Filosofía de la existencia

by Karl Jaspers, Luis Rodríguez Aranda (Translator)

La mayoría de los comentaristas asocian a Jaspers con la filosofía del existencialismo, en parte porque se explaya ampliamente en las raíces del existencialismo de Nietzsche y Kierkegaard, y porque el tema de la libertad individual es una constante en su obra.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Psychology, German Literature, Cultural, 20th Century, Germany

137 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1938

About the author

Jaspers was born in Oldenburg in 1883 to a mother from a local farming community, and a jurist father. He showed an early interest in philosophy, but his father's experience with the legal system undoubtedly influenced his decision to study law at university. It soon became clear that Jaspers did not particularly enjoy law, and he switched to studying medicine in 1902.

Jaspers graduated from medical school in 1909 and began work at a psychiatric hospital in Heidelberg where Emil Kraepelin had worked some years earlier. Jaspers became dissatisfied with the way the medical community of the time approached the study of mental illness and set himself the task of improving the psychiatric approach. In 1913 Jaspers gained a temporary post as a psychology teacher at Heidelberg University. The post later became permanent, and Jaspers never returned to clinical practice.

At the age of 40 Jaspers turned from psychology to philosophy, expanding on themes he had developed in his psychiatric works. He became a renowned philosopher, well respected in Germany and Europe. In 1948 Jaspers moved to the University of Basel in Switzerland. He remained prominent in the philosophical community until his death in Basel in 1969.

Jaspers' dissatisfaction with the popular understanding of mental illness led him to question both the diagnostic criteria and the methods of clinical psychiatry. He published a revolutionary paper in 1910 in which he addressed the problem of whether paranoia was an aspect of personality or the result of biological changes. Whilst not broaching new ideas, this article introduced a new method of study. Jaspers studied several patients in detail, giving biographical information on the people concerned as well as providing notes on how the patients themselves felt about their symptoms. This has become known as the biographical method and now forms the mainstay of modern psychiatric practice.
Jaspers set about writing his views on mental illness in a book which he published in 1913 as General Psychopathology. The two volumes which make up this work have become a classic in the psychiatric literature and many modern diagnostic criteria stem from ideas contained within them. Of particular importance, Jaspers believed that psychiatrists should diagnose symptoms (particularly of psychosis) by their form rather than by their content. For example, in diagnosing a hallucination, the fact that a person experiences visual phenomena when no sensory stimuli account for it (form) assumes more importance than what the patient sees (content).

Jaspers felt that psychiatrists could also diagnose delusions in the same way. He argued that clinicians should not consider a belief delusional based on the content of the belief, but only based on the way in which a patient holds such a belief (see delusion for further discussion). Jaspers also distinguished between primary and secondary delusions. He defined primary delusions as autochthonous meaning arising without apparent cause, appearing incomprehensible in terms of normal mental processes. (This is a distinctly different use of the term autochthonous than its usual medical or sociological meaning of indigenous.) Secondary delusions, on the other hand, he classified as influenced by the person's background, current situation or mental state.

Jaspers considered primary delusions as ultimately 'un-understandable,' as he believed no coherent reasoning process existed behind their formation. This view has caused some controversy, and the likes of R. D. Laing and Richard Bentall have criticised it, stressing that taking this stance can lead therapists into the complacency of assuming that because they do not understand a patient, the patient is deluded and further investigation on the part of the therapist will have no effect.

Most commentators associate Jaspers with the philosophy of existentialism, in part because he draws largely upon the existentialist roots of Nietzsche and Kierk

Reviews

[Benjamin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was thrilled to read Jaspers' short book Philosophy of Existence. For Jaspers, philosophy is different from science but necessary for science, and conversely science is necessary for philosophy, for at least the function of defining the boundaries of philosophizing. Moreover, philosophy is different from both science and religion, yet is bound to both. Religion is the source from which philosophizing springs. Science is essential to philosophy and one must know science in order to learn how to philosophize.

A key concept in Jaspers philosophizing is The Encompassing, particularly in terms of "modes", which forms our awareness of being, underlying our scientific and common-sense knowledge, given expression in the myths and rituals of religion. There are three modes to the encompassing: existence (Dasein), consciousness-in-general, and spirit. Existence, consciousness in general, and spirit, along with the worlds corresponding to them, comprise the immanent modes of the encompassing. Additionally, there are the transcendent modes of Existenz and Transcendence.

Jaspers is a key thinker in the existentialist movement of the 20th century. He's particularly influenced by Kierkegaard and Kant, with notable terminology borrowed from Hegel and Heidegger.

I enthusiastically consumed Jaspers' thought and am excited to delve deeper into his philosophy!

[Lester Ballard · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just reread this. This book is a perfect introduction for someone interested in the (post)modern German flavor of existentialism, and at 99 pages, it's a very manageable read (I started it yesterday and finished it today, for example). Jaspers divides the work into three parts: Being, Truth, and Reality. The chapter on Being is a particularly excellent summation of participation in knowledge of an aspect of a dynamic Being. Later chapters, while still good, are somewhat vague or oversimple if the reader is a little more conversant with contemporary philosophy. This is doubtless a result of the brevity of the work, and it is perhaps unrealistic to expect greater rigor of thought in what is ultimately the publication of a series of lectures. That being said, Jaspers avoids some of the errors into which Sartre falls in his lecture on existentialism. Philosophy of Existence is a brief elucidation of ideas that neither pretends to wholly explain those ideas nor misrepresents them.

[Beli_grrl · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dear God this is difficult. This is one of the most inscrutable, esoteric works of philosophy I've ever encountered. I'll start to give up on understanding it, and right then, as my mind recoils from it, there's a transcendent moment where I get it. Which I think may be his point. I think what he's saying is that only when you realize that you can't know truth or reality do you catch a glimpse of it. And even then not really.

There's a lot of stuff about transcendence and Existenz. And being. And unity. And how all being is unity and as humans we experience it through Existenz.

What is Existenz? Well, it's the transcendent mode of the Encompassing of Subjectivity. The raw Being of your selfhood.

I'm sure I would give this 5 stars if I were smart enough to understand it.

[August Denys · Rating 1 out of 5]

I did not care for this book. If I were to as I am now to have went to the lectures that this book was made from, then I would have either fallen asleep or walked out. And maybe that has to do with the philosophy that has come before I have read this book. And it's not that I am against the general topics of this book Being, Truth, and Reality. In the most basic way, the thing I have against Jaspers and specifically this book is that he feels like a philosophical defeatist. If you read the Preface you can easily get a bad taste in your mouth even with it being written by a person that is not Jaspers, Richard Grabau. I honestly don't know who he is, but he states the biggest problem with Jaspers philosophy. He states, "By using this term [philosophizing philosophieren] Jaspers stresses the fact that philosophy is an activity , a movement of thought that knows no end and produces no set of doctrines, theories, or even concepts." (pg. xii) This sentiment can be found in Jaspers' Introduction, but it is also in his other book that I have started looking through, Way To Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy because he reduces Philosophy even farther to Communication.

I wanted to enjoy Karl Jaspers, over the years I picked up three books that deal with him directly, his two books that I've stated here, and an older book titled Karl Jaspers: An Introduction to His Philosophy. I'm not an existentialist, but I have dealt with Heidegger, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Husserl and more, but it pales in comparison. If according to Jaspers that philosophy doesn't create, then it doesn't do anything else. Do physicists and mathematicians wait for philosophers to come by to communicate? No. Then communication is not particular to philosophy. Perhaps he means to say that when these people are communicating they are partaking in philosophy. But then this just feels inadequate.

It is believed that Socrates stated the unexamined life is not worth living, but if it is just communication, then sure we may examine that, but what about the implications the content has on the form of the communication? What does it mean that Spacetime is flat when we came to Einstein? What are the implications that light is a wave and a particle? I'm not just asking the scientific question here, but that is most often the perceived question. Rather, Space is flat, why don't we perceive it that way? Is it merely an analogy to consider Space flat? Is flat the best word for communication the nature of this reality? What about non-physicist matters? What about education. Yes, we communicate to kids between the ages of 5-18, but we don't communicate the same way, but what are we communicating and what should we communicate?

I know that I have not spent much time on the stuff inside the book, but it is infuriating to take what Jaspers states. Philosophy doesn't create concepts. Well, how else are we supposed to consider his Encompassing, or Truth, or Reality? Well, I spent most of my time in the section labeled truth, and for a philosopher that declares Communication to be the aim of philosophy, it feels that he throws the words out there without really considering their implications. The reason I state that is the case with Truth is because of the lackadaisical attitude towards its own Being. Yes, a person can get a glimpse of important stuff from this; however, there are much better sources to do this. He considers Truth to be Modal. That is to say it is different considering the mode of existence it is on. His first elucidation of Truth is on the level of Existence. He states, "Truth at the level of existence is a function of the preservation and extension of existence. It proves itself by its usefulness in practice." (pg. 38) Now at first this seems like an okay statement. If I am charitable with it, it would seem that if Truth is a function at the level of existence, it would refer to its being. However, he adds a second step that adds a moral dimension to Truth during his metaphysical/ontological claim. Usefulness and function here are the keys words to this because it adds something to being that may or may not be the case. Take for instance a hammer. It has a use when it is being used and we attach that use and function to it. When it is not in use, we can perceive this use and function but there is this strange thing where it is not in use, its not being useful. So, this seems to be an addition. Why not just stop at the first level of truth being Being? I can say, this is a hammer, and dependent on the situation, that statement can be true and can be false. But then, he is looking for an absolute truth which would thus explain the moral view because all objects, as we know from Kant are the object and therefore are also the existence, but for the hammer to be true, it must be being used, it would seem that if it is not functioning, it is not a true hammer.

Suffice to say, I feel that Jaspers is a disappointing philosopher. I would rather a person read. Descartes, Hume, Leibniz, Kant, Marx, Hegel, Bergson, Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre, Merleau-Ponty, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Quine, Carnap, Russell, Wittgenstein, Frege, and so many more. This can be skipped and doesn't deserved the 1/5 star.

[Ali Reda · Rating 3 out of 5]

It emphasized the task of philosophy that for a time had been almost forgotten: to catch sight of reality at its origin and to grasp it through the way in which I, in thought, deal with myself - in inner action.

they searched for the hidden reality; they wanted to know what was knowable; and they thought that by understanding themselves they could arrive at the foundation of their being.

[Marco Innamorati · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Se voglio istruzioni psicoterapeutiche invece della libertà dell'essere-se-stessi, la filosofia mi abbandona. Essa parla solo là dove il sapere e la tecnica falliscono. Essa indica ma non dà. Essa si muove coi raggi luminosi della luce ma non produce". Da questa citazione si comprende chiaramente cosa ci si può aspettare dalle lezioni del 1937 contenute in Filosofia dell'esistenza: una breve introduzione ai temi più puramente teoretici di un filosofo che è noto anche per il suo pensiero pratico. L'introduzione è breve ma non facile. Lascia però almeno sfiorare il concetto fondamentale e sfuggente di Umgreifende (abbracciante, trascendente).

[Ian · Rating 5 out of 5]

"There is an ancient saying that in the sciences a little knowledge leads away from faith, but that complete knowledge leads back to it.

....We can apply the saying about the sciences to philosophy: a little philosophy leads away from reality, but complete philosophy leads back to it." Jaspers

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THREE LECTURES EXPLAINING JASPERS’ PHILOSOPHY

Karl Jaspers (1883-1969) was a German psychiatrist and existentialist philosopher, who wrote many important books such as 'Reason and Existenz,' 'Philosophy of Existence,' 'Way to Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy,' 'Man in the Modern Age,' 'The Future of Mankind, etc.

Jaspers gave the lectures upon which this book is based in 1937, shortly after he had been dismissed from his professorship at the University of Heidelberg in Germany by the Nazi regime. The lectures were given at the German Academy of Frankfurt, and represented Jaspers’ last public appearance for a number of years.

He says in the Introduction, “What is called philosophy of existence is really only a form of the one, primordial philosophy. It is no accident, however, that for the moment the word ‘existence’ became the distinguishing term. It emphasized the task of philosophy that for a time had been almost forgotten: to catch sight of reality at its origin and to grasp it through the way in which I, in thought, deal with myself---in inner action.” (Pg. 3)

He says in the first lecture, “For us, being remains open. On all sides it draws us into the unlimited… we ask about being itself, which always seems to recede from us, in the very manifestation of all the appearances we encounter. This being we call the ‘encompassing.’ … it is the source from which all new horizons emerge, without itself ever being visible even as a horizon. The encompassing always merely announces itself… but it never becomes an OBJECT. Never appearing to us itself, it is that wherein everything else appears. It is also that due to which all things not merely are what they immediately seem to be, but remain transparent.” (Pg. 17-18)

He observes, “Little can be seen of a reliable presence of truth. For example, common opinions are for the most part expressions of the need for some support: one would much rather hold to something firm in order to spare himself further thought than face the danger and trouble of incessantly thinking further.” (Pg. 33-34)

He states in the third lecture, “Even before we begin to philosophize, the question of reality seems to be already answered in every moment of our life. We deal with things, and obey the modes of reality as they have been handed down to us… In this unquestioning attitude we achieve a seemingly adequate view of the presence of reality. The problem arises only as I become conscious of a lack: when I desire reality that I neither yet know nor myself am, when this reality cannot be deliberately attained by productive and venturesome action or planning in the world, only then do I begin to philosophize. I inquire about reality.” (Pg. 65-66)

He summarizes, ”1. The first decision of philosophical faith is whether it is possible to think of the world as complete in itself, or whether transcendence guides our thought…Immanence imposes itself as being itself, because it alone is knowable… [but] mere immanence is opaque and superficial… It remains in a hopeless and self-concealing struggle for existence, ending in nothingness… Although concealed, transcendence is present in philosophizing in reality. But what transcendence seems to say is always ambiguous. I must take my chance on the basis of a responsibility that is not annulled by any direct revelation from God.

"Transcendence is the power through which I am myself… 2. The second decision is whether transcendence leads me out of the world to a denial of the world, or whether it requires me to live and work only in the world. Philosophical faith is bound to the world as the condition of all being for it… If philosophy means learning how to die, it does so … in the sense that I intensify the present by undiminishing and active fulfillment under the standard of transcendence. Hence, transcendence means nothing to us if all there is for us takes the form of existence.” (Pg. 81)

He explains, “Philosophical faith is the substance of a personal life; it is the reality of man philosophizing in his own historic ground, in which he receives himself as a gift. In philosophizing I experience the reality of transcendence unmediated, as that which I myself am not… Philosophical faith is the indispensable source of all genuine philosophizing. From it comes the striving of individuals in the world to experience and investigate the appearances of reality with the aim of attaining the reality of transcendence ever more clearly… philosophical faith… is amenable to no confession of faith. For this faith, thought is the passage out of the dark origin into reality.” (Pg. 88-89)

Later, he adds, “philosophy presupposes that its thought, which seems to endanger religion, cannot in fact be a threat to a true religion. Whatever does not stand up to thought cannot be genuine… Degenerate religion, however, is justifiably exposed to the danger of attack.” (Pg. 92)

This is an excellent overview/introduction to Jaspers’ thought, that will be of great help to anyone studying him.

[Charles · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm not sure if it's Jaspers' philosophy itself or merely his presentation of it here that I dislike; I suppose I will find out when I read another of his works. In each of his lectures, he says many lofty things about how reality is unified, how reason transcends all conditions toward unity, how truth must be transcendent to ensure itself, and how Existenz remains our highest possibility (and at the same time impossible actuality).

Needless to say, everything he says is so abstract, so vague, and so unclear—especially regarding his two most central foci, transcendence and Existenz—that I can sympathize with Heidegger's denouncement of his superficiality. He never really specifies in what transcendence consists, and despite the editors' caution that Jaspers is not a mystic, it really seems like he is with his metaphysical speculation about transcendent unity and whatnot. The most important things for him cannot be said, cannot be thought, and yet reason plays some kind of grand eschatological role that I can't comprehend.

Then again, this could be a reflection of me above all; perhaps I am so stuck in untruth and unreality that I cannot grasp the truth of Jaspers' system.

[Aria Izik-Dzurko · Rating 4 out of 5]

O question of being, thou dost haunt mine every moment; thou drivest me unto despair. Let me drown my thoughts in the fair prose of Jaspers, that mine inquietude may find echo in another—one of more reasoned sort. He who so plainly layeth forth mine anxiety must needs share some portion of my soul.


"no known being is being itself" [...] "Everything that has being for us in being known acquires a depth from its relation to this realm, from which it comes to meet us, announcing being without being identical to it."
There is no such thing as objective being, no such essence that describes what it is to 'be'. As Jaspers writes, "Taken together, these modes of the encompassing constitute indubitable actuality. They comprise the immanent being of both myself-existence, consciousness in general, spirit-and of my objects-the world." We are not an essence, but an amalgam. We are not a self but a composition of experiences that create selfhood. Of course, this begs this question: how much can we really control who we are? Existential dread, for Jaspers, seems rooted in the indefinite nature of existence, where immanence is not merely internal but sustained by the external world.

[ike · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jaspers writing/the translation is very telling of his time. That is to say, he writes a little weird. But, when reading the book with context to know what he's referencing, it isn't too difficult a read, though the book definitely benefits from some extra time.

Ideologically, I found Jaspers' philosophical faith to be really just regular, almost religious, faith paired with hyper-lucidity. The dichotomy of nothingness or everything past the horizon of humanity isn't something I find to be distinctly religious, but it would be crass to disregard the fact that it can be religious as well. Which is why I'm confused at Jaspers' outspoken atheism, when his philosophical faith is almost a type of religion in terms of its irrationality. If transcendence can never be achieved onto experience, it is simply another form of unattainable virtue, which is just as irrational as the notion of a God. Nonetheless, the ideas posited in the book are interesting and fleshed out, so it isn't a bad read.

[Jake · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philosophy of Existence is the most comprehensive summation of the philosophic system of Karl Jaspers, which grounds the understanding in the "existenz" and "encompassing" of being. Richard Grabay’s introductory comments are incredibly helpful, and greatly assisted my reading of this volume. The epilogue – penned by Jaspers in May 1956 – also provides some much needed historical context and a sense of retrospective closure. A pivotal but underrated figure in the history of Continental European thought, Jaspers validates the wandering imagination, reminding us that “[…] a little philosophy leads away from reality, but complete philosophy leads back to it.”

[Riccardo · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Se io rendo chiaro a me stesso lo spazio della comprensività infinita, è come se trasformassi le oscure mura della mia carcere in pareti trasparenti. Io intravedo la lontananza; tutto ciò che è e mi può divenire presente". Go Jaspy!

[Jordan Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a really difficult read, but I'm glad I made it through because the sections of pure brilliance made it all worth it.

[Daniel Buck · Rating 1 out of 5]

Obtuse, pseudo-philosophical gobbly-gook

[Joe-Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit heady for a dilettante of a philosophy student but I greatly appreciated Jaspers' thorough and fluid "philosophizing".

[Calvin · Rating 5 out of 5]

German Existentialism without the Nazism. Jaspers shares a lot with Heidegger but I found this a much easier way for an amateur to learn the ideas of the time.

[José Dias · Rating 4 out of 5]

versao em portugues 1973

[Olivia Cecilia Jelen Larocca]

Págs. 15-23.

[S.M.Y Kayseri · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is my first reading on Jasper’s works. Few weeks into my internship in psychiatry, I stumbled upon psychotherapy, especially of Freudian ones. Of course, Malaysia is still quite a conservative country, psychodynamic sessions still applied rudimentary Freudian concepts of repression and transference, but definitely not the concept of will to pleasure.

There is a case of Ms. N who had suffered from dysthymia of 2 years. She had sustained a relatively well-life for 20 years, but the past trauma has resurfaced due to her marital conflicts and economic difficulties during the pandemic. The dysthymia caused severe avolition that hindered her perfomance in the workplace, which caused her to being laid off in multiple working places.

Upon interview, it has come to our notice that the patient was actually has been regularly raped by his biological father since she was 11 years old for an almost a year. The psychiatrist in charge related this trauma at this specific age with the Erikson psychosocial model. The range of years during the trauma, according to Erikson, occurs in the years of budding industry. Naturally, as per Freud, this unresolved trauma has been repressed for the past 20 years, barely cloaked by Ms N’s transient happiness in married life, but waiting for the rearing of its dragons’ head. Once the head appeared, the trauma somehow caused maladjustment in Ms N’s capability in work. With the ongoing conflicts, it is thus natural for Ms N to trapped in the vicious dysthymic cycle.

The psychiatrist elaborated this following the Freudian model of repression, on how unsolved trauma might cause maladjustment to later life developments. Freud relied on the obscurity of the unconsciousness, its sensitive isolated life. Freud singlehandedly gave birth to the conception of the Self as material, isolated entity that subjected to wear and tear of life. The Self, under Freud, has been confined totally to the immanent sphere, but forever locked, never understood by even its owner. The owner of this obscure entity can only relish from talking about its lost, rather than actually finding this entity. Perhaps, even if they try, it will up to no avail, because the Self as an isolated entity is only an illusion, as pointed out ubiquitously by Eastern teachings.

The Ego as conceived by the neurotic is deemed to be immanent and persistent, rather than transcendent and dynamic. It is my hope to find ideas on the transcendence philosophically by reading this key-work of Jasper’s.


Jaspers still operates on the tripartition of ideas of human existence as per Hegel and Kierkegaard, his existentialist predecessors. The human might found himself at either the level of existence, consciousness-in-general or spirit. Existence is the level of the empirical where human founds objects to his use. Consciousness-in-general is where the universal laws are observed. The spirit, is the synthesis between existence and consciousness, a concrete universal. The Ego found himself from one level to another through the mechanism of transcendence.

The transcendence is made possible exactly because the human encounter horizons in his existence, rather a definite limit. As soon as he traversed through a definite object, he would found another horizon. Everywhere he turns, he found another horizon. His beingness-in-the world is presented as this encompassing horizon, rather than a definite concrete knowability. The encompassing is basically the sum of cognitive possible experience can be made manifest to the perceiver. With the virtue of transcendence, the encompassing can appear to the perceiver with the three modes of encompassing as mentioned above.

How transcendence allows these modes of encompassing lies in the analysis of the world as it appears to us following Kant. The perception of the world, according to Kant, is doubly conditioned by sensibility and the understanding. To wit, sensibility without the understanding is blind, and understanding without sensibility is empty. The encompassing as it presents the world, is existence in its mundane sense. When the perception of the world is abstracted from its sensibilia, understanding remains, and here is where consciousness-in-general Jaspers meant. But the totality of ideas, or the perception of the world, only made possibly by the I who invaginated through both of these world, by making it, in a way, a convergence that is now perceived through the I, rather than random dispersal of the datums (some of the idealists would even contest the latter statement; how can we infer the existence of the datums if there’s no perceiver to perceive them?). Thus the invaginations across the two world, and the reflective that made known the I, allows the perceiver to exists either as a mere existence, consciousness-in-general or a spirit.

[Buidung]

i think that this book is very useful for my treasue.

[Douglas · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a classic in the literature of existentialism. It it Jaspers introduces the concepts of transcendence and existenz.