What do you think?
Rate this book
Kant
A masterful exploration of Kant’s intellectual development, theory of knowledge, politics, and ethics. Edited by Hannah Arendt; Index. Translated by Ralph Manheim.
255 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1957
About the author
Karl Jaspers
365 books377 followersJaspers 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
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
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
Read
September 17, 2016کتاب سختی بود و در سطح فهم و اطلاعات من نبود. ناچار نیمه کاره کنار گذاشتمش.
اگر شما هم تازه مشغول خوندن کانت شدید، این کتاب ها خیلی به من کمک کردن:
نظریه معرفت در فلسفه کانت
کانت
فلسفه کانت
تمهیدات
اگر شما هم تازه مشغول خوندن کانت شدید، این کتاب ها خیلی به من کمک کردن:
نظریه معرفت در فلسفه کانت
کانت
فلسفه کانت
تمهیدات
December 16, 2016
بی شک این کتاب یکی از بهترین کتاب هایی است که در شرح اندیشه کانت میتوان یافت. یاسپرس که خود فیلسوف بزرگی بوده است به خوبی بر نقطه های مهم و بنیادی اندیشه کانت انگشت نهاده و آن ها را روشن ساخته است. البته باید توجه کرد که خواندن این کتاب برای کسانی که پیش از این با اندیشه کانت آشنایی کافی ندارند بسیار دشوار است، در واقع لازم است که خواننده پیش از خواندن این کتاب حداقل «نقد خرد ناب» را به دقت خوانده باشد و با زیر و بم های اندیشه کانت آشنا باشد.
نکته دیگری که اشاره به آن در این جا لازم است «ترجمه» این کتاب است. شاید در نگاه اول ترجمه دشوار و سخت خوان به نظر برسد، اما نباید در قضاوت شتاب کرد. به واقع این ترجمه یکی از بهترین و دقیق ترین ترجمه هایی است که پیرامون کانت به زبان فارسی انجام شده است. مترجم این اثر، دکتر میر عبدالحسین نقیب زاده، اگر نگوییم بزرگترین، دست کم یکی از بزرگترین کانت شناسان ایران هستند. این نه سخن من که سخنِ بسیاری از اساتید مطرحِ دانشگاه و کانت شناسان است. باید توجه داشت که زبانِ خود کانت زبانی یه شدت دقیق و فنی و از این رو دشوار است و مترجم اگر بخواهد و بتواند سخن کانت را به فارسی برگرداند، همچون خودِ کانت چاره ای جز به کارگیریِ زبان و واژگانی دقیق و فنی ندارد. از این روست که از قضا اگر چه ترجمه این کتاب بسیار بسیار دقیق و شیوا است اما در نگاه اول دشوار وسخت خوان می نماید. شاید بهترین کار برای راحت تر کردنِ خواندن این کتاب این باشد که پیش از خواندن این کتاب، کتاب «فلسفه کانت؛ بیداری از خواب دگماتیسم» به قلم خودِ دکتر نقیب زاده را مطالعه کنیم. این کتاب نیز بی شک بهترین کتابی است که به زبانِ فارسی پیرامون اندیشه کانت نگاشته شده است. پس از خواندن ِ این کتاب و آشنایی با واژگان فنی و تخصصی کانت و برابرهای فارسی آنها، خواندنِ کتاب یاسپرس نیز بسیار روان تر و لذت بخش تر خواهد شد. از این رو شاید گله دوستانی که از ترجمه این کتاب (کانت، نوشته یاسپرس، ترجمه استاد نقیب زاده) گله داشتند نیز به جا باشد، چرا که شاید برای کسی که پیش از این با اندیشه کانت و قلم دکتر نقیب زاده و کتاب «فلسفه کانت؛ بیداری از خواب دگماتیسم» آشنایی نداشته است، خواندنِ کتاب کارل یاسپرس بسیار دشوار باشد. در واقع خود استاد نقیب زاده هم بارها تاکید کرده است که کتاب «کانت» نوشتۀ کارل یاسپرس، باید پس از خواندنِ کتاب «فلسفه کانت؛ بیداری از خواب دگماتیسم» خوانده شود و این دو اثر مکمل و همراه هم هستند.
