What do you think?
Rate this book
Reason and Existenz: Five Lectures
With the publication of Reason and Existenz, originally delivered as a series of five lectures at the University of Groningen in 1935, one of the most important of Jaspers's philosophic works is made available to the English-speaking world. It concerns itself with a general statement of the principal philosophic categories which have given uniqueness to Jaspers's thinking: existence, freedom, and history, and the limit-situations of death, suffering, and sin. Written shortly after Jaspers's major systematic work and before his analysis of the problem of truth, Reason and Existenz occupies a primary position in the development of his thought.
Contents:
Introduction
Lecture 1: Origin of the contemporary philosophic situation (the historical meaning of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche)
Lectures 2-4: Basic ideas for the clarification of reason and Existenz:
Lecture 2: The Encompassing
Lecture 3: Truth as Communicability
Lecture 4: Priority & limits of rational thinking
Lecture 5: Possibilities for contemporary philosophizing
Notes
Contents:
Introduction
Lecture 1: Origin of the contemporary philosophic situation (the historical meaning of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche)
Lectures 2-4: Basic ideas for the clarification of reason and Existenz:
Lecture 2: The Encompassing
Lecture 3: Truth as Communicability
Lecture 4: Priority & limits of rational thinking
Lecture 5: Possibilities for contemporary philosophizing
Notes
181 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1935
8 people are currently reading
331 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 - 7 of 7 reviews
May 13, 2024
"Jaspers is not interested in sketching a picture of the physical world, or in outlining the nature of man, or in giving us a new meta-physical theory. Rather his philosophizing is designed to reawaken us to our own authentic human situation. It is the aim of his philosophizing, then, to call attention to the limits of knowledge, not with the skeptical purpose of disposing of knowledge altogether, but rather in order to let the truth which always lies just beyond those limits shine through for a moment. Jaspers' philosophizing lives on the limits, turned both to what lies within and to what lies without. It remains on these limits and does not pass into a new theory of what is in principle beyond theory. Philosophizing here is a movement of transcending; and it is a movement which each must enact for himself".
December 30, 2014
Karl Jasper's 'Reason and Existenz' is not for the philosophical faint of heart. Jaspers deeply explores his argument of the existence of "Existenz". Launching from Hegel & Nietzsche and building to the importance of reason and "Existenz", Jaspers constructs his reasoning for a humans ability to realize their existence. His romp into and around existential thought would trouble those that hold more faithful creation beliefs. To those that do not hold such beliefs, they might struggle a bit as Jaspers seems to rock in and out of beliefs in a "God". Of course, this is Jaspers version of "God" and not the traditional view of God.
This book is a reworking of speeches Jaspers made in the 1930s. The first is well written, though gets denser and denser as it goes along. I should warn there's a point where clarity suddenly shifts into the deeply complex which continues to the end.
The second continues the complexity and has the very best thoughts of the whole.
The third is very clear and best of the three as Jaspers makes his stand for the imperative need of reason.
In the notes section are some quite good nuggets to take in.
Bottom line: I recommend for those who love philosophy. Otherwise, it might be best to dive into a volume of Kauffman's books of existentialism which includes Jaspers ideas. Then come to this book.
This book is a reworking of speeches Jaspers made in the 1930s. The first is well written, though gets denser and denser as it goes along. I should warn there's a point where clarity suddenly shifts into the deeply complex which continues to the end.
The second continues the complexity and has the very best thoughts of the whole.
The third is very clear and best of the three as Jaspers makes his stand for the imperative need of reason.
In the notes section are some quite good nuggets to take in.
Bottom line: I recommend for those who love philosophy. Otherwise, it might be best to dive into a volume of Kauffman's books of existentialism which includes Jaspers ideas. Then come to this book.
September 1, 2023
I liked this work better than Philosophy of Existence, as his treatment here, while still vague, touches on more "tangible" matters, so to speak.
The first chapter, for example, where he compares Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, assessing their legacy for modern philosophizing, is not only helpful as a summary of their core ideas but also full of valuable insights regarding their very manner of philosophizing and their reception.
I also liked the third chapter, in which he discusses how truth comes about through communication. If I understand him correctly, then what he describes as the "will-to-communicate" seems to:
(1) have a Kantian basis, such that truth becomes something like a postulate of practical reason, which is at once empirically infeasible, as shown in pluralism, but also transcendental in unity, being the endpoint of rational discourse, sort of like the kingdom of ends and
(2) anticipate Levinas' notion that discourse/conversation, which establishes truth, is inherently grounded in justice, since it involves letting the Other be and express themselves without our challenging their alterity.
He also has some interesting remarks about circularity in philosophical discourse, a view he shares with Heidegger, although I'll have to spend some more time with this analysis, as it kind of went over my head. It seems important.
In spite of this, Jaspers' philosophy as a whole—yes, I know he is not a systematic thinker, but I mean the general character of it—is still enigmatic. It eludes me. That, he insists, is the point. But I don't really care for such indirection. If all his tireless talk of the Encompassing is nothing more than "the cryptogram of Transcendence" (108)—a "concept" I still have yet to "understand" (of course, I'm not supposed to "understand" but instead experience it, yet this is dreadfully unhelpful and discouraging)—then I remain hopelessly in the dark, to the neglect of my Existenz.
The first chapter, for example, where he compares Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, assessing their legacy for modern philosophizing, is not only helpful as a summary of their core ideas but also full of valuable insights regarding their very manner of philosophizing and their reception.
I also liked the third chapter, in which he discusses how truth comes about through communication. If I understand him correctly, then what he describes as the "will-to-communicate" seems to:
(1) have a Kantian basis, such that truth becomes something like a postulate of practical reason, which is at once empirically infeasible, as shown in pluralism, but also transcendental in unity, being the endpoint of rational discourse, sort of like the kingdom of ends and
(2) anticipate Levinas' notion that discourse/conversation, which establishes truth, is inherently grounded in justice, since it involves letting the Other be and express themselves without our challenging their alterity.
He also has some interesting remarks about circularity in philosophical discourse, a view he shares with Heidegger, although I'll have to spend some more time with this analysis, as it kind of went over my head. It seems important.
In spite of this, Jaspers' philosophy as a whole—yes, I know he is not a systematic thinker, but I mean the general character of it—is still enigmatic. It eludes me. That, he insists, is the point. But I don't really care for such indirection. If all his tireless talk of the Encompassing is nothing more than "the cryptogram of Transcendence" (108)—a "concept" I still have yet to "understand" (of course, I'm not supposed to "understand" but instead experience it, yet this is dreadfully unhelpful and discouraging)—then I remain hopelessly in the dark, to the neglect of my Existenz.
June 22, 2024
This was confusing. I expected something tangible but I was met with metaphysics and definitions of experience. When it comes to that, anybody can say what they want and it might as well be true because we cannot know for sure. And what he says is unclear at that, with no solid definitions for the titular words. It left me critical and disengaged.
For comparison purposes, set him up against Wittgenstein. I enjoyed PI. It was almost the opposite: nebulous concepts with meticulous definitions and experiments. It did not feel like he was just making something up.
And making something up might be too much credit to give to Jaspers, as much of his vocabulary is robbed from Kant and Hegel.
I don't need to read 200 hundred pages of experience-lore to develop a concept I already have within myself: LIVE consciously. That's why I put the book down and turned to something else.
For comparison purposes, set him up against Wittgenstein. I enjoyed PI. It was almost the opposite: nebulous concepts with meticulous definitions and experiments. It did not feel like he was just making something up.
And making something up might be too much credit to give to Jaspers, as much of his vocabulary is robbed from Kant and Hegel.
I don't need to read 200 hundred pages of experience-lore to develop a concept I already have within myself: LIVE consciously. That's why I put the book down and turned to something else.
October 17, 2025
Libro con varias ideas interesantes:
- el ser como das Umgreifende y sus modos: ser-ahí, conciencia, espíritu.
- la relación entre lo abarcador y la comunicación. La verdad comunicativa.
- la existencia como fundamento. Este "Grund" es muy de tradición alemana, desde Eckart pasando por Schelling, me parece a mí.
- los límites de la racionalidad y la tarea abierta de la filosofía.
Espero aclarar otros conceptos de Jaspers que quedan menos claros (trascendencia y existencia sobre todo) en sus libros siguientes.
- el ser como das Umgreifende y sus modos: ser-ahí, conciencia, espíritu.
- la relación entre lo abarcador y la comunicación. La verdad comunicativa.
- la existencia como fundamento. Este "Grund" es muy de tradición alemana, desde Eckart pasando por Schelling, me parece a mí.
- los límites de la racionalidad y la tarea abierta de la filosofía.
Espero aclarar otros conceptos de Jaspers que quedan menos claros (trascendencia y existencia sobre todo) en sus libros siguientes.
January 7, 2026
The book fell.off my shelf and I had to read it. Glad I did . Reminded of so many books I read before. Too bad the woke do not read. It would make them think. They do not like that
Read Marcuse at the same time prefer Jaspers.
Read Marcuse at the same time prefer Jaspers.
January 10, 2024
Deep and clumsy.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews