is that it can lead us to treat the perpetrator, place, or victim as tainted or stained by a force whose motives we cannot grasp; this in turn can lead to magical thinking about evil (...) as somehow contagious or contaminating. After distinguishing some of the main categories of evil discussed in the western tradition, I examine ways in which moral evil, in particular, has been characterized as unintelligible, and try to discern which of them raises these Jaspersian concerns. I argue that there are at least two conceptions of “radical evil”—not the Kantian one, but the ones articulated by Hannah Arendt—that do so. (shrink)

Starting from Jaspers’ analysis of attitudes in Psychologie der Weltanschauungen and analyzing their causes, we find an essential description of the human being. The human condition of being in the world (Heidegger, Jaspers) can be troubled (Freud, Jung). However, this is characteristic for human life (Jaspers, Schellenbaum). Among all attitudes, the enthusiastic one is the more consistent with human being’s dynamic nature (Bergson, Jaspers, Schellenbaum). The human being feels himself deeply touched (Scheler, Jaspers) and becomes (...) stunned. The aim of the paper is to show that the enthusiastic view is well exposed by the act of singing. Traditionally analysed in connection with art (Cassirer, Solger, Wackenroder), the enthusiastic view gives us a “sound image” of the human being since his childhood (Gehlen, Leydi). In everyday life and by all its difficulties (Freud, Jung, Schellenbaum, Jaspers), the human being discloses his nature in acoustic manifestations (Keil, Kafka, Wackenroder) by expressing the enthusiastic mode. (shrink)

Die Frage, ob Karl Jaspers ein Kantianer ist, wird nicht nur kompetente Jasperskenner überraschen, sondern auch die meisten Philosophiehistoriker, die mit der Geschichte der Philosophie der Neuzeit und Moderne vertraut sind. Denn einerseits werden nicht nur die meisten Jasperskenner, sondern auch die meisten Philosophiehistoriker überhaupt, diese Frage zunächst einmal mit einem gewissen Recht verneinen. Denn der überlieferten Lehrmeinung zufolge, war Jaspers kein Kantianer, sondern ein Existenzphilosoph. Andererseits werden vermutlich die meisten Jasperskenner und Philosophiehistoriker zugestehen, dass Kant für (...) Jaspers zumindest einer der wichtigsten Philosophen war, wenn nicht sogar der wichtigste Philosoph überhaupt. Das alleine reicht aber kaum aus, um Jaspers als einen Kantianer aufzufassen. Denn wer Jaspers als einen Kantianer bezeichnet, wird damit nicht nur meinen, dass Jaspers unter allen großen Philosophen immer noch Kant am nächsten stand und ihn am meisten schätze, sondern auch dass er selbst philosophische Auffassungen und Überzeugungen vertreten hat, die dem überlieferten Idealtypus eines Kantianers entsprechen. In diesem idealtypischen Sinne können und dürfen wir zumindest aus heuristischen Gründen z.B. Augustinus, Plotin und Bonaventura als Platoniker sowie Thomas von Aquin, Trendelenburg und Brentano als Aristoteliker bezeichnen. In diesem idealtypischen Sinne können und dürfen wir auch fragen, in welchem Sinne man Jaspers eher als einen Platoniker oder als einen Aristoteliker verstehen kann. Und in diesem Sinne kann man dann auch mit gewissen Fug und Recht fragen, ob Jaspers den wesentlichen Grundzügen seines Philosophierens zufolge ein Kantianer ist. (shrink)

O presente trabalho pretende analisar as relações entre loucura e obra no jovem Foucault, isto é, no Foucault dos anos 1950 que realiza seu curso sobre antropologia (La Question Anthropologique) em Lille e na ENS entre 1952 (ou 1951) e 1955. Para estabelecer o problema, o texto começa com uma contextualização inicial sobre os inéditos de Foucault disponibilizados desde 2013 na BNF. Então o texto constrói o problema a partir de comentadores (especiamente Jean-Baptiste Vuillerod) e encontra na figura de (...) class='Hi'>Karl Jaspers um interlocutor importante, em torno do qual Foucault gira para estabelecer suas próprias posições. Jaspers, psiquiatra e filósofo, contém teses sobre a loucura, a obra e a civilização diretamente ligadas aos interesses do jovem Foucault. Tanto a leitura de Jaspers sobre Nietzsche, quanto a das relações entre loucura e obra, serão importantes para o jovem Foucault, pois é por meio de Jaspers - dentre outros - que uma psicologia da loucura e da obra (seja qual for seu paradigma) desemboca na análise de figuras como Maurice Blanchot, na leitura singular que Foucault faz de Nietzsche e nos problemas que o levarão a uma história da loucura. *** *** -/- This article aims to analyze the relation between madness and work (oeuvre) in the “young Foucault”, focusing on the Foucault’s lessons of Anthropology taken in Lille and at the ENS between 1952 (or 1951) and 1955, under the title La Question Anthropologique. In order to place this problem, the text begins with an initial contextualization of Foucault’s unpublished works, only made available since 2013 at Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Then the article passes to the question of the madness and work according to some commentators (especially Jean-Baptiste Vuillerod) and finds in the figure of Karl Jaspers an important author, whose reference serves for Foucault to compose his own positions. Jaspers, psychiatrist, and philosopher, contains theses on madness, work and civilization directly linked to the interests of the young Foucault. Both Jaspers’ reading of Nietzsche and considerations about madness and work will be important for the young Foucault, as it is through Jaspers (among others) that the psychological and existential positions on madness and work leads Foucault to the analysis of figures like Maurice Blanchot, to his own reading of Nietzsche and the problem of a history of madness. (shrink)

Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset and German philosopher Karl Jaspers were both born in 1883, and they both maintained the position that humans are principally historical beings. Therefore, as attested by this notion itself, there are points in which their philosophy coincides. Ortega argued that human beings have no nature, only history. His argument is that history as such is human nature; what is most natural about being human is the fact of being historical and thus always (...) having historicity. Jaspers maintained the same position that in contemplating historicity, one's focus should not be on human nature in the strictly hereditary sense, because it is one's traditions, not the genetic makeup, that most make one to be human. Jaspers emphasizes the conversion of an existential historic consciousness into a consciousness of historicity that is similar to what can be understood in Ortega as historical perspectivism imbued with pragmatism. (shrink)

This chapter offers an interpretation of Jaspers’ distinction between explaining and understanding, which relates this distinction to that between general and singular causal claims. Put briefly, I suggest that when Jaspers talks about (mere) explanation, what he has in mind are general causal claims linking types of events. Understanding, by contrast, is concerned with singular causation in the psychological domain. Furthermore, I also suggest that Jaspers thinks that only understanding makes manifest what causation between one element of (...) a person’s mental life and another ultimately consists in – that is, the particular way in which one psychic event can emerge from or arise out of another. I contrast the resulting view both with a view on causation in psychiatry recently put forward by John Campbell, and also with another view that is the target of Campbell’s attack, which is due to Donald Davidson and Daniel Dennett. (shrink)

In seiner ‘Existenzerhellung der Freiheit’ reflektiert Jaspers, das Problemfeld der Freiheit in einem Kontrast zu den Begriffen, Phänomenen und Bedingungen der Unfreiheit und der Grenzen der Freiheit. Dem Problemfeld der Freiheit kann man im Denken und Handeln nur dann gerecht werden, wenn man nicht nur zwischen den verschiedenen Begriffen und Phänomenen der Freiheit unterscheidet, sondern auch zwischen den verschiedenen Begriffen und Phänomenen von Grenzen der Freiheit, wie z.B. durch die allgemeine Naturgesetzlichkeit und die menschliche Natur, durch besondere Bedingungen in (...) Natur, Kultur und Gesellschaft, durch gesundheitliches Befinden und individuelle Persönlichkeit, durch situative Begrenzungen, normative Forderungen und konkrete Grenzsituationen, wie z.B. von Leiden, Kampf, Schuld, Wagnis und Tod zeigen. Jaspers hat sich zum Problemfeld der Freiheit sowohl in seiner Allgemeinen Psychopathologie, in seinen pathographischen Untersuchungen, in seiner Psychologie der Weltanschauung und in einigen seiner philosophischen Schriften geäußert. Im zweiten Band seines frühen Hauptwerkes Philosophie mit dem Titel Existenzerhellung hat er jedoch eine umfassende Abhandlung zu dem komplexen Problemfeld der Freiheit verfasst. Dort behandelt Jaspers fast alle wesentlichen Begriffe und Phänomene der Freiheit bis hin zu seiner Konzeption einer existenziellen Freiheit. Jaspers geht anfangs von einem unbestimmten Begriff der Freiheit aus, dem kein bestimmtes Phänomen entspricht und der deswegen nur Illusionen erzeugen und einem ideologischem Denken dienen kann. Dann aber unterscheidet Jaspers zwischen verschiedenen Begriffen und Phänomenen der Freiheit. Dabei scheint er nicht nur wie die meisten zeitgenössischen Philosophen an Locke und Hume, Kant und Brentano, Wilhelm von Humboldt und John Stuart Mill anzuknüpfen, sondern auch an die Konzeptionen des Selbstbewusstseins bei Hegel, Fichte und Schelling. Da sich Jaspers nicht zuletzt auch mit den Schriften von Kierkegaard und Nietzsche auseinandergesetzt hat, gelangt er zu einer besonders umfangreichen und differenzierten Diskussion des ganzen Problemfeldes der Freiheit in der Moderne. Jaspers hat jedoch nicht nur verschiedene Freiheitsbegriffe und -phänomene unterschieden, sondern er hat auch zu den überlieferten Denkweisen im Form einer existenzphilosophischen Erhellung der Freiheit Stellung genommen. Dabei hat Jaspers’ Stellungnahme anders als viele zeitgenössische Beiträge über Freiheit und Determinimus den deutlichen und bewahrenswerten Vorzug, dass sie die unverfügbare und irreduzible Subjektivität der Willensfreiheit anerkennt. Damit knüpft Jaspers an Kants Einsicht an, dass der Freiheit des menschlichen Willens und ihrer praktischen Wirksamkeit immer nur die subjektive Evidenz inneren Erlebens zukommen kann. Dies unterscheidet sie von der Wahl- und Handlungsfreiheit, die man auch in konkreten Handlungssituationen objektiv feststellen kann. Der Freiheit des menschlichen Willens kommt damit weder die Objektivität empirischer Erkenntnis noch metaphysische Notwendigkeit zu. Die subjektive Evidenz des Erlebens eines freien Willens spricht nach Jaspers jedoch auch gegen einen weltanschaulichen, methodischen oder metaphysischen Determinismus, der sie aufgrund seiner Annahme einer kausal geschlossenen Wirklichkeit leichtfertig für eine bloße Illusion hält. Eine deterministische Weltanschauung oder Philosophie kann der condition humaine zumindest dann nicht gerecht werden, wenn sie die evidente Subjektivität eines freien Willens nicht auf eine plausible Art und Weise integriert. Jaspers’ wird der potentiellen Freiheit des menschlichen Willens dadurch gerecht, dass er ihre unverfügbare und irreduzible Subjektivität versteht und akzeptiert und erst gar nicht den abwegigen Versuch macht, sie durch eine objektivierende Einstellung zu objektivieren, wissenschaftlich zu erklären oder gar zu beweisen. (shrink)

In this chapter, we explain how Karl Jaspers’ concept of empathy can be expanded by drawing upon the tradition of philosophical phenomenology. In the first section, we offer an account of Jaspers' concepts of empathy and incomprehensibility as he develops them in General Psychopathology and “The Phenomenological Approach in Psychopathology.” In the second section, we survey the recent literature on overcoming Jaspers' notion of incomprehensibility and expanding his concept of empathy. In the third section, we outline (...) the levels of investigation at which phenomenological inquiries into psychopathology may proceed. These levels of human existence are, in descending order of depth, (1) phenomenal experiences, (2) interpretive frameworks, (3) modes of existence, and (4) existentials. In the fourth and final section, we argue that to fully empathically comprehend patients with schizophrenia and other mental disorders, the possibility of alterations at all four levels of existence must be acknowledged. (shrink)

Karl Jaspers was the first major author who emphasized empathy as the proper method of the phenomenological approach to human psychopathology (“static understanding”). He divided mental symptoms into subjective and objective ones, stressing the crucial importance of the former. Subjective symptoms are mainly those expressing patients’ emotions as well as those experienced by them and verbally communicated during the diagnostic interview. Whereas the expressive symptoms can be grasped immediately by clinicians, the understanding of the experienced ones is mediated (...) by patients’ verbal communications as re-experienced or actualized in clinicians’ own consciousness. Thus, jaspersian empathic understanding is mediated by two distinct processes: the first is a direct and automatic one, whereas the second is an effortful process of “feeling oneself into other’s condition” or of “immersing oneself in other people’s self-description” which has to be learned by systematic and rigorous training. Both processes provide the core of what Jaspers called “static understanding”. This paper aims to show that Jaspers’ static understanding prefigures two main types of empathy emerging from contemporary scientific research in neuroscience and social psychology, namely “automatic emotional empathy” and “cognitive empathy”. (shrink)

This paper applies Karl Jaspers’ and Martin Heidegger’s accounts of transcendence to their descriptions of Van Gogh’s art. I will contrast Jaspers’ more vertical account of immanent transcendence to Heidegger’s horizontal one. This difference between their separate understandings of transcendence manifests itself in their estimations of the significance of Van Gogh’s art. Using phenomenology to understand Van Gogh’s art in light of immanent transcendence, moreover, illuminates a new understanding of transcendence as the ‘beyond’ that is always already (...) here in the immanent and reveals the ability of an object to point beyond itself. Both of these concepts are at work in Van Gogh’s art as well as modern art in general as the expansion of reality through new sight. Immanent transcendence and Van Gogh’s art are different but interconnected ways of rethinking experience beyond the limits of positivism and the myth of the given. Van Gogh’s art thus embodies a sensible world transformed. In particular, Van Gogh’s landscapes and still life series suggest the inexhaustibility of the things we so often overlook in our everyday experience. (shrink)

Abstract: The essay addresses the meaning of boundary situations in the philosophy of Karl Jaspers, as a turning point drawing on Edmund Husserl's phenomenology and Immanuel Kant's transcendental philosophy, and as a key for the comprehension of some of the differences in Karl Jaspers' philosophy regarding the thought of Husserl and Kant, respectively. For Jaspers, the meaning of boundary situations as a structure of Existenz underlines the possibility of risk in the individual historicity. Taking risks (...) breaks the flow of reflection and, at the same time, appeals to an opening of ethics—without sacrificing the universality of Kant's categorical imperative. From Jaspers' point of view, Husserl's phenomenology does not open the possibility of self-transformation of the self, nor contributes it to the unfolding of the "inner action" of the transcending thinking, and since the boundary situations break the flow of the selfreflective consciousness, tensions arising between consciousness and Existenz remain beyond the scope of Husserl's phenomenology. Similarly, as seen from Jaspers' position the meaning of Kant's transcendental method has become different after the clarification by the Existenz, which not only shows that thought is at stake in boundary situations, but also that Existenz at the same time puts its potentiality and its fate at stake. (shrink)

Abstract: The article summarizes some comments -as discussed in my book La existencia en busca de la razón. Apuntes sobre la filosofía de Karl Jaspers (Existence in search of Reason. Notes on Karl Jaspers' Philosophy), Editorial Académica Española, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH&Co. KG, Alemania, 2012- about the meaning of the boundary situations in the philosophy of Karl Jaspers, as a turning point regarding Husserl's phenomenology and Kant's transcendental philosophy. For Jaspers, the meaning (...) of the boundary situations as a structure of Existenz underlines the possibility of risk in the individual historicity, which breaks the "flow" of the reflection and, at the same time, appeals to an opening of ethics -without sacrificing the universality of the categorical imperative. (shrink)

Resumen: El artículo resume algunos comentarios - como se han expuesto en mi libro La Existencia en busca de la razón. Apuntes sobre la filosofía de Karl Jaspers, Editorial Académica Española, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG, Alemania , 2012- sobre el significado de las situaciones-límite en la filosofía de Karl Jaspers, como un punto de giro con respecto a la fenomenología de Husserl y a la filosofía trascendental de Kant . Para Jaspers, (...) el significado de las situaciones-límite como estructura de la Existenz subraya la posibilidad del riesgo en la historicidad individual, que rompe el " flujo" de la reflexividad y, al mismo tiempo , apela a una apertura de la eticidad -sin sacrificar la universalidad del imperativo categórico . Palabras clave: Fenomenología de la conciencia, conciencia enferma, auto-conciencia reflexiva, situaciones-límite, pensamiento trascendiente, método rascendental, aclaración existencial, historicidad individual. (shrink)

Cheerfulness and seriousness are an integral part of philosophizing in Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Jaspers. The main reason for this lies in the fact that both regard philosophers as being inseparable from their respective philosophies. Yet also the fact that their respective philosophies have multiple meanings shifts the focus away from truth toward style and rhetoric, that is, from the true and false to mood and laughter as well as to passionate interpretation and playful conversation.

In § 6 of his General Psychopathology (1st edition 1913) Jaspers distinguished between drives, wants and volitions as three different and irreducible kinds of motivational phenomena which are involved in human decision making and which may lead to successful actions. He has characterized the qualitative differences between volitions in comparison with basic vital drives and emotional wants such as being (a.) intentional, (b.) content-specific and (b.) directed towards concrete objects and actions as goals. Furthermore, Jaspers has presented and (...) discussed three kinds of pathological problems about motivation and willing. (1.) The first kind is impulsive action or impulsive behaviour, as e.g. in psychoses or personality disorders, which he compares with instinctive action which are both without any previous hesitation, deliberation and reflection of any presumable consequences, but still very different with respect to their motivational content. (2.) The second kind of pathological problems about motivation and willing are the inhibitions of the will and Jaspers is discussing two major kinds of them: (a.) the energetic or motivational inhibition of the will which is an inability of willing due to the mere lack of any drives and motives, as in the case of any severe and pathological depression; (b.) the cognitive inhibition of the will which is due to the pathological inability to be aware of and understand properly the complexity and difficulty of real life situations in order to solve some given tasks by appropriate decision making, as e.g. in some cases of schizophrenia. (3.) The third kind is a pathological weakness of the will which is extraordinary and not familiar to normal human adults. This pathological kind of weakness of the will consist in the complete causal ineffectiveness of the subjectively felt impulse of willing which is not leading to any inward and outward observable action, such as e.g. as a movement of the limbs or some verbal utterance. This pathological weakness of the will is a complete ineffectiveness of the volitional impulse and therefore different from what philosophers discuss under the heading of weakness of the will which presuppose some evaluation of the intended resp. realized action as ethically, morally or religiously right or wrong. Finally, there are three kinds of normal or non-pathological weakness of the will, as discussed by philosophers: (A.) ethical weakness of the will as in Aristotle’s disagreement about akrasia with the Platonic Socrates; (B) moral weakness of the will as in Kant’s analysis of the absence or failure of any specific moral reasoning by pure practical reason as opposed to mere strategic and pragmatic reason or as the occurrence of a self-deceptive “dialectics of the exception“; (C.) religious weakness of the will as in Pauls personal insight about the incoherence between his high spiritual aspirations and his factual ethical achievements. (shrink)

In the General Psychopathology Jaspers famously draws a distinction between the understandable and explainable. Meaningful connections between psychic events, he argues, can only be understood empathetically and cannot be explained causally. The idea behind this distinction, according to some interpreters at least, seems to be that psychic events do not fall under any general causal rules whereas ordinary events do fall under such rules. Also Jaspers distinguishes empathetic understanding of the connection between two psychic events from a mere (...) interpretation of it, which may turn out to be false. Hence, understanding seems to be able to give us the truth about the connection and is factive as well as self-evident in nature. Contemporary epistemologists, such as Linda Zagzebsky, Duncan Pritchard, and Jonathan Kvanvig, for example, distinguish three varieties: propositional, objectual or holistic, and atomistic understanding. They do not agree on factivity and transparency of understanding. What then is the difference between their views and that of Jaspers? This essay compares recent epistemological views of understanding with those of Jaspers and critiques his claims about empathetic understanding as being both factive and self-evident or transparent; to show that empathetic understanding of connections between psychic events needs a public criterion for its individuation. (shrink)

Abstract: Karl Jaspers describes The Axial Period (800-200 BCE) as a world-historical turning point in the spiritual evolution of the human species, characterized by the rise of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Pythagoreanism, and the Hebrew prophets, without precisely identifying what defines this world-historical period. What defines The Axial Period, I argue with Jaspers, is the sublimation of sacrifice, through which the sacrificial killing of domestic animals, characteristic of primitive religions, is sublimated into the self-sacrificial disciplines of prayer, meditation, and (...) asceticism. This sublimation of sacrifice involves a curiously duplicitous gesture, through which the sacred violence of primitive sacrifice is simultaneously sublimated into the self-sacrificial disciplines of the Western Indo-European religions, and demoted to the strictly physical violence of modern warfare, stripped of its sacred origins. I argue, against Jaspers, that there is no world-historical discontinuity between primitive and modern sacrifice, but rather a continuous trajectory of the sublimation of sacrifice in Western Indo-European cultures. The Brahminic sacred texts, the Rig Veda and the Brahmanas, for example, describe a sophisticated sacrificial ritualism that more effectively sublimates sacrificial violence than do Western European modern cultures, in which un-sacrificial violence continues to escalate, to challenge the survival of the contemporary world. (shrink)

In 1873, 75 years before Karl Jaspers published his theory of the Axial Age in 1949, unknown to Jaspers and to contemporary scholars today, Scottish folklorist John Stuart Stuart-Glennie elaborated the first fully developed and nuanced theory of what he termed “the Moral Revolution” to characterize the historical shift emerging roughly around 600 BCE in a variety of civilizations, most notably ancient China, India, Judaism, and Greece, as part of a broader critical philosophy of history. He continued (...) to write on the idea over decades in books and articles and also presented his ideas to the fledgling Sociological Society of London in 1905, which were published the following year in the volume Sociological Papers, Volume 2. This article discusses Stuart-Glennie’s ideas on the moral revolution in the context of his philosophy of history, including what he termed “panzooinism”; ideas with implications for contemporary debates in theory, comparative history, and sociology of religion. It shows why he should be acknowledged as the originator of the theory now known as the axial age, and also now be included as a significant sociologist in the movement toward the establishment of sociology. (shrink)

This chapter examines the lost legacy of John Stuart-Glennie (1841-1910), a contributor to the founding of sociology and a major theorist, whose work was known in his lifetime but disappeared after his death. Stuart-Glennie was praised by philosopher John Stuart Mill, was a friend of and influence upon playwright George Bernard Shaw, and was an active contributor to the fledgling Sociological Society in London in the first decade of the twentieth century. Stuart-Glennie’s most significant idea in hindsight was his theory (...) of what he termed in 1873, “the moral revolution,” delineating the revolutionary changes across different civilizations in the period 2,500 years ago, roughly centered around 500-600 BCE. This is the era currently known as “the axial age,” after Karl Jaspers coined that term in 1949. Stuart-Glennie’s theory of the moral revolution is framed within a three-stage view of history, the first of which involved an outlook he characterized as “panzooinism,” and sometimes as “naturianism.” This theory of aboriginal and early civilizational outlooks is also notable and worthy of consideration in contemporary context, and as a contribution to “the new animism.” The chapter concludes by considering whether the moral revolution/axial age, whose effects have continued for the past 2500 years, is sustainable in the age of the unsustainable Anthropocene. (shrink)

Thus far most of the scholarship on the axial age has followed Karl Jaspers’ denial that nature could be a significant source and continuing influence in the historical development of human consciousness. Yet more than a half century before Jaspers, the originator of the first nuanced theory of what Jaspers termed the axial age, John Stuart-Glennie, mapped out a contrasting philosophy of history that allowed a central role to nature in historical human development. This essay concerns (...) issues related to my book, From the Axial Age to the Moral Revolution, and begins with a discussion of how I came to uncover the forgotten work of John Stuart-Glennie. Although Jaspers and Stuart-Glennie each drew similar conclusions regarding many of the facts of the moral revolution respectively the Axial Age, there are significant differences in their philosophies of history, concerning, for example the problem, whether history can be regarded deterministically or as an open whole, and whether nature can be a source of profound spiritual significance and even transcendence or whether that realm is limited to historical consciousness. I also briefly discuss two other overlooked contributors, namely D. H. Lawrence, who wrote on the phenomena twenty years before Jaspers, and Lewis Mumford, who is one of the first writers to draw from Jaspers' work. I then respond to four diverse scholarly essays on my book, delineating in the process my own philosophy of history as a progress in precision, paradoxically counteracted by a regressive contraction of mind. (shrink)

The rise and legacy of world religions out of that period centered roughly around 500-600 BCE, what John Stuart-Glennie termed in 1873 the moral revolution, and Karl Jaspers later, in 1949, called the axial age, has been marked by heightened ideas of transcendence. Yet ironically, the world itself, in the literal sense of the actual earth, took on a diminished role as a central element of religious sensibility in the world religions, particularly in the Abrahamic religions. Given the (...) issue today of ecological unsustainability, including massive die-offs of wildlife and ever-increasing global human population and consumption, the legacy of those world religions face the question I consider here: Can religion transcend the earth in the long run? With the Axial Age/Moral Revolution, comes the possibility of transcendence of the world per se. The moral revolution/Axial Age represented significant changes in civilization, to be sure, but it can also be taken, as I do, as a second phase in the radical shift to anthropocentric mind already begun with the advent of agriculturally based civilization. The axial ideal of transcendence connects to a larger ideal, manifest not only in the legacies of the world religions but in contemporary science and technology, of a philosophy of escape from the earth. I show how ideas of axial transcendence, celebrated by scholars such as Jaspers and Bellah, nevertheless involve an unacknowledged tragic cost, the forgetting of the earth and its lessons and limits as central to what I have termed elsewhere, “sustainable wisdom.” . (shrink)

Karl Jaspers’ Post-Neo-Kantian project of metaphysics. -/- In this paper I propose an interpretation of Karl Jaspers’ project of metaphysics as a form of Post-Neo-Kantianism. Jaspers makes Kantian philosophy one of the most important starting points of his own philosophical thinking. But, like Nicolai Hartmann and Martin Heidegger, he rejects the Neo-Kantian epistemological interpretation of Kant’s philosophy. Neo-Kantians claimed that Kant rejected metaphysics and wished to set up the theory of cognition as a new philosophia (...) prima. In opposition to this, Jaspers emphasizes the metaphysical sense of Kant’s philosophy. Moreover, in his project of the philosophy of the Umgreifenden he gives a positive meaning to transcendental physiology, the part of metaphysics which, according to the common reading of Kant, was definitely rejected by him. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to provide a philosophical and historical background to current discussions about the changing relationships between the university and the state through revisiting the classical “Humboldtian” model of the university as discussed in classical German philosophy. This historical detour is intended to highlight the cultural rootedness of the modern idea of the university, and its close links to the idea of the modern national state. The paper discusses the idea of the university as it emerges (...) from the philosophy of Wilhelm von Humbold, Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Friedrich Schleiermacher, as well as - in the 20th century - Karl Jaspers and Jürgen Habermas. More detailed questions discussed include the historical pact between the modern university and the modern nation-state, the main principles of the Humboldtian university, the process of the nationalization of European universities, the national aspect of the German idea of culture (Bildung), and the tension between the pursuit of truth and public responsibilities of the modern university. In discussing current and future missions and roles of the institution of the university today, it can be useful to revisit its foundational (modern) German idea. In thinking about its future, it can be constructive to reflect on the evident current tensions between traditional modern expectations of the university and the new expectations intensified by the emergence of knowledge-based societies and market-driven economies. From the perspective of the tensions between old and new tasks of the university, it is useful to look back at the turning point in its history. (shrink)

The methodological differences of understanding, versus explaining, have been at the centre of a century-long methodenstreit debate (and disagreement) among philosophers and scientists. Karl Jaspers managed to import this discussion to the realm of psychiatry and psychopathology in a significant, but unresolved, manner. Side-tracked by the advent of various changes in psychiatry during the 20th century, phenomenology and philosophy of psychiatry have made a comeback in the last decades and, since then, developed new contributions to this subject. Quite (...) similarly, the study of time experience, standing on the shoulders of notorious philosophers, has too witnessed a similar renaissance, with groundbreaking developments across several conditions, including depression. The present essay is essentially exploratory, but during its development, after addressing the concepts of the methodenstreit debate, and tackling both meaningful and causal connections behind time dysperception in depression, I argue that understanding, at least in this context and at present time, is not entirely reducible to causal explanations, for some things are only gained in understanding, such as the feeling of being understood and the implications it carries for a therapeutic relationship and the treatment plan. (shrink)

When people suffer they always suffer as a whole human being. The emotional, cognitive and spiritual suffering of human beings cannot be completely separated from all other kinds of suffering, such as from harmful natural, ecological, political, economic and social conditions. In reality they interact with each other and influence each other. Human beings do not only suffer from somatic illnesses, physical pain, and the lack of decent opportunities to satisfy their basic vital, social and emotional needs. They also suffer (...) when they are not able to experience and grasp any meaning of life even if such suffering is not quite as obvious as most forms of physical, social and emotional suffering. Suffering from the lack for the sense of the meaning of life is a special form of emotional, cognitive, and spiritual suffering. Although all human beings share the same basic human need for some meaning of life, the fulfilment of this need is highly individual and personal. Although all forms of human suffering can be a challenge to the meaning of life, the personal conditions of suffering usually are a stronger challenge for the meaning of life. Among the personal conditions of human suffering, the Grenzsituationen cannot be cancelled or raised at all, but only accepted and coped with as existential aspects of the conditio humana. According to Karl Jaspers these are: death, suffering, struggling, guilt, and failing. The challenge for human beings to cope with these Grenzsituationen is a way to move from the mere Being-there to true human Existence. (shrink)

One of the leading and central figures in research on delusions, Max Coltheart, presents and summarises his heretofore work in a short text. Miyazono and Bortolotti present an interesting argument aimed at the charges against the doxastic concept of delusions. Adams, Brown and Friston showcase a predictive-Bayesian concept of delusions. Young criticizes the current changes in the two-factor account of delusions and argues that the role of experience should not be dismissed within it. Kapusta presents an interesting, phenomenological approach to (...) delusions, rooted in the classic works of Karl Jaspers. In the last article, Carruthers takes a look at delusions from a different perspective. He uses them in order to show the weakness of the sense of agency concept as proposed by Wegner. The issue also contains an interview with Jakob Hohwy. In Hohwy’s still-recent book, we can find an interesting, predictive approach to delusions. Hohwy points towards the unobvious connections between delusions and illusions. (shrink)

In seiner "Psychologie der Weltanschauungen" hat Karl Jaspers erstmals die seelischen Quellen und geistigen Typen der Weltanschauungen und der Philosophie aus psychologischer Sicht dargestellt. Ziel und Aufgabe seiner Untersuchung war es, zu verstehen, welche irreduziblen Grundkräfte die Seele bewegen, um das menschliche Leben auch noch in den Grenzsituationen bewältigen zu können. Dazu unterscheidet Jaspers zwischen Einstellungen, Weltbildern und Geistestypen als Elementen der jeweiligen Weltanschauung. Um das Leben des menschlichen Geistes zu verstehen, muss man nach Jaspers zwischen (...) aktuellen Wertungen, abstrahierten Werten, persönlichen und kollektiven Wertehorizonten, situativen Wertekollisionen und diversen Wertehierachien unterscheiden. An Wertentscheidungen und Werturteilen sind nicht nur Gefühle, sondern auch der Verstand und der Wille beteiligt. Das Leiden ist der gemeinsame Grundzug aller Grenzsituationen, wie z.B. Kampf, Schuld und Tod, ist das Leiden der Menschen an etwas Unabänderlichen des menschlichen Daseins. In den Grenzsituationen kommt es nicht selten zu einem existenziellen Konflikt zwischen Hoffnung und Verzweiflung und verschiedene Geistestypen bedürfen eines existenziellen Haltes und letzten Grundes ihrer Existenz. Nach jaspers gibt es vier Typen der Reaktion auf die Grenzsituationen: Resignation, Weltflucht, Heroismus und Religiosität. Verbreiteter sind heute jedoch Versuche der Bewältigung durch Hedonismus und Konsumismus, die keinen letzten Halt bieten, sondern nur eine tiefere Verzweiflung kaschieren. (shrink)

Preface/Introduction: The question under discussion is metaphysical and truly elemental. It emerges in two aspects — how did we come to be conscious of our own existence, and, as a deeper corollary, do existence and awareness necessitate each other? I am bold enough to explore these questions and I invite you to come along; I make no claim to have discovered absolute answers. However, I do believe I have created here a compelling interpretation. You’ll have to judge for yourself. -/- (...) What follows is the presentation of three essays I have worked on over the past several years seeing publication for the first time. “Hollows of Experience” was written first as an invited chapter for a collection on the ontology of consciousness. However, when cuts became necessary, my chapter got the knife. Its length has prohibited it from publication in any print journal. “Myth and Mind” was written next as a journal article, but as my involvement with it grew so did its length, so it has also idled on my websty awaiting its call. “From Panexperientialism to Conscious Experience” was written most recently, but it is the only one to have been available to the public elsewhere than my own website. Under the name, “The Continuum of Experience”, it was Target Article #95 on the recently closed Karl Jaspers Forum (for discussion purposes only). -/- I have put them in a different sequence here, for reasons of logical sense. Up first, “Panexperientialism” deals with an idea difficult for many to accept, namely that conscious experience is a particular mode of symbolically reflected experience that is largely unique to our species. However, I aver that experienced sensation in itself (as found, for example, in autonomic sensory response systems) goes “all the way down” into nature, and thus the title, panexperientialism. -/- Understanding this idea is helpful to dealing with the focus on language in Part I of “Hollows”, next, since here speech and general symbolic interaction in general are found to be the catalysts for the creation of our consciously experienced world (our “lived reality”). In Part II, however, I explore how experienced sensations must be coeval with existence, and, with even greater temerity, how all this sensational existence might have arisen within some literally inconceivable background of awareness-in-itself that yet has a dynamism that occasionally breaks into existence as experiential events and entities. (The latter may sound wacky, but physicists and cosmologists are themselves attempting to come to terms with that which seethes with vast potential energy in what they refer to as the quantum vacuum.) -/- “Myth and Mind” was put third since it deals with a major lacuna in “Hollows” — that presumed prehistoric period when members of our species made the painful crossing of the symbolic threshold into the beginnings of cultural consciousness. Speech plays a central role here, too, but I look more at narrative structures from the dawn of self-awareness when ritual and myth became vital to human survival. Why would fantastic stories and bizarre rituals be necessary? I speculate that growing foresight led to the unavoidable realization of certain mortality, from which, in turn, emerged the secondary realization that we were now alive. In contrast to our yet-to-come death, we have life here and now, and by ritually identifying with a symbolically expanded mythic, i.e., sacred, reality, we may continue to live on after bodily death, just as our ancestors and loved ones must also do. Language and mythmaking are necessary to avoid mortal despair and they remain at the core of human consciousness. -/- As Ernst Cassirer (1944) has noted, language and myth are “twin creatures”, both metaphoric webs over a reality we can never wholly comprehend. We live in the symbolic and construct our works of imagination and wars of conquest to make life meaningful, to feel immortal, and to sense that we ourselves participate in a reality greater than ourselves. No doubt we do, but this does not mean our culturally constructed self-identities survive the death of our bodies, and it does not imply that our symbolic concepts can ever indicate the ultimate truth. We simply must symbolize an extended reality that was sacred to our ancestors: “Is it not our way, as illusory as it may be, to force continuance on our world and our life in the face of their inevitable ending? Are we not compelled to extend those imaginary horizons as far as we can despite the terror and the sometime joy their extension incites? Is their closure not a form of death?” (Crapanzano, p. 210) -/- Of course, this leaves me in the uncomfortable position of being forced to admit that this venture of mine must inevitably be another attempt at meaningful mythmaking. But what else could it be? This is certainly not a scientific proof though it is indeed an academically rigorous exploration. (Just try to count the citations!) I hope the reader will judge my thesis on the basis of its coherence, the sense of meaning it evokes, my intellectual responsibility, and, finally, the engagement it inspires. If you have read my expositions and found yourself immersed in the timeless questions I here call forth, I would call these writings successful (even if you violently disagree with my answers). -/- I am very grateful to Huping Hu for granting me this special issue of JCER in which to present my ideas in some detail. He has patiently dealt with my exuberant approach and allowed the many changes I kept coming up with right until the final publication date. I also wish to thank the many potential commentators who politely replied to my invitation, and, even more, I thank those who made time to write actual commentaries. -/- References -/- Cassirer, E. (1944). An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture. New Haven/London: Yale UP. -/- Crapanzano, V. (2004). Imaginative Horizons: An Essay in Literary-Philosophical Anthropology. Chicago: U of Chicago Press. -/- Gregory M. Nixon University of Northern British Columbia Prince George, British Columbia, Canada Email: [email protected] Websty: http://members.shaw.ca/doknyx. (shrink)

The political actions of Martin Heidegger raise a compelling question to those concerned with philosophy: How was one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century willing to ally himself with Nazism and what does this mean for philosophy? This question has been raised and brushed aside from the end of the Second World War, when Heidegger was formally accused for his involvement with Hitler's regime and forbidden to attain any official teaching position henceforth. Important thinkers, like his colleague (...) and friend in the pre-war years, Karl Jaspers. testified then against him. But Heidegger's fame rose again above his indignity in the 1950s, when Hannah Arendt in the USA and Jean-Paul Sartre in France, among others, began once again to spread the word of his philosophy and translate his works. These problems have recently intensified after the posthumous publication of Heidegger's Black Notebooks (Schwarze Hefte) in 2014, containing his notes from 1931-1941. Their publication caused seismic tremors in the field of philosophy, with Heidegger's opponents considering themselves finally vindicated by his own pen, and his supporters trying to separate thinking from actual life. However, the influence of Heidegger's thought - as well as that of other representatives of German anti-humanist nationalistic conservatism, such as Oswald Spengler - continues to spread, not only in academic but also in broader social and political circles. In the face of this spreading influence, which is combined with the influence of some disciples such as Nick Land or Giorgio Agamben, a biographical-type confrontation is not enough. We should confront Heidegger directly at the core of his philosophy. We cannot afford to ignore him or bury him under superficial gossip. Instead, we should confront him philosophically. We might be able to clear the ground for such a confrontation, if we resort to the philosophical concepts of autonomy, temporality, and human freedom. In my opinion, the most important philosophical challenge to Heideggerian thought, in this context, has been expressed by Cornelius Castoriadis. In the following chapters, I will argue in favor of this position, outlining the Castoriadian philosophy of time in contrast to the Heideggerian and highlighting the main points of their opposition. The book is divided into two parts. Part one, "Castoriadis against Heidegger" deals with the basic concepts and arguments of both philosophers around human existence, the individual, society, and temporality. We start by presenting Heidegger's scandal in the social-historical context but also with the help of Hannah Arendt's last assessment of the thinker. We move on to outline the basic concepts and structures of Heidegger's philosophical thinking in parallel with Castoriadis' criticism as regards politics, ontology and technoscience. Part two, "Time and existence" first examines the relevant approaches of Lukacs and Ricoeur in comparison to Heidegger and Castoriadis, to elucidate the basic concept of temporality and then presents an outline of Castoriadis' insights on time and existence, before finally applying these concepts to contemporary social-historical phenomena that redefine and transform human existence and social temporalities, like space exploration, digital cyberspaces and online communications. //////// -/- "This book is a tour de force that excites those who agree or disagree with the philosophy of Heidegger. With clarity and sophistication, Schismenos revives the public debate to reveal the rich possibilities for another world. A must-read for everyone interested in a philosophy that matters." - VASILIS KOSTAKIS - Professor of P2P Governance at Tallinn University of Technology and Faculty Associate at Harvard University -/- . (shrink)

Since at least Luhmann, contingency – whose conceivability must be reduced to a great extent by means of “reduction of complexity“ in order to assure stability of social and psychological systems – has been an important topos of sociological theory. What is a genuinely philosophical approach of the past decades, on the other hand, is the idea of its conceivability as being conducive for the purpose of individual autonomy. If both assumptions held equally true, collectivity and mature individuality would effectively (...) contradict each other: Mere affiliation with a collective would be the most efficient way to flee from the existential threat that is contingency, while the questioning of affiliation would require the capacity of enduring said threat. However, an individual that is thoroughly shielded from specific experiences of contingency will have little reason to break loose from its original collective environment and to expose itself to the burden of contingency. Consequently, autonomy would solely – if ever – be possible outside of any collective context and the idea of reasonably founded social liability coined at times of the Enlightenment would ultimately become obsolete. Alasdair MacIntyre and Hans Blumenberg rank among the authors who have dealt with this dilemma in their own specific ways. What makes both of them relevant to the search for a possible solution is the emphasis with which they have included existential as well as cultural contingency in the topos of human identity. The consideration of narrative categories plays an important part at this point: For it is MacIntyre´s conception of the human being as a “story-telling animal“ – surely Blumenberg would concur with this wording – that allows us to particularly understand the myth-building, rhetoric engagement with the world´s unreliability as a crucial structural factor of man´s conduct of life. Contingency always had to be “digested“ in some way or other, either had to be veiled and disowned or made accessible and bearable in order to guarantee man´s metaphysical potentiality – which both MacIntyre and Blumenberg do by molding the unpredictable and the perilous into collective and singular narrations. It is obvious that the collective narratives are superordinate to the individual ones: First and foremost, we are always members of a specific cultural environment who can only hope to obtain an autonomous identity by means of distancing ourselves from this environment to a certain extent. At the same time, as mentioned before, this cultural context serves as the best possible protection against existential contingency; in this regard, MacIntyre and Blumenberg think of cultural reduction of contingency as necessary but yet obstructive to the formation of a resilient individual and autonomous identity. Setting out from here, this essay discusses the extent to which the individual recognition of cultural and existential contingency plays a part in MacIntyre´s and Blumenberg´s concept of a responsible yet socially agreeable identity. It will become obvious that a close connection can be drawn between the affirmation of one´s own cultural contingency and the one of one´s potential suffering in “limit situations” (Karl Jaspers): Human identity could only live up to the task of dealing with existential contingency appropriately by equally admitting its own cultural contingency – and thus the cultural contingency of every other person as well. The affirmation of cultural contingencies and differences would establish a new “genre-specific” reliability that could potentially dismantle the paradigm of (post)modern tentativeness criticized by MacIntyre and Blumenberg and that could return visions of an open and humane future to contemporary societies. (shrink)

In this article, I critically reassess Iris Marion Young's late works, which centre on the distinction between liability and social connection responsibility. I concur with Young's diagnosis that structural injustices call for a new conception of responsibility, but I reject several core assumptions that underpin her distinction between two models and argue for a different way of conceptualising responsibility to address structural injustices. I show that Young's categorical separation of guilt and responsibility is not supported by the writings of Hannah (...) Arendt, which Young draws on, and that it is also untenable on independent systematic grounds. Furthermore, I argue that several of Young's other criteria fail to clearly demarcate two distinct phenomena. I therefore propose to transcend Young's distinction between two models in favour of a related, but conceptually different distinction between two forms of responsibility: interactional and structural. Embracing this terminology facilitates the conceptualisation of the general features of responsibility that are shared by both forms, including their retrospective and prospective time-direction and their applicability to individual, joint and group agency. The distinction between interactional and structural responsibility also yields a more compelling general account of the role of background structures, and of blame within ascriptions of political responsibility. (shrink)

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975), born in Hanover, Germany, was a public intellectual, refugee, and observer of European and American politics. She is especially known for her interpretation of the events that led to the rise of totalitarianism in the twentieth century. -/- Arendt studied under German philosophers Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers and set out to pursue a path as an academic, writing a dissertation on St. Augustine. However, Hitler, the Nazi regime’s rise to power, and the bloody Holocaust (...) forever changed her life. Being Jewish, Arendt was forced to flee the country, seeking refuge in France and eventually the United States. After living through the outbreak of WWII, Arendt devoted the rest of her life to writing about politics, although less in a traditional philosophical sense and more in the vein of a political observer, interpreting events of the twentieth century. -/- This essay explains some central insights of her political thought and how she developed these concepts to overcome the loss of politics as public debate in Nazi Germany. (shrink)