خود بنده مانند بسیاری دیگر از دوستان با اندیشه کانت از راه ترجمه های غیر دقیق و چه بسا نادرستی که از قضا در بازار فلسفه ایران بسیار هم شناخته شده و پرفروش هستند آشنا شدم، اما پس از آشنایی با کتاب «فلسفه کانت؛ بیداری از خواب دگماتیسم»، که به پیشنهاد یکی از اساتید دانشگاه انجام شد، و پس از دشواری های اولیه در مورد زبان دقیق و فنی کتاب و واژگان ِ گاه ناآشنا و دشوار ِ آن، تازه دریافتم که آنچه به گمان خود از فلسفه کانت می دانستم و از راه ترجمه های ضعیفی همچون کتاب «فلسفه کانت» نوشته اشتفان کورنر به دست آورده بودم هزاران فرسنگ با اندیشه راستین کانت فاصله دارد؛ این سخن را اکنون که چندین سال است آثار کانت را از طریق ترجمه های انگلیسی مطالعه میکنم بر زبان می آورم.
به هر روی به عنوان یک دانشجوی دکترای فلسفه غرب و کسی که حداقل 5 سال به جد بر روی اندیشه کانت تمرکز کرده ام خواندن کتاب «فلسفه کانت؛ بیداری از خواب دگماتیسم»، و کتاب «کانت» نوشته کارل یاسپرس و ترجمه دکتر نقیب زاده را به کسانی که خواهان فهم دقیق و دست اندیشه کانت هستند پیشنهاد میکنم؛ و البته در کنار آنها خواندنِ ترجمۀ ماندگار و فوق العادۀ شادروان «میر شمس الدین ادیب سلطانی» از «نقد خرد ناب» را.
نکته دیگری که اشاره به آن در این جا لازم است «ترجمه» این کتاب است. شاید در نگاه اول ترجمه دشوار و سخت خوان به نظر برسد، اما نباید در قضاوت شتاب کرد. به واقع این ترجمه یکی از بهترین و دقیق ترین ترجمه هایی است که پیرامون کانت به زبان فارسی انجام شده است. مترجم این اثر، دکتر میر عبدالحسین نقیب زاده، اگر نگوییم بزرگترین، دست کم یکی از بزرگترین کانت شناسان ایران هستند. این نه سخن من که سخنِ بسیاری از اساتید مطرحِ دانشگاه و کانت شناسان است. باید توجه داشت که زبانِ خود کانت زبانی یه شدت دقیق و فنی و از این رو دشوار است و مترجم اگر بخواهد و بتواند سخن کانت را به فارسی برگرداند، همچون خودِ کانت چاره ای جز به کارگیریِ زبان و واژگانی دقیق و فنی ندارد. از این روست که از قضا اگر چه ترجمه این کتاب بسیار بسیار دقیق و شیوا است اما در نگاه اول دشوار وسخت خوان می نماید. شاید بهترین کار برای راحت تر کردنِ خواندن این کتاب این باشد که پیش از خواندن این کتاب، کتاب «فلسفه کانت؛ بیداری از خواب دگماتیسم» به قلم خودِ دکتر نقیب زاده را مطالعه کنیم. این کتاب نیز بی شک بهترین کتابی است که به زبانِ فارسی پیرامون اندیشه کانت نگاشته شده است. پس از خواندن ِ این کتاب و آشنایی با واژگان فنی و تخصصی کانت و برابرهای فارسی آنها، خواندنِ کتاب یاسپرس نیز بسیار روان تر و لذت بخش تر خواهد شد. از این رو شاید گله دوستانی که از ترجمه این کتاب (کانت، نوشته یاسپرس، ترجمه استاد نقیب زاده) گله داشتند نیز به جا باشد، چرا که شاید برای کسی که پیش از این با اندیشه کانت و قلم دکتر نقیب زاده و کتاب «فلسفه کانت؛ بیداری از خواب دگماتیسم» آشنایی نداشته است، خواندنِ کتاب کارل یاسپرس بسیار دشوار باشد. در واقع خود استاد نقیب زاده هم بارها تاکید کرده است که کتاب «کانت» نوشتۀ کارل یاسپرس، باید پس از خواندنِ کتاب «فلسفه کانت؛ بیداری از خواب دگماتیسم» خوانده شود و این دو اثر مکمل و همراه هم هستند.
خود بنده مانند بسیاری دیگر از دوستان با اندیشه کانت از راه ترجمه های غیر دقیق و چه بسا نادرستی که از قضا در بازار فلسفه ایران بسیار هم شناخته شده و پرفروش هستند آشنا شدم، اما پس از آشنایی با کتاب «فلسفه کانت؛ بیداری از خواب دگماتیسم»، که به پیشنهاد یکی از اساتید دانشگاه انجام شد، و پس از دشواری های اولیه در مورد زبان دقیق و فنی کتاب و واژگان ِ گاه ناآشنا و دشوار ِ آن، تازه دریافتم که آنچه به گمان خود از فلسفه کانت می دانستم و از راه ترجمه های ضعیفی همچون کتاب «فلسفه کانت» نوشته اشتفان کورنر به دست آورده بودم هزاران فرسنگ با اندیشه راستین کانت فاصله دارد؛ این سخن را اکنون که چندین سال است آثار کانت را از طریق ترجمه های انگلیسی مطالعه میکنم بر زبان می آورم.
به هر روی به عنوان یک دانشجوی دکترای فلسفه غرب و کسی که حداقل 5 سال به جد بر روی اندیشه کانت تمرکز کرده ام خواندن کتاب «فلسفه کانت؛ بیداری از خواب دگماتیسم»، و کتاب «کانت» نوشته کارل یاسپرس و ترجمه دکتر نقیب زاده را به کسانی که خواهان فهم دقیق و دست اندیشه کانت هستند پیشنهاد میکنم؛ و البته در کنار آنها خواندنِ ترجمۀ ماندگار و فوق العادۀ شادروان «میر شمس الدین ادیب سلطانی» از «نقد خرد ناب» را.
Read
May 3, 2013ترجمهاش بد است. تا صفحهی 110 خواندم ولی ادامهاش نمیدهم
April 18, 2020
Jaspers is geen soepele schrijver, en de Nederlandse aula-vertaling is niet best: maar wat een superieure introductie in Kant! (laatste dagen herlezen)
June 29, 2007
Earlier in his life, Karl Jaspers had loudly advocated resistance to the Nazi regime; in this book, he implicitly reveals his preoccupation with critical exchanges that aim to complexify our views of world history. The big deal with Kant is that he was one of the first philosophers to insist that we learn from each other just as we learn from what we think of or observe in the world.
Introductory philosophy courses will teach that Kant's central contribution is the "categorical imperative," which gives us guidelines of what decisions to make in any situation. The classic example is that if someone comes to your door, claims to want to kill you and your family, and then asks to be let in - conventional politesse instructs us to let someone in the door when they ask to be, but the categorical imperative is to defend human life. Jaspers doesn't seem to understand Kant in this way. His analysis suggests that the categories by which we comprehend the world can enhance the types of judgments which we are able to make.
In a parallel work, Samuel Delaney asks what difference it makes to call an object a tree, a conifer, or a bristlecone pine. Concerned as he is with the interplay between identity and language as it moves in and out of queer communities, Delaney's theory offers the idea that a carpenter, for instance, will require one thing of a pine tree and another thing of an oak; on the contrary, a painter will use a different standard of judgment to decide whether a madrone or a willow will be best for their landscape; at another extreme, a person looking for someplace warm to sleep will be less concerned with what to call a tree than whether it provides enough cover to keep them warm.
Such considerations form only one part of Kant's philosophy. Jaspers is really good at explaining complicated ideas and reminding us that while there will be more to learn, we can do it. He's also skilled at presenting arguments and then showing how wrong they are. It's not like he wants to shoot anybody down, but just points out errors so we can think more clearly.
Introductory philosophy courses will teach that Kant's central contribution is the "categorical imperative," which gives us guidelines of what decisions to make in any situation. The classic example is that if someone comes to your door, claims to want to kill you and your family, and then asks to be let in - conventional politesse instructs us to let someone in the door when they ask to be, but the categorical imperative is to defend human life. Jaspers doesn't seem to understand Kant in this way. His analysis suggests that the categories by which we comprehend the world can enhance the types of judgments which we are able to make.
In a parallel work, Samuel Delaney asks what difference it makes to call an object a tree, a conifer, or a bristlecone pine. Concerned as he is with the interplay between identity and language as it moves in and out of queer communities, Delaney's theory offers the idea that a carpenter, for instance, will require one thing of a pine tree and another thing of an oak; on the contrary, a painter will use a different standard of judgment to decide whether a madrone or a willow will be best for their landscape; at another extreme, a person looking for someplace warm to sleep will be less concerned with what to call a tree than whether it provides enough cover to keep them warm.
Such considerations form only one part of Kant's philosophy. Jaspers is really good at explaining complicated ideas and reminding us that while there will be more to learn, we can do it. He's also skilled at presenting arguments and then showing how wrong they are. It's not like he wants to shoot anybody down, but just points out errors so we can think more clearly.
May 8, 2017
Deep introduction, peppered with Jasper's insight. Not exactly what I was looking for, but gave me enough to keep going.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews