What do you think?
Rate this book
Man's Place in Nature
Translated, and with an Introduction, by Hans Meyerhoff.
Reprint of a Beacon Press edition, Copyright 1961.
Reprint of a Beacon Press edition, Copyright 1961.
105 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1928
42 people are currently reading
1018 people want to read
About the author
Max Scheler
149 books126 followersMax Scheler (August 22, 1874, Munich – May 19, 1928, Frankfurt am Main) was a German philosopher known for his work in phenomenology, ethics, and philosophical anthropology. Scheler developed further the philosophical method of the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, and was called by José Ortega y Gasset "the first man of the philosophical paradise." After his demise in 1928, Heidegger affirmed, with Ortega y Gasset, that all philosophers of the century were indebted to Scheler and praised him as "the strongest philosophical force in modern Germany, nay, in contemporary Europe and in contemporary philosophy as such."[1] In 1954, Karol Wojtyła, later Pope John Paul II, defended his doctoral thesis on "An Evaluation of the Possibility of Constructing a Christian Ethics on the Basis of the System of Max Scheler."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
January 27, 2018
It's the first time I read Scheler. This work, originally entitled Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos (1928), was a bit tough to follow. “A bit tough”, who am I kidding? It was painfully difficult, I'm not that familiar with philosophic anthropology, but I want to.
Well, he tries to explain the little detail that is the essence of man, his relationship with animals and plants, and his metaphysical origin and place. He writes about the idea of human nature, according to different conceptions on the matter. He explains the main difference between a man and an animal, rejecting both doctrines of a same theory. Intelligence, spirit, freedom. Man is the being who can say "no", the ascetic of life, unlike the animal that always says "yes" to reality, no matter what.
It was a complex read that left me with more questions than certainties.
July 24, 13
* Also on my blog.
Well, he tries to explain the little detail that is the essence of man, his relationship with animals and plants, and his metaphysical origin and place. He writes about the idea of human nature, according to different conceptions on the matter. He explains the main difference between a man and an animal, rejecting both doctrines of a same theory. Intelligence, spirit, freedom. Man is the being who can say "no", the ascetic of life, unlike the animal that always says "yes" to reality, no matter what.
It was a complex read that left me with more questions than certainties.
July 24, 13
* Also on my blog.
June 4, 2025
Outside The Cosmos
Titled "The Human Place in the Cosmos", Max Scheler's book finds that the human place is largely outside the Cosmos. Scheler (1874 -- 1928), was a German philosopher who studied with Dilthey and Simmel. His own pupils included Edith Stein, and he deeply influenced other thinkers including Merleau-Ponty and Pope John Paul II. Scheler was deeply influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology even though he became a sharp critic of Husserl. Before Scheler's death, Martin Heidegger called him the most important force in the philosophy of his day.
"The Human Place in the Cosmos" was Scheler's final work and appeared just before his death in 1928. It is short, difficult, and dense -- more of a essay than a fully developed book. This edition was published in 2009 in the "Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy" series of Northwestern University. The translation is by the late Manfred Frings (1925 -- 2008), the editor of Scheler's collected works, with an introduction, notes, and glossary of Scheler's philosophical terminology by Professor Eugene Kelly, who has written extensively about Scheler. Kelly aptly describes Scheler's text as "an adventure in high philosophy".
This is a book for readers who think that philosophy is important in discussing the large questions of life. It is also a book which will appeal to readers with a modernist, post-religious outlook. In other words, Scheler seeks to find meaning and spirituality in life but not within traditional theism or religion. Some of the thinkers that receive attention in this book are the Buddha, Spinoza, and William James. A good background in thinking about philosophical questions and a willingness to study a text closely are helpful in approaching this book.
Scheler describes his book as a "philosophical anthropology" and says its aim is to address two questions: "what is the human being and what is his place in being?" Scheler finds three broad answers to the questions, each of which includes insights but are individually unsatisfactory: 1. The Jewish-Christian view of creationism; 2. the Greek view of reason and participation in logos; 3. the view of the natural sciences, evolutionary biology, and genetics. Scheler's develops his own answers to these questions which begin with inorganic matter and work up through plants and animals to determine what human beings share with other forms of things and how they differ. He then approaches his questions from the other direction, so to speak, to try to understand the role of human beings in what he terms the cosmos.
The crux of the book is in the development of what Scheler calls spirit. Spirit is what makes people human and which separates them from other living things. The development of spirit is what human beings ultimately share with the cosmos and with large reality. Scheler's understanding of "spirit" is difficult and should not be confused with "soul" or with "mind" in idealism or Cartesian dualism. For Scheler, spirit is not a thing or a substance. Animals show a greater or lesser degree of instinctual, associative or possibly reasoning ability to protect themselves and to find food and sex. Human beings show a much greater problem-solving ability. But only humans have an ability to step outside their surroundings, objectify them, and ask themselves what they mean. This ability to step back and reflect, Scheler calls Spirit, and it is a process and an ongoing subject rather than a thing. For all his criticism, this strikes me as a Husserelian approach.
Scheler develops a Spinozistic answer to the relationship between physical process and mental processes, finding that both are two sides of the same thing unified together by spirit. Spirit stands aside from pragmatic issues and searches for meaning through art, law, literature, music, philosophy. It enables people to say "no" to their impulses, upon occasion, in a way animals cannot do. Scheler's understanding of spirit differs from that of traditional religions and earlier philosophies. Most importantly, Scheler's spirit is a weak, difficult reed. It has no power of its own, unlike, say, a transcendental God, and only fully comes through rarely, at the upper reaches of human effort. "Short and rare is what is beautiful in its tenderness and vulnerability", Scheler writes (p.47).While animals are enclosed in their lives and in the environment, human beings live outside of it, in rare moments, through spirit, reflectiveness, and the objectification of their environment. Hence the human place "in the cosmos" is "outside the cosmos."
With its existence "outside the cosmos" spirit tries to find meaning in God or other forms of transcendence. But it is not to be found there for Scheler, but rather from within. Meaning and transcendence are developing concepts that come from below, rather than from above. Thus it is the role of human beings through the generations to develop their varying understandings of spirit. At the conclusion of the book, Scheler writes:
"One might tell me at this point, and, indeed, I was once told, that it is impossible to bear the idea of an unfinished and God-in-becoming. My answer is that metaphysics is not an insurance company for weak people in need of protection. Metaphysics requires and presupposes human beings with strong and courageous minds." (p. 66)
Readers with a strong interest in philosophical and religious questions will benefit from studying Scheler's book.
Robin Friedman
Titled "The Human Place in the Cosmos", Max Scheler's book finds that the human place is largely outside the Cosmos. Scheler (1874 -- 1928), was a German philosopher who studied with Dilthey and Simmel. His own pupils included Edith Stein, and he deeply influenced other thinkers including Merleau-Ponty and Pope John Paul II. Scheler was deeply influenced by Edmund Husserl's phenomenology even though he became a sharp critic of Husserl. Before Scheler's death, Martin Heidegger called him the most important force in the philosophy of his day.
"The Human Place in the Cosmos" was Scheler's final work and appeared just before his death in 1928. It is short, difficult, and dense -- more of a essay than a fully developed book. This edition was published in 2009 in the "Studies in Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy" series of Northwestern University. The translation is by the late Manfred Frings (1925 -- 2008), the editor of Scheler's collected works, with an introduction, notes, and glossary of Scheler's philosophical terminology by Professor Eugene Kelly, who has written extensively about Scheler. Kelly aptly describes Scheler's text as "an adventure in high philosophy".
This is a book for readers who think that philosophy is important in discussing the large questions of life. It is also a book which will appeal to readers with a modernist, post-religious outlook. In other words, Scheler seeks to find meaning and spirituality in life but not within traditional theism or religion. Some of the thinkers that receive attention in this book are the Buddha, Spinoza, and William James. A good background in thinking about philosophical questions and a willingness to study a text closely are helpful in approaching this book.
Scheler describes his book as a "philosophical anthropology" and says its aim is to address two questions: "what is the human being and what is his place in being?" Scheler finds three broad answers to the questions, each of which includes insights but are individually unsatisfactory: 1. The Jewish-Christian view of creationism; 2. the Greek view of reason and participation in logos; 3. the view of the natural sciences, evolutionary biology, and genetics. Scheler's develops his own answers to these questions which begin with inorganic matter and work up through plants and animals to determine what human beings share with other forms of things and how they differ. He then approaches his questions from the other direction, so to speak, to try to understand the role of human beings in what he terms the cosmos.
The crux of the book is in the development of what Scheler calls spirit. Spirit is what makes people human and which separates them from other living things. The development of spirit is what human beings ultimately share with the cosmos and with large reality. Scheler's understanding of "spirit" is difficult and should not be confused with "soul" or with "mind" in idealism or Cartesian dualism. For Scheler, spirit is not a thing or a substance. Animals show a greater or lesser degree of instinctual, associative or possibly reasoning ability to protect themselves and to find food and sex. Human beings show a much greater problem-solving ability. But only humans have an ability to step outside their surroundings, objectify them, and ask themselves what they mean. This ability to step back and reflect, Scheler calls Spirit, and it is a process and an ongoing subject rather than a thing. For all his criticism, this strikes me as a Husserelian approach.
Scheler develops a Spinozistic answer to the relationship between physical process and mental processes, finding that both are two sides of the same thing unified together by spirit. Spirit stands aside from pragmatic issues and searches for meaning through art, law, literature, music, philosophy. It enables people to say "no" to their impulses, upon occasion, in a way animals cannot do. Scheler's understanding of spirit differs from that of traditional religions and earlier philosophies. Most importantly, Scheler's spirit is a weak, difficult reed. It has no power of its own, unlike, say, a transcendental God, and only fully comes through rarely, at the upper reaches of human effort. "Short and rare is what is beautiful in its tenderness and vulnerability", Scheler writes (p.47).While animals are enclosed in their lives and in the environment, human beings live outside of it, in rare moments, through spirit, reflectiveness, and the objectification of their environment. Hence the human place "in the cosmos" is "outside the cosmos."
With its existence "outside the cosmos" spirit tries to find meaning in God or other forms of transcendence. But it is not to be found there for Scheler, but rather from within. Meaning and transcendence are developing concepts that come from below, rather than from above. Thus it is the role of human beings through the generations to develop their varying understandings of spirit. At the conclusion of the book, Scheler writes:
"One might tell me at this point, and, indeed, I was once told, that it is impossible to bear the idea of an unfinished and God-in-becoming. My answer is that metaphysics is not an insurance company for weak people in need of protection. Metaphysics requires and presupposes human beings with strong and courageous minds." (p. 66)
Readers with a strong interest in philosophical and religious questions will benefit from studying Scheler's book.
Robin Friedman
December 19, 2023
En översikt av vad mänsklighet är enligt Scheler, genom det han kallar ande. Han redogör för begreppets olika kontexter, och kontrasterar det mot intellekt och instinkt, det senare genom psykologiska glasögon. Därefter förklarar han de religionsfilosofiska implikationerna, och lanserar sin egen teori kring vad ande är. Tyvärr övertygar texten inte.
March 9, 2023
Le pondría tres estrellas y media. Esta bien, sin más. Alguna revisión interesante de Aristóteles, buena crítica a Descartes y lo demás bastante basiquito. Interesante pero ya
April 2, 2019
I'm a big fan of Max Scheler. At his best, he is a keenly insightful writer who weaves together philosophy and behavioral sciences to make some of the most convincing phenomenological claims in the history of the discipline. He has the rare gift of making complex issues both clear and interesting to readers; Scheler wades into philosophical debates without becoming swept away by jargon or unnecessary digressions.
This book, unfortunately, lacks the characteristic polish of this great author. Presented as a conference in his later years, the quality of El Puesto del Hombre en el Cosmos appears to have suffered because of his busy schedule, and perhaps fatigue.
There are a few brilliant insights pertaining to philosophical anthropology, but there is much lower diamond-to-rough ratio than in his earlier works. Worth a read, but read his earlier works first.
This book, unfortunately, lacks the characteristic polish of this great author. Presented as a conference in his later years, the quality of El Puesto del Hombre en el Cosmos appears to have suffered because of his busy schedule, and perhaps fatigue.
There are a few brilliant insights pertaining to philosophical anthropology, but there is much lower diamond-to-rough ratio than in his earlier works. Worth a read, but read his earlier works first.
Read
July 14, 2021Estuve utilizando este libro para un curso de antropología que tomé.
Un libro complicado, es muy fácil perderse, la información te exige de una concentración absoluta, pero vale la pena cada palabra puesta en las páginas, escritos que te ayudan a comprender el comportamiento del ser humano, como nuestro entorno influye completamente en quienes somos y porqué reaccionamos con estímulos, porque razonamos y un sin fin de porqués que nos afligen y atormentan durante nuestra vida.
Un libro complicado, es muy fácil perderse, la información te exige de una concentración absoluta, pero vale la pena cada palabra puesta en las páginas, escritos que te ayudan a comprender el comportamiento del ser humano, como nuestro entorno influye completamente en quienes somos y porqué reaccionamos con estímulos, porque razonamos y un sin fin de porqués que nos afligen y atormentan durante nuestra vida.
January 22, 2023
no m'ha agradat la forma en que escriu, el contingut em sembla interessant i una bona combinació d'altres doctrines, però uf horrible de llegir, desestructurat i desendreçat😫
October 28, 2022
Read as a requirement for my Philosophical Anthropology course. As someone very new to the field, the only way I could understand Scheler is juxtaposed to Uexküll whose work was discussed earlier. My inability to understand Scheler's work, without comparing it, lies in my very weak and hazy understanding of Phenomenology so any recommendations that would ease the way into that field would be welcome.
I left this book without a rating simply because I don't feel qualified enough to rate it.
I left this book without a rating simply because I don't feel qualified enough to rate it.
July 31, 2014
Me quedo pensando en la misma pregunta con la que Scheler comenzó. ¿Qué es el hombre? Comparto la idea del autor al decir que justamente aquello que nos hace diferentes es "espíritu" aquello que es inaccesible para los animales y plantas. Ésto a su vez genera algunas dudas más pues en la actualidad es concepto de "espíritu" o "espíritual" se encuentra sin ninguna definición clara o sucede lo que decía el autor en la introducción: que existen diversas corrientes ... pero ninuna de ellas se encuentran conectadas entre sí.
Me gustó el libro, aunque tiene un pequeño grado de complejidad fue un gusto el poder haberlo estudiado.
Saludos desde Perú.
Me gustó el libro, aunque tiene un pequeño grado de complejidad fue un gusto el poder haberlo estudiado.
Saludos desde Perú.
August 7, 2018
This was quite interesting for a first time reading Scheler. I found myself agreeing with his rejection of some contemporary theories, but I can't really follow him in some other confusing passages such as the idea of misinterpreting Thomas Aquinas' first way, for the idea that there is a world in no way is meant to exclude other ways for the existence of God, the third way seems one Scheler would be most fond of.
The final exhortation to see God as someone bigger than the one to fill our gaps and shortcomings is necessary although I disagree with his idea of fear, reverence and prayer before God being "childish".
The final exhortation to see God as someone bigger than the one to fill our gaps and shortcomings is necessary although I disagree with his idea of fear, reverence and prayer before God being "childish".
April 19, 2012
Some kind of recapitulation of Hegel and Marx. Balancing idealism and materialism.
February 2, 2023
Scheler's ontological-based approach, which deals with anthropology with philosophical inquiry, has enabled him to think directly about the existence of man without getting stuck in concepts and has helped him a lot in extracting metaphysical elements by considering the existence of man concretely. It will not be difficult to see that his ontological approach has also borne fruit in this work. However, I saw a serious contrast with Scheler, and let me not pass by without mentioning it. Scheler does not characterize man as a part of nature, but considers him higher as the performer of science, philosophy, art, literature, justice. On this occasion, it is radically opposed to the fact that man is a natural origin. For this reason, it also does not accept that it is the result of an evolutionary process that man has undergone in nature. But the fact that the creator of science, whom he defended with this book, found that man came from nature and microscopically from a single source through genetic code analysis stands as a personal contrast. However, to speak specifically about the book, it has a very well-equipped content. Especially it is very important to evaluate a person (by nature) in the state of being and to show the way and situation for his development (evolution). Because as far as I know, there are not many books written on this topic.
The fact that it has an approach that deals with man through his concrete state has prevented reaching conclusions contrary to reality, as it is not reductionist. The fact that man's place in the universe is completely oriented with realistic knowledge and knowledge provides an environment in which both the human evolution is not over, it continues, and the mind, the formation of which has not yet been discovered, can reveal itself. In this context, it has gained the quality of a supporting work on the path of Nietzsche's superhuman theory. I wish you a pleasant reading.
The fact that it has an approach that deals with man through his concrete state has prevented reaching conclusions contrary to reality, as it is not reductionist. The fact that man's place in the universe is completely oriented with realistic knowledge and knowledge provides an environment in which both the human evolution is not over, it continues, and the mind, the formation of which has not yet been discovered, can reveal itself. In this context, it has gained the quality of a supporting work on the path of Nietzsche's superhuman theory. I wish you a pleasant reading.
December 12, 2025
人在宇宙中的地位。馬克斯‧舍勒著。陳澤環、沈國慶譯。
《人在宇宙中的地位》(1927)這個看來「高大上」的議題，從現今的科學水平來說，很大概率是個「偽議題」。尤其在全球遭受「新冠肺炎」折磨良久之後，看來倍覺諷刺！這個偽議題的存在基礎是，作者認為「人」這個概念，除了具有「自然科學分類學」概念外，還有一個作者稱之為：「人的本質」的這個概念。而作者之所以認為人有所謂的「本質」，在我看來，(至少部分)是作者在「科學認識」上出現了一定的偏差：如〈導言〉中，作者說：「上述三種傳統觀念已動搖，特別是達爾文主義對人類起源的解釋已完全站不住腳」。然而，最大的問題或許不是這個。最大的問題應該在，即使人有「本質」，這個渺如塵埃的「本質」又將如何在龐大無際的「宇宙」中談其「地位」呢？
首先看書名。「人在宇宙中的地位」。講地位，我們會想到跟誰比？宇宙中，你不可能跟星球比，那不同類。你要跟外星人比，你又找不到對象。所以，到底跟誰比地位？幸好，我們在《導言》中有答案。作者在末段中說：「這後一個概念究竟有沒有存在的權利，這個問題就是我們要探討的題目。」所謂「後一個概念」，指的是「人的本質概念」。作者說，我們使用「人」這個詞通常有兩種意思。一個是生物序列上的人，另一個是與一般動物對立的「人」。作者認為，後一種「人」，「必然具有完全不同於前一個概念的意義和起源」。事實上，作者在註釋裡表明了，後一種人的概念，「是按照上帝的類似形象制定的，它的前提是把上帝的觀念作為出發點。」所以，所謂探討「人的本質概念」，事實上還是在探討人與上帝的關係。至此，書名也就可以理解了。因為宇宙是上帝管的，人在宇宙中的地位，就象徵人在上帝中的地位。而人要在上帝中有地位，就要看人與上帝的相似度有多少？就是說，「人的本質」到底有多接近上帝？這就是書名的由來了。
人到底有沒有「本質」這種東西，似乎是個不用討論的問題。作者自己也說了，人的概念是按照上帝的形象制定的，你不可能說上帝沒有「本質」吧？事實上，在本書裡，我也不認為作者有對這個「本質」的由來做過任何推論。他在第二章直接就說人的本質是「精神」，並沒有解釋為什麼人的本質是「精神」。只說它不只涵蓋了希臘哲人提出的「理性」，還包括人格、道德、情感、意志等等東西。然後，書的內容就在解釋「精神」的性質、功能種種。到此，人有「本質」，並且其本質是「精神」的問題似乎明白了。其實不然。因為，人的概念是按照上帝的形象制定的，這個命題的前提是「上帝」這個觀念得先存在。但是作者也早就表明了，他已否定了這個神學的前提，否定了「一個精神的、以其精神性而全能的人格化的上帝」。作者既然否定精神性全能上帝的存在，那麼，「精神」作為人的「本質」的由來，也就只能是作者的「設定」。因此，在我看來，人的本質概念有沒有存在的權利，仍是個懸而未解的問題。繼而說人的本質(精神)是什麼，又或不是什麼，既然是作者自己的設定，那還不是由你說了算，基本是沒多大意思的。
依我看，本書最重要的一段話是第二章：「只有人(只要他有人格)能夠超越作為生物的自身，並能從時空彼岸的中心出發，使包括自身在內的一切成為他的認識對象。從而，人作為精神生物，是超越自身生物的存在物，是超越世界的存在物。」由此，作者雖然否定了神學前提，否定了精神性全能的上帝，但人的「精神」，未必就沒有取代上帝的潛能。第六章，作者說：「自我實現之地同時就是自我神化之鄉」「人的生成和上帝的生成從來就是相互依賴的」。這樣看來，作者似乎已經把人拔高到與上帝等同的地步了。那麼，我在前面所說，人在宇宙中地位的問題就是人與上帝關係的問題，答案已經很明顯了：人能創造整個宇宙。但就此，我恐怕還要加個前提：假設「人的本質概念」有存在的權利。而其實，人的本質：精神，或者「理性」等，我希望腦科學能儘快將它們破譯，免得我們還得持續掙扎在這些哲學術語的懵逼中。
《人在宇宙中的地位》(1927)這個看來「高大上」的議題，從現今的科學水平來說，很大概率是個「偽議題」。尤其在全球遭受「新冠肺炎」折磨良久之後，看來倍覺諷刺！這個偽議題的存在基礎是，作者認為「人」這個概念，除了具有「自然科學分類學」概念外，還有一個作者稱之為：「人的本質」的這個概念。而作者之所以認為人有所謂的「本質」，在我看來，(至少部分)是作者在「科學認識」上出現了一定的偏差：如〈導言〉中，作者說：「上述三種傳統觀念已動搖，特別是達爾文主義對人類起源的解釋已完全站不住腳」。然而，最大的問題或許不是這個。最大的問題應該在，即使人有「本質」，這個渺如塵埃的「本質」又將如何在龐大無際的「宇宙」中談其「地位」呢？
首先看書名。「人在宇宙中的地位」。講地位，我們會想到跟誰比？宇宙中，你不可能跟星球比，那不同類。你要跟外星人比，你又找不到對象。所以，到底跟誰比地位？幸好，我們在《導言》中有答案。作者在末段中說：「這後一個概念究竟有沒有存在的權利，這個問題就是我們要探討的題目。」所謂「後一個概念」，指的是「人的本質概念」。作者說，我們使用「人」這個詞通常有兩種意思。一個是生物序列上的人，另一個是與一般動物對立的「人」。作者認為，後一種「人」，「必然具有完全不同於前一個概念的意義和起源」。事實上，作者在註釋裡表明了，後一種人的概念，「是按照上帝的類似形象制定的，它的前提是把上帝的觀念作為出發點。」所以，所謂探討「人的本質概念」，事實上還是在探討人與上帝的關係。至此，書名也就可以理解了。因為宇宙是上帝管的，人在宇宙中的地位，就象徵人在上帝中的地位。而人要在上帝中有地位，就要看人與上帝的相似度有多少？就是說，「人的本質」到底有多接近上帝？這就是書名的由來了。
人到底有沒有「本質」這種東西，似乎是個不用討論的問題。作者自己也說了，人的概念是按照上帝的形象制定的，你不可能說上帝沒有「本質」吧？事實上，在本書裡，我也不認為作者有對這個「本質」的由來做過任何推論。他在第二章直接就說人的本質是「精神」，並沒有解釋為什麼人的本質是「精神」。只說它不只涵蓋了希臘哲人提出的「理性」，還包括人格、道德、情感、意志等等東西。然後，書的內容就在解釋「精神」的性質、功能種種。到此，人有「本質」，並且其本質是「精神」的問題似乎明白了。其實不然。因為，人的概念是按照上帝的形象制定的，這個命題的前提是「上帝」這個觀念得先存在。但是作者也早就表明了，他已否定了這個神學的前提，否定了「一個精神的、以其精神性而全能的人格化的上帝」。作者既然否定精神性全能上帝的存在，那麼，「精神」作為人的「本質」的由來，也就只能是作者的「設定」。因此，在我看來，人的本質概念有沒有存在的權利，仍是個懸而未解的問題。繼而說人的本質(精神)是什麼，又或不是什麼，既然是作者自己的設定，那還不是由你說了算，基本是沒多大意思的。
依我看，本書最重要的一段話是第二章：「只有人(只要他有人格)能夠超越作為生物的自身，並能從時空彼岸的中心出發，使包括自身在內的一切成為他的認識對象。從而，人作為精神生物，是超越自身生物的存在物，是超越世界的存在物。」由此，作者雖然否定了神學前提，否定了精神性全能的上帝，但人的「精神」，未必就沒有取代上帝的潛能。第六章，作者說：「自我實現之地同時就是自我神化之鄉」「人的生成和上帝的生成從來就是相互依賴的」。這樣看來，作者似乎已經把人拔高到與上帝等同的地步了。那麼，我在前面所說，人在宇宙中地位的問題就是人與上帝關係的問題，答案已經很明顯了：人能創造整個宇宙。但就此，我恐怕還要加個前提：假設「人的本質概念」有存在的權利。而其實，人的本質：精神，或者「理性」等，我希望腦科學能儘快將它們破譯，免得我們還得持續掙扎在這些哲學術語的懵逼中。
September 13, 2024
Max Scheler has added many profound insights into the world of phenomenology with The Human Place in the Cosmos. He analyzes wonder and objectification in ways that were specifically compelling to me. However his attempt to create a spiritual distinction between animals and humans disgusts me at times. Scheler rejects aspects of Darwinism in favor of constructing a human spirit that no animal could ever achieve. In fact Scheler cites false science constantly throughout this book. I understand that a book written in 1928 will of course have outdated science, but Scheler repeatedly based his arguments on why animals are fundamentally different from humans on weak outdated scientific foundations. With retrospect the specifics of many of his arguments fall apart. But despite all of that Scheler does make many philosophically compelling points on the human mind, culture, and its development.
. . . But don't even get me started on how much he underestimates plants omg.
. . . But don't even get me started on how much he underestimates plants omg.
July 11, 2023
As someone interested in Heidegger, I was surprised by this book and the author. Most of Heidegger's major thoughts are present here in a rough and undeveloped form: preoccupation with Being, respect for the Ancient Greeks, interest in phenomenology and Husserl, confrontation with Descartes's dualism, critique of modern epistemology, original understanding of Spirit as some incipient form of Event/Being, God's dependence on humans and history, preoccupation with metaphysics as a foundational quest, and so on.
Read
October 4, 2024"We can gain some kind of participating awareness in others by executing our acts in the same way as theirs, and by executing their acts with them [nach- und mitvollziehen], which a poor German word refers to as 'Gefolgschaft' ['hanging-on' or 'following behind']; or we can gain a possible 'understanding' of another person by attitudes of spiritual love—the extreme opposite of any objectification— and by love, as it is said, we can identify ourselves with another person’s will, another person’s love, and thus with that particular person himself.”
December 31, 2025
Un muy revelador ensayo sobre la superación del catolicismo del autor y consolidación de la espiritualidad en fenomenología frente al mundo. La conclusión es que el mundo se da en el enfrentamiento entre "el impulso" primitivo y "el espíritu" que lo eleva, pero sin ser dicotómico. También acaba concluyendo, contradiciendo sus anteriores obras más religiosas, que la idea de un bien en el mundo y la religión es una forma de relegar esa actividad ética humana sobre el mundo, que en realidad per se es un lugar FRIO y DESCARNADO.
April 11, 2021
Si llegeixes en diagonal tota la jerga científica obsoleta del principi,,, prou bo!
També val a dir que aquests alemanys es fan un embolic per acabar dient que déu existeix sense dir que déu existeix, però buenu,,,
(molt divertit si vas fer moderna amb en Turró i et va agradar el temari!)
També val a dir que aquests alemanys es fan un embolic per acabar dient que déu existeix sense dir que déu existeix, però buenu,,,
(molt divertit si vas fer moderna amb en Turró i et va agradar el temari!)
February 5, 2022
Eine zusammenfassung voller Ideen und Anreize. Inmitten einer Zeit, in der der Mensch seine Grenze sucht und Gefahr läuft, ganz unterzugehen, arbeitet Scheler die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos heraus.
December 1, 2017
Interesante, algo intrinacdo por momentos Un enfoque exitencialista y fenomenológico del ser humano. El espíritu confluye en el mismo punto en que Freud habla de "sublimación".
November 18, 2018
Pure philosophical text about existential problems and life of humanity. Not so hard to read, somewhere between Schopenhauer and Fromm.
May 31, 2021
I mean... it's not terrific, but yeah, it's something.
October 29, 2021
Impulso y espíritu, poder decir no aun cuando queremos decir que si, eso es todo la delgad aliens entre nosotros y los animales y que no creo en lo personal que dure mucho
February 10, 2025
¿Por qué tengo taaaantas ganas de llorar? Que bonita descripción antropológica de quienes somos (como humanos) con relación a los seres que nos rodean, ¿qué nos diferencia?
Amo la filosofía caray.
Amo la filosofía caray.
April 19, 2025
öyle değilmiş gibi gözüküp modernist ilerlemeci fikirlere sahip🤡🤡
November 16, 2025
4/5 книжка, яку треба перечитувати багато разів. філософська антропологія це завжди цікаво 💅
June 11, 2017
66 tiivistä sivua muun muassa ihmisen ja jumalan synnystä. On nautinto lukea rationaalista ja jäsenneltyä, mutta silti rohkeaa ja "korkeaa" filosofiaa.
November 18, 2019
Yalnız hazza yönelmiş yaşam biçimi, halkların yaşamında olduğu gibi, bireylerin yaşamında da çok açık bir yaşlılık göstergesidir; tıpkı "her damlanın tadını çıkaran" ihtiyar alkoliğin, benzer görüntüleri erotik şeyler konusunda sergileyen kişinin durumunda olduğu gibi.
Read
March 25, 2015In brief: 'Tis a shame that Scheler died before he could complete this work and follow it up further, even if I would criticize it at some crucial points (esp. theology).
Not only does he, in his own way, challenge the Cartesian foundation of modern(ist) philosophy, but this work in particular has a special sense of negotiating between the two new preceding 'movements' in philosophy: the 'masters of suspicion' (i.e. Marx, Nietzsche, Freud) and Husserl's phenomenology. Together, Scheler articulates this field of philosophical anthropology, which is much needed. It is a well-intended response to the Nietzschean reproach of Western culture having "grown weary of man".
We would do well in pursuing, as he did, a full 'concept of man' and a better synthesis for modern thought.
Not only does he, in his own way, challenge the Cartesian foundation of modern(ist) philosophy, but this work in particular has a special sense of negotiating between the two new preceding 'movements' in philosophy: the 'masters of suspicion' (i.e. Marx, Nietzsche, Freud) and Husserl's phenomenology. Together, Scheler articulates this field of philosophical anthropology, which is much needed. It is a well-intended response to the Nietzschean reproach of Western culture having "grown weary of man".
We would do well in pursuing, as he did, a full 'concept of man' and a better synthesis for modern thought.
July 31, 2023
[...]Με μια λέξη, ο άνθρωπος μπορεί να «εξιδανικεύει» την ενστικτώδη του ενέργεια σε πνευματική δραστηριότητα.[...]
[...]Το ίδιο του ανθρώπου είναι να αντιπαραθέτει σ' αυτό το είδος πραγματικότητας ένα ισχυρό «όχι». Αυτό είναι και το νόημα εκείνον των λέξεων του Βούδα, ότι δηλαδή είναι υπέροχο το να παρατηρεί κανείς το κάθε πράγμα, αλλά είναι τρομερό το να είναι κανείς κάθε πράγμα. Αυτό είναι και το νόημα της τεχνικής της αποπραγμάτωσης (Entwirklichung) του κόσμου και του εαυτού, που ανέπτυξε ο Βούδας.[...]
[...]Το ίδιο του ανθρώπου είναι να αντιπαραθέτει σ' αυτό το είδος πραγματικότητας ένα ισχυρό «όχι». Αυτό είναι και το νόημα εκείνον των λέξεων του Βούδα, ότι δηλαδή είναι υπέροχο το να παρατηρεί κανείς το κάθε πράγμα, αλλά είναι τρομερό το να είναι κανείς κάθε πράγμα. Αυτό είναι και το νόημα της τεχνικής της αποπραγμάτωσης (Entwirklichung) του κόσμου και του εαυτού, που ανέπτυξε ο Βούδας.[...]
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews