What do you think?
Rate this book
نیچه و مسیحیت
Karl Jaspers [1883-1969] geldt als een van de belangrijkste denkers van de moderne tijd. Na een studie rechten en medicijnen werd hij aanvankelijk hoogleraar psychiatrie en pas daarna hoogleraar filosofie aan de Universiteit van Heidelberg. Door het nazibewind werd hij in 1936 gedwongen tot aftreden. Na de Tweede Wereldoorlog was Jaspers van 1948 tot aan zijn overlijden hoogleraar wijsbegeerte aan de Universiteit van Bazel. Zijn Nietzsche en het christendom was in 1946 een van de eerste Duitse boeken die van de geallieerden mochten verschijnen, en dit luidde het begin in van zijn statuur als de meest vooraanstaande filosoof in het ÇNieuwe DuitslandÈ. In 1936 had Jaspers zijn magnum opus Nietzsche gepubliceerd, en in het spoor daarvan schreef hij Nietzsche en het christendom. Dit beknopte essay was bedoeld om helderheid te krijgen omtrent een van de kernproblemen bij zijn ambivalente houding tegenover de christelijke traditie in de westerse beschaving. Jaspers toont overtuigend aan dat de filosofie van Nietzsche niet alleen in essentie ÇonafÈ is, maar ook wezenlijk gebouwd is op paradoxen en tegenstrijdigheden. Zo verketterde Nietzsche het christendom, maar tegelijkertijd wortelde zijn denken in het christendom en omarmde hij de kern van het niet-kerkelijke christendom. Bovenal beklemtoont Jaspers de grenzenloosheid van Nietzsches denken, dat voortkwam uit de existenti‘le beleving van een mens die als eenling in de wereld staat. Tot in onze tijd is Nietzsche en het christendom zeer invloedrijk en van grote betekenis. ÇDit boek is niet alleen van belang voor iedereen die genteresseerd is in Nietzsche,maar zeker ook voor een ieder die in deze chaotische wereld wil begrijpen waar de kernwaarden van de westerse traditie liggen.È - Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung -
141 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1936
4 people are currently reading
136 people want to read
About the author
Karl Jaspers
427 books364 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 - 12 of 12 reviews
April 18, 2023
I am always deeply careful regarding secondary texts, or other sources, about philosophers — especially when it comes to Nietzsche. This is despite the contradictory gratefulness I experience in having been introduced to Nietzsche’s works through the guidance of my university teacher, Herman Siemens, and the different gratefulness I experience towards the other teachers I’ve had the pleasure to study under, and the introductions they have provided to other philosophers. And, finally, the combination of all of them who have been, and who are to come, for the guided introduction to philosophy in general.
Nevertheless, I am glad to have read this exegesis of Jaspers’, and I am looking forward to reading the Dutch translation of Philosophische Glaube (Philosophical Belief). A beautiful coincidence of circumstances put me on the path of first this work, and now Philosophische Glaube.
Jaspers has confirmed, or perhaps I must say affirmed, many intuitions I held already regarding Nietzsche’s philosophy, and especially my own understanding thereof — the relation between my understanding of Nietzsche’s philosophy, and Nietzsche’s philosophy itself.
And yet, I can do no other than doubt it.
I guess this is where the philosophical belief comes in.
Nevertheless, I am glad to have read this exegesis of Jaspers’, and I am looking forward to reading the Dutch translation of Philosophische Glaube (Philosophical Belief). A beautiful coincidence of circumstances put me on the path of first this work, and now Philosophische Glaube.
Jaspers has confirmed, or perhaps I must say affirmed, many intuitions I held already regarding Nietzsche’s philosophy, and especially my own understanding thereof — the relation between my understanding of Nietzsche’s philosophy, and Nietzsche’s philosophy itself.
And yet, I can do no other than doubt it.
I guess this is where the philosophical belief comes in.
September 18, 2021
What little I understood of this book, I enjoyed and found interesting, but it is certainly not suitable for people whose knowledge of the philosopher is scanty (as is the case with me). For those who have read Nietzsche's books, I think it might be very useful.
abandoned
July 3, 2023سروران گرامی، کتاب نیچه و مسیحیت اثر کارل یاسپرس نتوانست مرا با خود همراه کند. بنابراین آن را به میانه نرسیده ترک میگویم. کتاب با این شروع میکند که حرف های نیچه در مورد مسیحیت ضد و نقیض است و میخواهد از مجموعه متون وی موضع درست را بیرون کشد. مهم نیست. اصلا بگذارید با تبختر بگویم قدیمی است و رویکردش مورد پسندم نبود. حقیر از این تازه به اندیشه رسیده های طرفدار تفسیر های خط هایدگرم. بنابراین به امید خواندن خود متن نیچه از این اثر صرفنظر میکنم
June 19, 2023
Een paar tipjes van de vele sluiers worden opgetild door het werk van Karl Jaspers. Onderwerp is de relatie van Nietzsche met het christendom en hoe Nietzsche zelf door het christendom gekenmerkt wordt. Een boeiende tekst die soms verduidelijkt.
September 8, 2024
یاسپرس با گشت و گذار در آثار نیچه به نکته جالبی میرسه که نیچه موضع ثابتی در قبال مسیحیت نداره. نیچه گاهی بر عیسی (ع) تاخته و گاهی اونو در حد ابرمرد بالا برده. فصل دوم و سوم کتاب هم در همین بارهست که اولی نقلهاییه که نیچه توشون از عیسی (ع) و گاهی مسیحیت تعریف میکنه و در فصل سوم تقبیح. هرچند پاسپرس به این نکته اشاره نکرده اما به نظر من این مواضع نیچه رو میشه با دوگانه دیونوسوس و آپولون خودش توضیح داد؛ البته باید توجه کرد هر کدوم از نقل قولها برای کدوم کتابه و اون کتاب مربوط به کدوم دوره فکری نیچهست و به عبارت بهتر چقدر با کتاب «زایش تراژدی از روح موسیقی» فاصله داره.
بهطور خلاصه نیچه هرجا که مسیح و مسیحیت رو به مثابه نهضت میفهمه و اونا رو به روح دیونوسوسی نزدیک میبینه، ازشون تعریف میکنه و بالعکس هرجا اونا رو به شکل نهاد درک میکنه و معتقده روحشون به روح آپولونی نزدیک شده، تقبیحشون میکنه. این به نحوی روح کلی کتابه ولی این نکته قابل توجهه که باید دید نقل قولها مربوط به کدوم دوره از حیات نیچهاند.
بهطور خلاصه نیچه هرجا که مسیح و مسیحیت رو به مثابه نهضت میفهمه و اونا رو به روح دیونوسوسی نزدیک میبینه، ازشون تعریف میکنه و بالعکس هرجا اونا رو به شکل نهاد درک میکنه و معتقده روحشون به روح آپولونی نزدیک شده، تقبیحشون میکنه. این به نحوی روح کلی کتابه ولی این نکته قابل توجهه که باید دید نقل قولها مربوط به کدوم دوره از حیات نیچهاند.
January 3, 2019
Nietzsche's rhetoric in "The Antichrist" elicits a very visceral reaction. In Nietzsche's contempt for Christianity and his picture of a transvaluation of the Christian ideals, he launches a tirade that can be bewildering, contradictory, and seemingly unstoppable. One either joins his shouting, or tries his or her best to shut him up.
In this bold and balanced work, a Christian psychologist and philosopher of note, Karl Jaspers, dismantles Nietzsche piece by piece, and in the process forms a picture for us of the fundamentally Christian attitudes and assumptions he held that allowed him to launch his attack in the first place. It's a brilliantly penetrating little study, and it is surprising at every turn to see how Jaspers can calmly demonstrate the weaknesses of Nietzsche's arguments while also continuously showing his lasting importance.
Jaspers' thesis is that Nietzsche's hatred of Christianity (including its moral, doctrinal, sociological, and political aspects) stemmed from his own fundamental Christian outlook. This is demonstrated by his highly contradictory statements about Christianity made throughout his life. The reader who believes that all this philosopher's opinions are admitted in "The Antichrist" is simply mistaken; in journals, letters, and other works, Nietzsche presents a highly problematic opinion of Christianity. Jaspers moves on from this to posit that such inconsistent statements reveal Nietzsche's goal: he uses the very instincts, discoveries, and vocabulary of Christian theology in his attempt to surpass it; and that was his goal: to surpass, not merely beat into submission and then dismantle.
What Jaspers calls Nietzsche's "unconditionality," that is, his "extreme morality and truthfulness," comes not from Greek or Latin thinking or from his own originality; it comes from 1900 years of Christian authority. This is the Christian authority from the Bible and the Fathers which stressed the Sermon on the Mount and the Commandments. The problem is, that Nietzsche never comes close to offering a sustained interaction with, say, the thought of Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. If he had, then perhaps he would have better appreciated their own endeavor for truth and "manliness" as Nietzsche puts it.
Another problem that Jaspers uncovers is Nietzsche's New Testament assumptions. For Nietzsche, the Gospels and the entire New Testament were distortions. So, some key questions are: How does Nietzsche know the "original" Jesus? Can there be a Jesus stripped of the "accretions" of story, miracle, and teaching? Nietzsche is not enough of a philologist to take note that the "Christ Hymns" in Paul's writings differ from his letters in their vocabulary and syntax; these were teachings Paul received from others and then incorporated into his letters. These were therefore the oldest teachings the Christian communities spoke, and they were written down at an incredibly early date - before the Gospels. Nietzsche doesn't care; for his attack to work, Jesus of history must be a heroic figure who presented a way to live, not a Savior who presented a relationship to join.
Jaspers takes Nietzsche to task for his view of the world-historical process. Is there the possibility for a philosophy of history apart from Christian origins? Jaspers says, "No. There is not," for the very idea of a "hyperphysical history" of the world is of Christian origin. Nietzsche's demand for complete truthfulness is also not to be found apart from the advent of Christianity in Western thought. This single-minded obsession is not Greek, but Monastic.
The thinking of Nietzsche is drastic and wild and contradictory, and in this lies his great power and influence. Jaspers writes, "It can only be motion itself - that is to say, a thinking which never closes but widens the space, which prepares no ground but creates possibilities for an unknown future" (97). Being associated with Nietzsche should lead to a "loosening process," where each one of us looks at his or her assumptions and uncovers what he or she has been concealing. Nietzsche is a challenge to each one of us, and his challenge to Christianity is Christian in origin, as Jaspers demonstrates. After reading Nietzsche, one must see for himself or herself what one is standing on.
In this bold and balanced work, a Christian psychologist and philosopher of note, Karl Jaspers, dismantles Nietzsche piece by piece, and in the process forms a picture for us of the fundamentally Christian attitudes and assumptions he held that allowed him to launch his attack in the first place. It's a brilliantly penetrating little study, and it is surprising at every turn to see how Jaspers can calmly demonstrate the weaknesses of Nietzsche's arguments while also continuously showing his lasting importance.
Jaspers' thesis is that Nietzsche's hatred of Christianity (including its moral, doctrinal, sociological, and political aspects) stemmed from his own fundamental Christian outlook. This is demonstrated by his highly contradictory statements about Christianity made throughout his life. The reader who believes that all this philosopher's opinions are admitted in "The Antichrist" is simply mistaken; in journals, letters, and other works, Nietzsche presents a highly problematic opinion of Christianity. Jaspers moves on from this to posit that such inconsistent statements reveal Nietzsche's goal: he uses the very instincts, discoveries, and vocabulary of Christian theology in his attempt to surpass it; and that was his goal: to surpass, not merely beat into submission and then dismantle.
What Jaspers calls Nietzsche's "unconditionality," that is, his "extreme morality and truthfulness," comes not from Greek or Latin thinking or from his own originality; it comes from 1900 years of Christian authority. This is the Christian authority from the Bible and the Fathers which stressed the Sermon on the Mount and the Commandments. The problem is, that Nietzsche never comes close to offering a sustained interaction with, say, the thought of Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. If he had, then perhaps he would have better appreciated their own endeavor for truth and "manliness" as Nietzsche puts it.
Another problem that Jaspers uncovers is Nietzsche's New Testament assumptions. For Nietzsche, the Gospels and the entire New Testament were distortions. So, some key questions are: How does Nietzsche know the "original" Jesus? Can there be a Jesus stripped of the "accretions" of story, miracle, and teaching? Nietzsche is not enough of a philologist to take note that the "Christ Hymns" in Paul's writings differ from his letters in their vocabulary and syntax; these were teachings Paul received from others and then incorporated into his letters. These were therefore the oldest teachings the Christian communities spoke, and they were written down at an incredibly early date - before the Gospels. Nietzsche doesn't care; for his attack to work, Jesus of history must be a heroic figure who presented a way to live, not a Savior who presented a relationship to join.
Jaspers takes Nietzsche to task for his view of the world-historical process. Is there the possibility for a philosophy of history apart from Christian origins? Jaspers says, "No. There is not," for the very idea of a "hyperphysical history" of the world is of Christian origin. Nietzsche's demand for complete truthfulness is also not to be found apart from the advent of Christianity in Western thought. This single-minded obsession is not Greek, but Monastic.
The thinking of Nietzsche is drastic and wild and contradictory, and in this lies his great power and influence. Jaspers writes, "It can only be motion itself - that is to say, a thinking which never closes but widens the space, which prepares no ground but creates possibilities for an unknown future" (97). Being associated with Nietzsche should lead to a "loosening process," where each one of us looks at his or her assumptions and uncovers what he or she has been concealing. Nietzsche is a challenge to each one of us, and his challenge to Christianity is Christian in origin, as Jaspers demonstrates. After reading Nietzsche, one must see for himself or herself what one is standing on.
September 7, 2020
ნიცშეს ფილოსოფიის, კონკრეტულად კი ქრისტიანობის მიმართ იმ ამბივალენტური განცდის შესახებ, რომელსაც მკითხველი განიცდის ნიცშეს კითხვისას, ძალიან კარგი გზამკვლევია - თუ როგორ და რატომ უპირისპირდება ნიცშე ქრისტიანობას, როგორც რელიგიას, რომელიც შერყვნილია ქრისტიანობის გაგება, მოციქულებიდან მოყოლებული არასწორადაა ინტერპრეტირებული.
წიგნის პირველი ნახევარი მთლიანად ამ ტიპის მიმოხილვაა, მეორე ნახევარში ხდება ნიცშეს კრიტიკა,
კარლ იასპერსის მხრიდან, თუმცა სადავოა რამდენად სამართლიანი და ძლიერია ეს კრიტიკა, იასპერსს ხშირად მოყავს არგუმენტად, ის რომ ნიცშე, როგორც ნიჰილსტი ფილოსოფოსი ჭეშმარიტებას აცდენილია, თუმცა არასდროს იწუხებს თავს განმარტოს რას წარმოადგენს მისთვის, ეს კონკრეტული.
საინტერესოა ასევე ისიც, რომ ნიცშეს, კირეგორსა და მარქსს, აკრიტიკებს პრობლემის გადაუჭრელობაში, რამდენადაც ეს ფილოსოფოსები მხოლოდ ხედავენ პრობლემებს, და ვერ სთავაზობენ იგივეს რასაც სთავაზობს, ქრისტიანობა ხალხს. იასპერსი ასევე აკრიტიკებს ნიცშეს მისი აზრის გამო, სადაც ნიცშე თავის ფილოსოფიაზე წერს, რომ არ გამოდგება წინამძღვრად, არ უნდა მისდიონ მას, ადამიანებს ნიცშე ეხმარება საკუთარი ხმის გაგონებაში. მეორეს მხრივ რამდენად შეიძლება ეს კრიტიკა იყოს სამართლიანი არ ვიცი, თუ ვთვლით და ვამბობთ, რომ ქრისტიანობა, იმთავითვე შერყვნილი რელიგიაა, მხოლოდ ქრისტეა სწორი ქრისტიანი, მაშინ გამოდის, რომ ნიცშე მართალია და მხოლოდ საკუთარი თავიდან შეიძლება რაღაცის დანახვა, გზის გაკვლევა, ხოლო ნებისმიერი მწამსისა თუ იდეოლოოგის ქვეშ სიარული უაზრო ჩიხია.
საბოლოოდ მგონია, რომ იასპერსი საშუალებას აძლევს მკითხველს თავად განსაჯოს, შეაფასოს ის ���ასაც თავად მიმოხილავს.
წიგნის პირველი ნახევარი მთლიანად ამ ტიპის მიმოხილვაა, მეორე ნახევარში ხდება ნიცშეს კრიტიკა,
კარლ იასპერსის მხრიდან, თუმცა სადავოა რამდენად სამართლიანი და ძლიერია ეს კრიტიკა, იასპერსს ხშირად მოყავს არგუმენტად, ის რომ ნიცშე, როგორც ნიჰილსტი ფილოსოფოსი ჭეშმარიტებას აცდენილია, თუმცა არასდროს იწუხებს თავს განმარტოს რას წარმოადგენს მისთვის, ეს კონკრეტული.
საინტერესოა ასევე ისიც, რომ ნიცშეს, კირეგორსა და მარქსს, აკრიტიკებს პრობლემის გადაუჭრელობაში, რამდენადაც ეს ფილოსოფოსები მხოლოდ ხედავენ პრობლემებს, და ვერ სთავაზობენ იგივეს რასაც სთავაზობს, ქრისტიანობა ხალხს. იასპერსი ასევე აკრიტიკებს ნიცშეს მისი აზრის გამო, სადაც ნიცშე თავის ფილოსოფიაზე წერს, რომ არ გამოდგება წინამძღვრად, არ უნდა მისდიონ მას, ადამიანებს ნიცშე ეხმარება საკუთარი ხმის გაგონებაში. მეორეს მხრივ რამდენად შეიძლება ეს კრიტიკა იყოს სამართლიანი არ ვიცი, თუ ვთვლით და ვამბობთ, რომ ქრისტიანობა, იმთავითვე შერყვნილი რელიგიაა, მხოლოდ ქრისტეა სწორი ქრისტიანი, მაშინ გამოდის, რომ ნიცშე მართალია და მხოლოდ საკუთარი თავიდან შეიძლება რაღაცის დანახვა, გზის გაკვლევა, ხოლო ნებისმიერი მწამსისა თუ იდეოლოოგის ქვეშ სიარული უაზრო ჩიხია.
საბოლოოდ მგონია, რომ იასპერსი საშუალებას აძლევს მკითხველს თავად განსაჯოს, შეაფასოს ის ���ასაც თავად მიმოხილავს.
March 3, 2022
Un ensayo muy bueno que nos da un recorrido sobre el pensamiento de Nietzschze a lo largo de todo su recorrido filosófico, contradictorio: una montaña rusa de ideas en las que como dice Jaspers es casi imposible encontrar las ideas centrales. "El sentido del pensamiento de Nietzschze sólo se alcanza si lo tenemos presente en su totalidad".
August 10, 2018
چه ترجمهای. ممنون از ناشر و مترجم
December 20, 2012
Personne n’a abordé avec autant de profondeur, de justesse et d’honnêteté le rapport compliqué, passionnel et apparemment contradictoire de Nietzsche au christianisme que ne l’a fait Jaspers. J’ignore pourquoi ce texte ne se trouve pas dans le gros livre sur Nietzsche de Jaspers, car il en constitue un complément incontournable.
D’autre part, on ne peut trouver mieux que l’ensemble de conférences publiées sous le nom de Raison et existence pour s’initier en profondeur à la pensée de Jaspers. On y trouve à la fois un condensé de son interprétation des sources principales de sa réflexions que sont Kierkegaard et Nietzsche, une exposition détaillé du concept d’englobant, une réflexion sur la possibilité de la communication et une mise en valeur de la rationalité. L’ensemble permet d’esquisser l’attitude la plus convaincante qu’il soit possible de d’adopter pour demeurer authentique sans sombrer dans le postmodernisme, c’est-à-dire, de philosopher « le regard fixé sur l’exception » (283).
Détail surprenant, dans son avant-propos à Raison et existence, le traducteur Robert Grivard écrit que le chef d’œuvre de Jaspers, Philosophie, n’a pas encore été traduit en français. Or, la même Jeanne Hersch qui est la traductrice du Nietzsche et le christianisme publié dans ce volume en a pourtant fait une traduction française dont je possède un exemplaire publié chez Springer-Verlag en 1989.
D’autre part, on ne peut trouver mieux que l’ensemble de conférences publiées sous le nom de Raison et existence pour s’initier en profondeur à la pensée de Jaspers. On y trouve à la fois un condensé de son interprétation des sources principales de sa réflexions que sont Kierkegaard et Nietzsche, une exposition détaillé du concept d’englobant, une réflexion sur la possibilité de la communication et une mise en valeur de la rationalité. L’ensemble permet d’esquisser l’attitude la plus convaincante qu’il soit possible de d’adopter pour demeurer authentique sans sombrer dans le postmodernisme, c’est-à-dire, de philosopher « le regard fixé sur l’exception » (283).
Détail surprenant, dans son avant-propos à Raison et existence, le traducteur Robert Grivard écrit que le chef d’œuvre de Jaspers, Philosophie, n’a pas encore été traduit en français. Or, la même Jeanne Hersch qui est la traductrice du Nietzsche et le christianisme publié dans ce volume en a pourtant fait une traduction française dont je possède un exemplaire publié chez Springer-Verlag en 1989.
February 8, 2023
Considero que es un libro que puede servir como primer acercamiento a la obra de Nietzsche como tal, es la primera obra que me leo de Jaspers y la verdad que la disfruté, se lee fácil y está estructurada de una manera bastante manejable con capítulos y secciones cortas.
Una vez que Jaspers sienta las bases sobre el pensamiento nietzscheano realiza algunas críticas que la verdad lo dejan a uno pensando y le presentan otra cara de la moneda que al leer a Nietzsche puede que uno no contemple.
La obra me deja pensando muchas cosas, pero hay dos que realmente calaron dentro de mí:
- La manera de redactar de Nietzsche y el porqué lo percibimos como lo percibimos.
- Una tendencia compartida por Herder, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx y el propio Nietzsche cuando se llega a considerar que después de un declive se erige algo, el sentarse a reflexionar para ver de dónde se está tomando este modelo mental lo deja a uno pensando.
Es una obra que sin lugar a dudas la volvería a leer
Una vez que Jaspers sienta las bases sobre el pensamiento nietzscheano realiza algunas críticas que la verdad lo dejan a uno pensando y le presentan otra cara de la moneda que al leer a Nietzsche puede que uno no contemple.
La obra me deja pensando muchas cosas, pero hay dos que realmente calaron dentro de mí:
- La manera de redactar de Nietzsche y el porqué lo percibimos como lo percibimos.
- Una tendencia compartida por Herder, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx y el propio Nietzsche cuando se llega a considerar que después de un declive se erige algo, el sentarse a reflexionar para ver de dónde se está tomando este modelo mental lo deja a uno pensando.
Es una obra que sin lugar a dudas la volvería a leer
March 31, 2016
A brief but interesting read about how Nietzsche's most fundamental philosophical ideas ultimately stemmed from Christian sources - which were then stripped of their Christian content.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews