What do you think?
Rate this book
The Question of German Guilt
Shortly after the Nazi government fell, a philosophy professor at Heidelberg University lectured on a subject that burned the consciousness and conscience of thinking Germans. “Are the German people guilty?” These lectures by Karl Jaspers, an outstanding European philosopher, attracted wide attention among German intellectuals and students; they seemed to offer a path to sanity and morality in a disordered world.
Jaspers, a life-long liberal, attempted in this book to discuss rationally a problem that had thus far evoked only heat and fury. Neither an evasive apology nor a wholesome condemnation, his book distinguished between types of guilt and degrees of responsibility. He listed four categories of criminal guilt (the commitment of overt acts), political guilt (the degree of political acquiescence in the Nazi regime), moral guilt (a matter of private judgment among one’s friends), and metaphysical guilt (a universally shared responsibility of those who chose to remain alive rather than die in protest against Nazi atrocities).
Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) took his degree in medicine but soon became interested in psychiatry. He is the author of a standard work of psychopathology, as well as special studies on Strindberg, Van Gogh and Nietsche. After World War I he became Professor of Philosophy at Heidelberg, where he achieved fame as a brilliant teacher and an early exponent of existentialism. He was among the first to acquaint German readers with the works of Kierkegaard.
Jaspers had to resign from his post in 1935. From the total isolation into which the Hitler regime forced him, Jaspers returned in 1945 to a position of central intellectual leadership of the younger liberal elements of Germany. In his first lecture in 1945, he forcefully reminded his audience of the fate of the German Jews. Jaspers’s unblemished record as an anti-Nazi, as well as his sentient mind, have made him a rallying point center for those of his compatriots who wish to reconstruct a free and democratic Germany.
Jaspers, a life-long liberal, attempted in this book to discuss rationally a problem that had thus far evoked only heat and fury. Neither an evasive apology nor a wholesome condemnation, his book distinguished between types of guilt and degrees of responsibility. He listed four categories of criminal guilt (the commitment of overt acts), political guilt (the degree of political acquiescence in the Nazi regime), moral guilt (a matter of private judgment among one’s friends), and metaphysical guilt (a universally shared responsibility of those who chose to remain alive rather than die in protest against Nazi atrocities).
Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) took his degree in medicine but soon became interested in psychiatry. He is the author of a standard work of psychopathology, as well as special studies on Strindberg, Van Gogh and Nietsche. After World War I he became Professor of Philosophy at Heidelberg, where he achieved fame as a brilliant teacher and an early exponent of existentialism. He was among the first to acquaint German readers with the works of Kierkegaard.
Jaspers had to resign from his post in 1935. From the total isolation into which the Hitler regime forced him, Jaspers returned in 1945 to a position of central intellectual leadership of the younger liberal elements of Germany. In his first lecture in 1945, he forcefully reminded his audience of the fate of the German Jews. Jaspers’s unblemished record as an anti-Nazi, as well as his sentient mind, have made him a rallying point center for those of his compatriots who wish to reconstruct a free and democratic Germany.
117 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1946
72 people are currently reading
2030 people want to read
About the author
Karl Jaspers
422 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 - 30 of 90 reviews
December 1, 2024
No one is beyond the pale of human existence, provided he pays for his guilt.
In this book, Jaspers discusses different kinds of guilt (criminal, political, moral and metaphysical), focusing on post WWII Germany and the German citizens.
Blindness for the misfortune of others, lack of imagination of the heart, inner indifference toward the witnessed evil—that is moral guilt.
But what about international guilt? Could the massacre of millions of people have been prevented if other nations were more alert? If they didn’t ignore the signs? If Hitler and the National Socialism were nipped in the bud in the early days?
“In 1933 the Vatican signed a concordat with Hitler.
In 1936 the world flocked to Berlin for the Olympic Games.
In 1936 Hitler occupied the Rhineland. France let it happen.
In 1938 Churchill to Hitler: “Were England to suffer a national disaster comparable to that of Germany in 1918, I should pray God to send us a man of your strength of mind and will.…”
In 1935 England signed a naval pact with Hitler.
In 1939 Russia made its pact with Hitler.
The world failed utterly to join hands for one common effort, for the quick extinction of the devilry.”
In this book, Jaspers discusses different kinds of guilt (criminal, political, moral and metaphysical), focusing on post WWII Germany and the German citizens.
Blindness for the misfortune of others, lack of imagination of the heart, inner indifference toward the witnessed evil—that is moral guilt.
But what about international guilt? Could the massacre of millions of people have been prevented if other nations were more alert? If they didn’t ignore the signs? If Hitler and the National Socialism were nipped in the bud in the early days?
“In 1933 the Vatican signed a concordat with Hitler.
In 1936 the world flocked to Berlin for the Olympic Games.
In 1936 Hitler occupied the Rhineland. France let it happen.
In 1938 Churchill to Hitler: “Were England to suffer a national disaster comparable to that of Germany in 1918, I should pray God to send us a man of your strength of mind and will.…”
In 1935 England signed a naval pact with Hitler.
In 1939 Russia made its pact with Hitler.
The world failed utterly to join hands for one common effort, for the quick extinction of the devilry.”
January 29, 2024
Karl Jaspers examines the question of German guilt associated with the rise of Nazism. He distinguishes 4 types of 'guilt' - criminal, moral, metaphysical and political. This is one of the most honest attempts I have ever read dealing with this important issue. Needless to say there are many situations around the world today that make this book still very relevant.
June 2, 2023
There is an expression in German, called a compound noun, Vergangenheitsbewältigung, describing the attempt to come to terms with the past. The Question of German Guilt, published in 1947 represents Karl Jaspers' endeavor to express this reckoning with the Holocaust & Germany's role in the decimation of European Jews, as well as Gypsies, those deemed to be mentally defective, everyone not representative of the "master race" ideal of Hitler's Reich.
Jaspers took a medical degree from Heidelberg University, worked in the field of psychiatry at Heidelberg Hospital, later teaching psychology at his alma mater, before eventually focusing on the field of philosophy. When Hitler came to power, Jaspers' liberal views were unacceptable & the presence of a Jewish wife forced him into retirement, with the couple under almost constant threat of deportation. They survived WWII before moving to the University of Basel in Switzerland in 1948.
Jaspers distinguishes "four concepts of guilt": Criminal guilt, Political guilt, Moral guilt & Metaphysical guilt. Personally, I found the declension of four forms of guilt a distraction but in this book Jaspers declares that:
Resistance to pervasive tyranny is never easy but there were cases like the 1943 Rosenstrasse protest in Berlin that did have a positive result without the loss of life.
However, Sophie & Hans Scholl, University of Munich students were executed in 1943 for their part in the White Rose movement, though they has initially participated in Nazi youth programs & their family had supported Hitler during the early days of the Reich. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor, theologian & anti-Nazi dissident was executed for his oppositional stance.
Many Lutheran & Roman-Catholic clerics did continue to protest both the treatment of Jews after Kristallnacht, the torching of synagogues in 1938 & the ensuing deportation of Jews, as well as the German euthanasia program for those deemed to be "defective". Thus, it seems that not every "imprisoned" German in Hitler's Reich gave up the fight for what they believed in and not all of those who did so perished as a result.
The question is whether a purely philosophical response to the Holocaust, such as the one by Karl Jaspers, can ever manage to confront the reality of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau & so many other death-camps and the annihilation of some 6 million people, most of them Jews.
Jaspers seems to describe German guilt as "metaphysical" & even innately human, rather than one of German origin; beyond that, he speaks of Germany's guilt as "the sacrificial substitute, for the catastrophe of the age, suffering for all & atoning for all."
But he also declares that "purification by redemption cannot be dodged" & that "without purification of the soul leading to a trans-illumination & transformation of the soul, there is no political liberty."
I read Karl Jaspers' book following a rereading of Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, who knew Jaspers, with my intent to expand beyond the nature of guilt of a particular German man.
In an attempt to better comprehend the wide gulf between the philosophical renderings of Karl Jaspers & the reality of the Holocaust, I found a later (2000) version of Jaspers' book with an extended introduction by Joseph Koterski, S. J., who did his PhD dissertation on Jaspers. Among his comments is the following:
As a philosophical treatise, the book by Jaspers is obviously a well-formed statement; however, as a statement on guilt & the Holocaust, it is ultimately an unsatisfying response from a distinguished German scholar.
*Within my review are the images of Karl Jaspers, the destruction of Kristallnacht and the interior of a Nazi concentration camp.
Jaspers took a medical degree from Heidelberg University, worked in the field of psychiatry at Heidelberg Hospital, later teaching psychology at his alma mater, before eventually focusing on the field of philosophy. When Hitler came to power, Jaspers' liberal views were unacceptable & the presence of a Jewish wife forced him into retirement, with the couple under almost constant threat of deportation. They survived WWII before moving to the University of Basel in Switzerland in 1948.Jaspers distinguishes "four concepts of guilt": Criminal guilt, Political guilt, Moral guilt & Metaphysical guilt. Personally, I found the declension of four forms of guilt a distraction but in this book Jaspers declares that:
Germany under the Nazi regime was a prison. The guilt of getting into it was a political guilt. Once the gates were shut however, a prison break from within was no longer possible. Any discussion of the responsibility & guilt of the imprisoned arose thereafter, wherein one must consider what they could do. To hold the inmates collectively responsible for outrages committed by the prison staff is clearly unjust.I personally find the metaphorical suggestion that all Germans were imprisoned by their masters within the Third Reich unacceptable, especially since a great many of them consistently raised an affirming stiff right arm salute to the Führer.
Resistance to pervasive tyranny is never easy but there were cases like the 1943 Rosenstrasse protest in Berlin that did have a positive result without the loss of life.
However, Sophie & Hans Scholl, University of Munich students were executed in 1943 for their part in the White Rose movement, though they has initially participated in Nazi youth programs & their family had supported Hitler during the early days of the Reich. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor, theologian & anti-Nazi dissident was executed for his oppositional stance.
Many Lutheran & Roman-Catholic clerics did continue to protest both the treatment of Jews after Kristallnacht, the torching of synagogues in 1938 & the ensuing deportation of Jews, as well as the German euthanasia program for those deemed to be "defective". Thus, it seems that not every "imprisoned" German in Hitler's Reich gave up the fight for what they believed in and not all of those who did so perished as a result.
The question is whether a purely philosophical response to the Holocaust, such as the one by Karl Jaspers, can ever manage to confront the reality of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau & so many other death-camps and the annihilation of some 6 million people, most of them Jews.
Jaspers seems to describe German guilt as "metaphysical" & even innately human, rather than one of German origin; beyond that, he speaks of Germany's guilt as "the sacrificial substitute, for the catastrophe of the age, suffering for all & atoning for all."
But he also declares that "purification by redemption cannot be dodged" & that "without purification of the soul leading to a trans-illumination & transformation of the soul, there is no political liberty."
I read Karl Jaspers' book following a rereading of Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, who knew Jaspers, with my intent to expand beyond the nature of guilt of a particular German man. In an attempt to better comprehend the wide gulf between the philosophical renderings of Karl Jaspers & the reality of the Holocaust, I found a later (2000) version of Jaspers' book with an extended introduction by Joseph Koterski, S. J., who did his PhD dissertation on Jaspers. Among his comments is the following:
Much of the discussion in Jaspers' book turns on questions of truth, freedom & ethics. On the issue of guilt & responsibility there are necessarily going to be conflicts of freedom & authority, of religion & philosophy, and of politics & academia. For Jaspers, these are areas in which the compelling certainties of scientific reason are unavailable and yet where choices must still be made, however the risk of failure.The Question of German Guilt involves an entry into the formal & the abstract, a place quite remote from a confrontation of the reality of the Final Solution, Zyklon-B, the horror of gas chambers and mankind's utter descent into inhumanity under Nazi Germany.
Jaspers insists that even failure or "shipwreck" can be philosophically significant in the discovery of the meaning of being. For Jaspers, guilt is not alien to freedom but comes precisely from being free, with non-action a kind of action, a result of choice.
As a philosophical treatise, the book by Jaspers is obviously a well-formed statement; however, as a statement on guilt & the Holocaust, it is ultimately an unsatisfying response from a distinguished German scholar.
*Within my review are the images of Karl Jaspers, the destruction of Kristallnacht and the interior of a Nazi concentration camp.
February 9, 2020
از ماست كه بر ماست
"تقریباً کل مردم جهان پس از جنگ جهانی دوم، آلمان و مردم آلمان را مقصر قلمداد میکردند و عدهای به جهت این تقصیر خواهان مجازات آلمانیها بودند. به عنوان مثال در تابستان سال ۱۹۴۵، در تمامی شهرها و روستاها بر پوسترهایی تصاویر و اردوگاه کار اجباری با جملهی سرنوشتساز "تقصیر شما بود" انتشار یافت."
ياسپرس روانپزشک و فیلسوف اگزیستانسیالیست آلمانی، در اين كتاب ميگه نازيسم در نهايت چيزي جز باطن خود آلماني ها نبود. او ادعا مي كنه در سهم تقصير شكل گيري حكومت نازيها، همه آلمانيها، اعم از يهودي و مسيحي، مهاجر و ساكن، طرفدار نازيسم يا مخالف آن و حتي فريب خورده ها، همه و همه به نوعي در قبال فريب خوردن و ديگر اعمالشون بواسطه اعمال قبل از پديدارشدن نازيسم، شريكند و پذيرش اين مساله و نتايج اون مي تونه به پالايش آلمان و آلماني و رستاخيز دوباره آلمان منجر بشه.
قابل توجهه خوانش یاسپرس از تقصیر کمی زیاده از حد فلسفیه و به نظرم اگر چاشنی تاریخش کمی بیشتر بود، کتاب جذابتری می شد.
گزارشي از خلاصه كتاب به روايت خبرگزاری کتاب ایران ایبنا
کارل یاسپرس کتاب مسئله تقصیر را به سال 1946 درست زمانی که پرده از کل جنایات رژیم نازی برداشته شد، به چاپ رساند. تمام تلاش وی در این کتاب معطوف به آن است که هموطنانش را به پذیرش مسئولیت و تقصیر در قبال فجایع به وقوع پیوسته، کشف ریشههای آن و در نهایت پالایش دعوت کند. او در جایی از کتاب به صراحت مینویسد: «در واقع همه ما آلمانیها بلا استثنا ملزمیم تا آشکارا به ملاحظهی مسئلهی تقصیرمان بپردازیم... نمیتوان نسبت به آنچه جهانیان درباره ما میاندیشند بیتفاوت بود، چراکه ما خود را جزئی از بشریت میدانیم: ما نخست انسانیم و سپس آلمانی. پرسش از تقصیر بیش از آنکه پرسشی از جانب دیگران در خصوص ما باشد، باید پرسشی باشد که خود ما از خویش بپرسیم.»
پس از جنگ جهانی دوم منازعات متعددی در آلمان بر سر مسئلهی تقصیر شکل گرفت. کارل یاسپرس یکی از اندیشمندانی بود که به این مسئله پرداخت. وی در ترم زمستانی 1946 ـ 1945 سلسله سخنرانیهایی در باب وضعیت فکری آلمان ایراد کرد که بخش اعظم آن به مسئله تقصیر اختصاص داشت. همان طور که خود وی در مقدمه این کتاب مینویسد، هدفش از انتشار این تاملات آن است که در مقام انسان در میان انسانها سهمی در تلاش بر سر حقیقت داشته باشد. تمام هم و غم یاسپرس در این درس گفتار این است که آلمانیها را به پذیرش مسئولیت در قبال فاجعهی به وقوع پیوسته، کشف ریشههای آن و فهم وضعیت فعلی آلمان در جهان ترغیب میکند. البته موفقیت یا عدم موفقیت یاسپرس در این زمینه بحث دیگری است. او خود در نامهای با لحنی گلایهمند به هایدگر مینویسد که تنها معدودی از آلمانیها این کتاب او را خواندهاند و به نظر میرسد که آلمانیها هنوز برای چنین مباحثی آمادگی کافی ندارند. همان طور که خود یاسپرس هم اقرار داشته است در اوایل دهه سی وضعیت ناسیونال ـ سوسیالیسم را چندان تهدیدکننده نمیدید. چنان که چاپ نوشته او با نام «وضعیت فکری زمانه ما» شاهدی بر این امر است.
به هر حال و در مجموع یاسپرس به استثنای برخی انتقادهای پنهان در کتاب «نیچه» در سال 1936، در طول دورازده سال هیچ اقدامی علیه رژیم نازی نکرد بلکه تنها سکوت اختیار کرد. به عقیده او اگر آلمان و آلمانیها بخواهند در تاریخ بر جای بمانند نخستین گام برای رسیدن به این هدف پذیرش و قبول تقصیر از سوی تک تک آلمانیهاست. بر پایه همین اندیشه است که یاسپرس مسئله تقصیر را ذیل درسگفتاری در باب وضعیت فکری آلمان مطرح میسازد.
نکته مهمی که یاسپرس در خلال این مباحث طرح میکند، بحث تقصیر جمعی است. وی در بخش پایانی درس گفتار خود به مساله رهایی و پالایش از تقصیر میپردازد. به عقیده او زمانی فرد از تقصیر و حس گناهی خلاصی مییابد که به مدد فرایند درونی به پالایش خویش بپردازد.
چنانچه به مرور كاملتر و توضيحات بيشتر در مورد ترجمه علاقمنديد، اطلاعات خوبي از لينك زير بدست خواهيد آورد.
http://trbooks.ir/fa/review/662/662/
"تقریباً کل مردم جهان پس از جنگ جهانی دوم، آلمان و مردم آلمان را مقصر قلمداد میکردند و عدهای به جهت این تقصیر خواهان مجازات آلمانیها بودند. به عنوان مثال در تابستان سال ۱۹۴۵، در تمامی شهرها و روستاها بر پوسترهایی تصاویر و اردوگاه کار اجباری با جملهی سرنوشتساز "تقصیر شما بود" انتشار یافت."
ياسپرس روانپزشک و فیلسوف اگزیستانسیالیست آلمانی، در اين كتاب ميگه نازيسم در نهايت چيزي جز باطن خود آلماني ها نبود. او ادعا مي كنه در سهم تقصير شكل گيري حكومت نازيها، همه آلمانيها، اعم از يهودي و مسيحي، مهاجر و ساكن، طرفدار نازيسم يا مخالف آن و حتي فريب خورده ها، همه و همه به نوعي در قبال فريب خوردن و ديگر اعمالشون بواسطه اعمال قبل از پديدارشدن نازيسم، شريكند و پذيرش اين مساله و نتايج اون مي تونه به پالايش آلمان و آلماني و رستاخيز دوباره آلمان منجر بشه.
قابل توجهه خوانش یاسپرس از تقصیر کمی زیاده از حد فلسفیه و به نظرم اگر چاشنی تاریخش کمی بیشتر بود، کتاب جذابتری می شد.
گزارشي از خلاصه كتاب به روايت خبرگزاری کتاب ایران ایبنا
کارل یاسپرس کتاب مسئله تقصیر را به سال 1946 درست زمانی که پرده از کل جنایات رژیم نازی برداشته شد، به چاپ رساند. تمام تلاش وی در این کتاب معطوف به آن است که هموطنانش را به پذیرش مسئولیت و تقصیر در قبال فجایع به وقوع پیوسته، کشف ریشههای آن و در نهایت پالایش دعوت کند. او در جایی از کتاب به صراحت مینویسد: «در واقع همه ما آلمانیها بلا استثنا ملزمیم تا آشکارا به ملاحظهی مسئلهی تقصیرمان بپردازیم... نمیتوان نسبت به آنچه جهانیان درباره ما میاندیشند بیتفاوت بود، چراکه ما خود را جزئی از بشریت میدانیم: ما نخست انسانیم و سپس آلمانی. پرسش از تقصیر بیش از آنکه پرسشی از جانب دیگران در خصوص ما باشد، باید پرسشی باشد که خود ما از خویش بپرسیم.»
پس از جنگ جهانی دوم منازعات متعددی در آلمان بر سر مسئلهی تقصیر شکل گرفت. کارل یاسپرس یکی از اندیشمندانی بود که به این مسئله پرداخت. وی در ترم زمستانی 1946 ـ 1945 سلسله سخنرانیهایی در باب وضعیت فکری آلمان ایراد کرد که بخش اعظم آن به مسئله تقصیر اختصاص داشت. همان طور که خود وی در مقدمه این کتاب مینویسد، هدفش از انتشار این تاملات آن است که در مقام انسان در میان انسانها سهمی در تلاش بر سر حقیقت داشته باشد. تمام هم و غم یاسپرس در این درس گفتار این است که آلمانیها را به پذیرش مسئولیت در قبال فاجعهی به وقوع پیوسته، کشف ریشههای آن و فهم وضعیت فعلی آلمان در جهان ترغیب میکند. البته موفقیت یا عدم موفقیت یاسپرس در این زمینه بحث دیگری است. او خود در نامهای با لحنی گلایهمند به هایدگر مینویسد که تنها معدودی از آلمانیها این کتاب او را خواندهاند و به نظر میرسد که آلمانیها هنوز برای چنین مباحثی آمادگی کافی ندارند. همان طور که خود یاسپرس هم اقرار داشته است در اوایل دهه سی وضعیت ناسیونال ـ سوسیالیسم را چندان تهدیدکننده نمیدید. چنان که چاپ نوشته او با نام «وضعیت فکری زمانه ما» شاهدی بر این امر است.
به هر حال و در مجموع یاسپرس به استثنای برخی انتقادهای پنهان در کتاب «نیچه» در سال 1936، در طول دورازده سال هیچ اقدامی علیه رژیم نازی نکرد بلکه تنها سکوت اختیار کرد. به عقیده او اگر آلمان و آلمانیها بخواهند در تاریخ بر جای بمانند نخستین گام برای رسیدن به این هدف پذیرش و قبول تقصیر از سوی تک تک آلمانیهاست. بر پایه همین اندیشه است که یاسپرس مسئله تقصیر را ذیل درسگفتاری در باب وضعیت فکری آلمان مطرح میسازد.
نکته مهمی که یاسپرس در خلال این مباحث طرح میکند، بحث تقصیر جمعی است. وی در بخش پایانی درس گفتار خود به مساله رهایی و پالایش از تقصیر میپردازد. به عقیده او زمانی فرد از تقصیر و حس گناهی خلاصی مییابد که به مدد فرایند درونی به پالایش خویش بپردازد.
چنانچه به مرور كاملتر و توضيحات بيشتر در مورد ترجمه علاقمنديد، اطلاعات خوبي از لينك زير بدست خواهيد آورد.
http://trbooks.ir/fa/review/662/662/
December 18, 2018
در قبال شوربختی دیگران خود را به کوری زدن،فاقد احساس و عاطفه بودن و بی تفاوتی درونی نسبت به مصیبت�� که رخ داده،چیزی نیست جز تقصیر اخلاقی
August 2, 2020
بواسطۀ ریویوی جدیدی که روی کتاب نوشته شده بود دیدم که فقط دو ستاره به آن دادهام. خیلی متعجب شدم.، چون زیر سطرهای زیادی از این کتاب خط کشیدهام و تا به حال چند بار به آن رجوع کردهام و اتفاقاً نامۀ سرگشادهام به دکتر طباطبایی را هم با سطری از همین کتاب به پایان بردهام. خواندنش را هم به دوستان مختلفی توضیه کردهام. خلاصه اینکه ارزشگذاریام بر کتاب در واقع فاقد هر گونه ارزش است!
May 27, 2021
Letto e finito con molta fatica, purtroppo non ho mai studiato filosofia e quindi ho potuto apprezzare solo in parte: quello che posso dire e' che non vorrei essere stata tedesca nel 1945.
January 14, 2023
today, in the days when Russian missiles destroy the homes of innocent people and doom millions of people to horror, today this book should become an instruction for self-awareness for every Russian. questions about the guilt and responsibility of every individual for the actions of the terrorist regime are again relevant and loudly asked. for me, this article by Jaspers has a therapeutic effect, the thoughts, expressed by the author, help me to consciously approach the questions asked of me, as a citizen of a terrorist state, about the degree of guilt for the actions of the state, it helps not to go to extremes: such as boundless self-abasement or complete justification. I think that I will re-read this book more than once in the coming years.
May 14, 2011
I found this timely and moving, though it was written in 1945. Jaspers explores the various internal responses that Germans had available to them in the aftermath of WW2.
What's timely and valuable to read now, as an American, is to see how powerful it is to reflect upon the actions of your country. The USA has worked itself into a position where it is utterly incapable of learning from its past. This is because the myth of American Exceptionalism must be preserved, and thus the US has never made any mistakes... or rather the only mistakes it has ever made were in being not warlike enough or not "American" enough (e.g. "We only lost in Vietnam because the politicians wouldn't let us really fight.").
A particularly chilling line in this book was when Jaspers, filled with gratitude that the world rose up to defeat Hitler (and thus, along with everything else, free the anti-Hitler Germans still trapped in Germany), warned that if a similar despot ever took power in the US, that all would be lost.
I'm not saying we're on the brink of fascism just yet, but there remain disturbing signs, and I'd feel a lot better about the way forward if I saw any ability in our leaders AND OUR PEOPLE to admit that we've made horrible mistakes and, yes, done horrible things as a nation, and that we must choose to make the US better each day, every day. It's absurd to think we're "destined for greatness"--we must work toward it.
What's timely and valuable to read now, as an American, is to see how powerful it is to reflect upon the actions of your country. The USA has worked itself into a position where it is utterly incapable of learning from its past. This is because the myth of American Exceptionalism must be preserved, and thus the US has never made any mistakes... or rather the only mistakes it has ever made were in being not warlike enough or not "American" enough (e.g. "We only lost in Vietnam because the politicians wouldn't let us really fight.").
A particularly chilling line in this book was when Jaspers, filled with gratitude that the world rose up to defeat Hitler (and thus, along with everything else, free the anti-Hitler Germans still trapped in Germany), warned that if a similar despot ever took power in the US, that all would be lost.
I'm not saying we're on the brink of fascism just yet, but there remain disturbing signs, and I'd feel a lot better about the way forward if I saw any ability in our leaders AND OUR PEOPLE to admit that we've made horrible mistakes and, yes, done horrible things as a nation, and that we must choose to make the US better each day, every day. It's absurd to think we're "destined for greatness"--we must work toward it.
February 2, 2018
Que lucidez extrema, que capacidade de ponderar enquanto a história está acontecendo.
August 1, 2017
In this book, a German professor speaks to German university students about guilt just after the Second World War had ended. The book is condensed from his lectures. There is some mention of the Holocaust, but it is not as central as I would have expected. To some extent, the question of this book is more "how are we still doing this -- going to class, listening to professors, being a nation?" and the answer seems to be through an exploration of guilt, which Jaspers breaks into four types: criminal, political, moral, and metaphysical.
February 17, 2018
This small book is obviously an occasional work, prompted by the uneasy relationship between Germans and the rest of the world after the War. Competing voices were present at that time: on the one hand, the pervasive charge on the Germans' being "guilty", as a people, for the war crimes and the holocaust by the Third Reich; on the other hand, the lamentation on the Germans' part about their sufferings after the war and the great burden on their lives. Jaspers wanted to address both, but to avoid their conflict by distinguishing among different level of consideration. The emphasis was not so much on the assessment of past crimes, or about deciding the just retribution, than about transforming the unique situation as an opportunity of fundamental inner-renewal of the Germans. In other words, the book embodied a specific project of "healing", not by forgetting what had happened, but precisely by remembering them and genuinely appropriating their meaning - although some of Jasper's own convictions were smuggled into what eventually turns out to be that meaning.
Jaspers saw the war memory as traumatic: people at the time tended to flee from what had happened, either by retreating into silence, or by simply reversing values of the Reich. Very few would give serious and patient consideration to the moral situation after the war. Faced with this, Jaspers urges people to reach out and to talk with each other. The idea behind is that discourse helps heal the trauma; it was precisely lack of communication that was the most enduring legacy of the war.
In order to do justice to the victims on the one hand and to reserve the possibility of recovery for the German people on the other, Jaspers distinguishes among four levels of guilt: the criminal, the political, the moral, and the metaphysical.
The criminal guilt was derived directly from the trials after the war. Jaspers noted that criminal guilt applied only to the individual criminals, not to the German people as a whole. This distinction was usually neglected, because the criminals were regarded as exemplary of the Germans in the Reich: "in their persons the people are also condemned" (46). But, as it shall become clear, this condemnation belongs more properly to another level.
By contrast, the political guilt was laid on the German people as a while. They shared the duty of compensating for the wrongs done by the Reich, and of standing all the consequent material scarcity. This judgment was supported by the idea of the pervasiveness of political affiliation. One could not simply claim zero participation in the crimes so as to exempt oneself from liability, because in a modern society, where technology links everyone together, it is simply impossible to stay aloof to the political situation. As everyone could have stopped the Nazi from seizing power, claiming to have been detached or impotent only betrayed a nihilistic pretense.
The third level, the moral guilt, was the locus of condemnation - and also of repentance. Instead of making it primarily public, however, Jaspers' version of moral guilt was primarily introvert: it arose in "the individual analyzing himself" (57). We can recognize a small act of revolt here: first, the moral guilt was supposed to be based on conversation and a minimal sense of mutual respect, so that there was no obligation to morally repent towards a dogmatic accuser (though political obligations held still); second, external accusation was not enough for the initiation and persistence pf moral repentance; what lied at the core, however, was an internally inspired wish to renew one's personality.
There are several elements in this renewal. First, the duty to one's fatherland should be distinguished from the duty to someone who happened to seize the power of the state. The latter is characterized as blind obedience, for after all it is only "the German character" (59), not any particular government, that matters. The inability to distinguish when hearing an "order" was part of the source of the tragedy.
Second, it is important not to be engaged in various kinds of self-deception. To wait until justice is done by whoever else, or to blame the allies so as to alleviate one's own moral burden, or worse to claim to have always been revolting despite every sign of obedience- there were symptoms of a generation that had been suffering under a totalitarian power. Self-deception had been a strategy of survival, but there was no point of retaining it when the war was over. If one flees when it is unnecessary to flee, she'll never face his own moral guilt, and hence cannot undergo the personal renewal.
The last kind of guilt was the metaphysical guilt. Jaspers defined it as "the lack of absolute solidarity with the human being as such" (65). It was attached to the fact that the holocaust was not just an occasional crime carried out by an evil people, but rather resulted from a fundamental deficiency in humanity. The Shoah rendered human being as a whole ashamed before God. In this sense, we should not just blame the German people, as if in this way we exempt ourselves from any kind of guilt. Rather, we should be aware that radical evil is inherent in human being, especially in a technocratic age. The metaphysical guilt is universal and inescapable.
Lying behind this distinction of levels of guilt was Jaspers' ambition to internalize the moral situation of German people after the war: instead of passively accepting the situation or dodging into self-deception, Jaspers urged the Germans to actively re-appropriate their identity. This, as he says, was "a common inspiring task - of not being Germans as we happen to be, but becoming German as we are not yet but ought to be, and as we hear it in the call of our ancestors rather than in the history of national idols." (75) Fundamentally, Jaspers did not believe that there was anything essentially wrong with the German character or its cultural heritage at large; once truthfully developed, it would fend people against delusions of national socialism. The whole project resonated the existentialist notion of authenticity, of truly becoming oneself when one has always already lost oneself.
Interestingly, Jaspers made the case by a comparison to the slave in Hegel's master-slave dialectics. He wrote: "the decision to stay alive in impotence and servitude is an act of life-building sincerity. It results in a metamorphosis that modifies all values." (103) Jaspers had in mind the harsh situation imposed on the Germans after the war as well as their choice, mostly implicit, to live in impotence rather than to die. Jaspers saw in this choice a positive opportunity: "it is the servant rather than the master who bears the spiritual future" (103), because the servant's character is more introvert and reflective. This is directly opposed to vengence, which "keep[s] reacting to every attack with a counterattack" (115). By distancing oneself from attacks and accusations, whether just or unjust, and by carrying out a self-examination of conscience, the slave makes her situation harmless and even productive.
This, however, is where Jaspers had his own Christian input. That "humility and moderation" (117) he proposed was actually a silent revolt, because external accusations were degraded to a mere means to reflection, and hence trivialized: regardless of whether there were accusations or not, the reflection would go on anyway - "we" need them only to the extent that "they enable us to check up on our own thought" (116). Here we find the Christian defiance of political values: it wouldn't even react to them, but instead only recreates them anew, making the original claim superfluous. To every "you should" it replies with an "I was about to". One might doubt whether such recreated value was faithful to the call of the time, as well as whether the tonality of a revival of German tradition run a risk of detachment from the rest of the world. At any rate, genuine communication was handicapped, not enhanced, by this introversion.
That being said, it remains true that Jaspers' observation of the psychology of post-war reactions had its intrinsic value, which could not be undermined by the occasional character of the whole book. For example, he talked about the "zeal to have the other admit guilt", about "the feeling of guiltlessness" which "holds itself entitled to hold others guilty" (100). The zeal arose from an escape from genuine repentance, because in this accusation, or in "an urge to confess" (101), the lustful will to power was all the more present. Confession in this case always carried with it an unjustified moment of empowerment.
Jaspers saw the war memory as traumatic: people at the time tended to flee from what had happened, either by retreating into silence, or by simply reversing values of the Reich. Very few would give serious and patient consideration to the moral situation after the war. Faced with this, Jaspers urges people to reach out and to talk with each other. The idea behind is that discourse helps heal the trauma; it was precisely lack of communication that was the most enduring legacy of the war.
In order to do justice to the victims on the one hand and to reserve the possibility of recovery for the German people on the other, Jaspers distinguishes among four levels of guilt: the criminal, the political, the moral, and the metaphysical.
The criminal guilt was derived directly from the trials after the war. Jaspers noted that criminal guilt applied only to the individual criminals, not to the German people as a whole. This distinction was usually neglected, because the criminals were regarded as exemplary of the Germans in the Reich: "in their persons the people are also condemned" (46). But, as it shall become clear, this condemnation belongs more properly to another level.
By contrast, the political guilt was laid on the German people as a while. They shared the duty of compensating for the wrongs done by the Reich, and of standing all the consequent material scarcity. This judgment was supported by the idea of the pervasiveness of political affiliation. One could not simply claim zero participation in the crimes so as to exempt oneself from liability, because in a modern society, where technology links everyone together, it is simply impossible to stay aloof to the political situation. As everyone could have stopped the Nazi from seizing power, claiming to have been detached or impotent only betrayed a nihilistic pretense.
The third level, the moral guilt, was the locus of condemnation - and also of repentance. Instead of making it primarily public, however, Jaspers' version of moral guilt was primarily introvert: it arose in "the individual analyzing himself" (57). We can recognize a small act of revolt here: first, the moral guilt was supposed to be based on conversation and a minimal sense of mutual respect, so that there was no obligation to morally repent towards a dogmatic accuser (though political obligations held still); second, external accusation was not enough for the initiation and persistence pf moral repentance; what lied at the core, however, was an internally inspired wish to renew one's personality.
There are several elements in this renewal. First, the duty to one's fatherland should be distinguished from the duty to someone who happened to seize the power of the state. The latter is characterized as blind obedience, for after all it is only "the German character" (59), not any particular government, that matters. The inability to distinguish when hearing an "order" was part of the source of the tragedy.
Second, it is important not to be engaged in various kinds of self-deception. To wait until justice is done by whoever else, or to blame the allies so as to alleviate one's own moral burden, or worse to claim to have always been revolting despite every sign of obedience- there were symptoms of a generation that had been suffering under a totalitarian power. Self-deception had been a strategy of survival, but there was no point of retaining it when the war was over. If one flees when it is unnecessary to flee, she'll never face his own moral guilt, and hence cannot undergo the personal renewal.
The last kind of guilt was the metaphysical guilt. Jaspers defined it as "the lack of absolute solidarity with the human being as such" (65). It was attached to the fact that the holocaust was not just an occasional crime carried out by an evil people, but rather resulted from a fundamental deficiency in humanity. The Shoah rendered human being as a whole ashamed before God. In this sense, we should not just blame the German people, as if in this way we exempt ourselves from any kind of guilt. Rather, we should be aware that radical evil is inherent in human being, especially in a technocratic age. The metaphysical guilt is universal and inescapable.
Lying behind this distinction of levels of guilt was Jaspers' ambition to internalize the moral situation of German people after the war: instead of passively accepting the situation or dodging into self-deception, Jaspers urged the Germans to actively re-appropriate their identity. This, as he says, was "a common inspiring task - of not being Germans as we happen to be, but becoming German as we are not yet but ought to be, and as we hear it in the call of our ancestors rather than in the history of national idols." (75) Fundamentally, Jaspers did not believe that there was anything essentially wrong with the German character or its cultural heritage at large; once truthfully developed, it would fend people against delusions of national socialism. The whole project resonated the existentialist notion of authenticity, of truly becoming oneself when one has always already lost oneself.
Interestingly, Jaspers made the case by a comparison to the slave in Hegel's master-slave dialectics. He wrote: "the decision to stay alive in impotence and servitude is an act of life-building sincerity. It results in a metamorphosis that modifies all values." (103) Jaspers had in mind the harsh situation imposed on the Germans after the war as well as their choice, mostly implicit, to live in impotence rather than to die. Jaspers saw in this choice a positive opportunity: "it is the servant rather than the master who bears the spiritual future" (103), because the servant's character is more introvert and reflective. This is directly opposed to vengence, which "keep[s] reacting to every attack with a counterattack" (115). By distancing oneself from attacks and accusations, whether just or unjust, and by carrying out a self-examination of conscience, the slave makes her situation harmless and even productive.
This, however, is where Jaspers had his own Christian input. That "humility and moderation" (117) he proposed was actually a silent revolt, because external accusations were degraded to a mere means to reflection, and hence trivialized: regardless of whether there were accusations or not, the reflection would go on anyway - "we" need them only to the extent that "they enable us to check up on our own thought" (116). Here we find the Christian defiance of political values: it wouldn't even react to them, but instead only recreates them anew, making the original claim superfluous. To every "you should" it replies with an "I was about to". One might doubt whether such recreated value was faithful to the call of the time, as well as whether the tonality of a revival of German tradition run a risk of detachment from the rest of the world. At any rate, genuine communication was handicapped, not enhanced, by this introversion.
That being said, it remains true that Jaspers' observation of the psychology of post-war reactions had its intrinsic value, which could not be undermined by the occasional character of the whole book. For example, he talked about the "zeal to have the other admit guilt", about "the feeling of guiltlessness" which "holds itself entitled to hold others guilty" (100). The zeal arose from an escape from genuine repentance, because in this accusation, or in "an urge to confess" (101), the lustful will to power was all the more present. Confession in this case always carried with it an unjustified moment of empowerment.
February 3, 2020
آیا آلمانیها در قبال جنایتها آلمان نازی مقصرند؟ اساسا وقتی از حکومتهای فاجعهآفرین حرف میزنیم تا چه حد احساس تقصیر و مسئولیت را متوجه مردماناش میدانیم؟ آیا وقتی پاسخ اعتراض مردم در همچو جامعهای گلول�� است، میبایست آنها که ساکت ماندند را مقصر تلقی کرد؟ آیا آنها که در موقعیتهای بحران، جلای وطن میکنند مقصرند؟ وقتی از «فراموش نکردن» جنایات حرف میزنیم، منظورمان به دوش کشیدن غمی ابدی است یا سعی در جبرانِ تقصیر؟
یاسپرس در این کتاب در پاسخ به این سوالات کوشیده. کوششاش را هم با تقسیم تقصیر به چهار نوع شروع میکند؛ تقصیر جزایی، تقصیر اخلاقی، تقصیر متافیزیکی و تقصیر سیاسی.
که به طور خلاصه یعنی تقصیر آنانی که مستقیم در این فاجعه نقش داشتهاند، تقصیر آنانی که میتوانستهاند کاری کنند اما به خاطر منافعشان در برابر جنایت سکوت کردهاند، تقص��ر أنانی که از ترس جانشان بر خلاف میل سکوت و یا جلای وطن کردهاند، و تقصیر کشورهای دیگری که میتوانستهاند معادله را بر هم بزنند اما تصمیم گرفتند چشم بر جنایات نازیها ببندند.
یاسپرس تمام آلمانیها و خودش را مقصر (با توجه به دستههایی که تعریف میکند) تلقی میکند، اما راهِ جبران را که از طریق مسئولیتپذیری میگذرد باز میگذارد.
یاسپرس در این کتاب در پاسخ به این سوالات کوشیده. کوششاش را هم با تقسیم تقصیر به چهار نوع شروع میکند؛ تقصیر جزایی، تقصیر اخلاقی، تقصیر متافیزیکی و تقصیر سیاسی.
که به طور خلاصه یعنی تقصیر آنانی که مستقیم در این فاجعه نقش داشتهاند، تقصیر آنانی که میتوانستهاند کاری کنند اما به خاطر منافعشان در برابر جنایت سکوت کردهاند، تقص��ر أنانی که از ترس جانشان بر خلاف میل سکوت و یا جلای وطن کردهاند، و تقصیر کشورهای دیگری که میتوانستهاند معادله را بر هم بزنند اما تصمیم گرفتند چشم بر جنایات نازیها ببندند.
یاسپرس تمام آلمانیها و خودش را مقصر (با توجه به دستههایی که تعریف میکند) تلقی میکند، اما راهِ جبران را که از طریق مسئولیتپذیری میگذرد باز میگذارد.
June 12, 2007
Jaspers tries to pin down what sorts of guilt can attach to people and peoples, and what the appropriate responses are — using the experience of the German people during the Nazi regime as his example.
There is an element of “I am the professor, I’m in the front of the room, I have a theoretical edifice, you listen and write it all down good” about all of this. Jaspers doesn’t really argue his position so much as he declares it, leaving it to stand or fall on how much it matches your own intuition.
I appreciate his attempt to separate categories of guilt, since no generic category seems capable of carrying all of the weight that the concept typically bears — this itself is enough to vault me to a new and more interesting level of confusion on the subject. And I especially like the way he links the inward work of taking responsibility and self-judging with the outward work of fighting for liberty in the political sphere.
There is an element of “I am the professor, I’m in the front of the room, I have a theoretical edifice, you listen and write it all down good” about all of this. Jaspers doesn’t really argue his position so much as he declares it, leaving it to stand or fall on how much it matches your own intuition.
I appreciate his attempt to separate categories of guilt, since no generic category seems capable of carrying all of the weight that the concept typically bears — this itself is enough to vault me to a new and more interesting level of confusion on the subject. And I especially like the way he links the inward work of taking responsibility and self-judging with the outward work of fighting for liberty in the political sphere.
June 11, 2022
This is one of the most relevant and most brilliant books I've read. The clarity of thought is on an unprecedented level. It's profound and kind (and very short!).
It's also a book that should have been a must read for all (European) politicians. It will also be a must read for all Russians once the war is over, not only to understand how to move forward in terms of guilt, responsibility, and purification but also in terms of how to live together, when all feel and reason differently. It is a must read already now for all the Russians who are feeling "something" and are trying to articulate that.
I'm very grateful that this book exists. It's terrible that it's of relevance again. And, unfortunately, it doesn't paint a bright future for the next several years.
It's also a book that should have been a must read for all (European) politicians. It will also be a must read for all Russians once the war is over, not only to understand how to move forward in terms of guilt, responsibility, and purification but also in terms of how to live together, when all feel and reason differently. It is a must read already now for all the Russians who are feeling "something" and are trying to articulate that.
I'm very grateful that this book exists. It's terrible that it's of relevance again. And, unfortunately, it doesn't paint a bright future for the next several years.
December 29, 2011
Although many years have passed Since Karl Jaspers wrote his book on ‘The question of German guilt’. The question on the responsibility of the civilians for their government acts (Whether the Government was elected in a democratic manner or not) is still applies today.
In an era where countries still deny their responsibilities for genocide (such as Turkey). In an era where Governments violently suppress their civilians (such as Libya, Syria), the question of personal responsibility Remains relevant and exceed the Holocaust original context.
In an era where countries still deny their responsibilities for genocide (such as Turkey). In an era where Governments violently suppress their civilians (such as Libya, Syria), the question of personal responsibility Remains relevant and exceed the Holocaust original context.
February 25, 2023
Обязательное чтение. Было неприятно, больно, постоянно флешбечило в воспоминания прошлого года (да, уже год). Но это важный и нужный разговор о том, в какой ситуации оказались немцы как проигравшие и какая ответственность и виновность бывает в принципе. А ещё о том, как сделать так, чтобы не допустить этого вновь.
January 23, 2018
Did you ever feel guilty because you belong to a group of people? Then this is a book for you...
October 29, 2019
Etikatörténeti szempontból lenyűgöző és (remélhetőleg) megismételhetetlen pillanat lehetett, amikor Jaspers ’46 januárjában a heidelbergi egyetemen fellépett a katedrára, hogy filozófiai értelemben megvizsgálja a német bűnösség kérdését. Talán az első ilyen irányú törekvés volt – elképesztő ez a felelősség, nem is csoda, hogy nem tudott tökéletesen megfelelni neki. (Persze egy ilyen feladatba alighanem mindenkinek beletört volna a bicskája.) Jaspers kezdésnek elkülönít négy bűnfogalmat: büntetőjogit, politikait, morálisat és metafizikait, az elsőben és a harmadikban felmenti a németeket, mint nemzetet, a másodikban meg a negyedikben pedig elmarasztalja. Szóval salamoni döntést hoz. Itt elsősorban az nem tetszett, ahogy a németek morális ártatlanságát bizonyítja: arra hivatkozik, hogy morálisan nem ítélhető el azért valaki, mert nem áldozza fel az életét egy reménytelen ügyért. Na ja, de ha nem próbálja meg feláldozni az életét, akkor honnan tudja, hogy reménytelen? Na jó, talán máshogy beszélnék, ha ezeket a kérdéseket nekem kéne élesben megválaszolnom egy kemény diktatúrán belül*… Úgyhogy ugorjunk inkább.
Ennél jobban zavar, hogy Jaspers arra hivatkozik, a szövetségesek is részesek a bűnben, hisz nem akadályozták meg idejekorán Hitler gonosztetteit. Ezzel csak az a baj, hogy bár racionális értelemben valóban okosabb lett volna (talán) már ’38-ban odacsördíteni a náciknak, de az már korántsem egyértelmű, hogy morális értelemben is. Hiszen megfékezni a nácikat valószínűleg csak fegyveres erővel lehetett volna – vagyis minden bizonnyal (és többek között) olyan németek élete árán, akik (mint Jaspers leszögezi, és helyesen) kollektíve nem bűnösek Hitler tetteiben. Persze később erre úgy is sor került, de ha a háborút a szövetségesek kezdik – erkölcsi értelemben nem veszítenek többet, mint így? Mindenesetre nem könnyen megválaszolható kérdés.
Mindezzel együtt nagyon fontos könyv a kollektív bűnösség fogalmáról. Egy kísérlet, hogy egy nemzet újradefiniálja önmagát. Meg aztán Jaspers, ahogy azt az elején is leszögezi, nem tesz mást, mint párbeszédet indít. Nem kinyilatkoztat, hanem várja a reakciókat. És ebben az esetben aligha tehet többet**. Ezt a párbeszédet innentől kezdve másoknak kell folytatnia – nemcsak Németországban, de másutt is. „Hisz bűnösök vagyunk mi, akár a többi nép” – írta Radnóti ’44-ben a kollektív felelősségről, és amikor azt mondta: mi, nem azzal a csoporttal azonosította magát, akiknek „bűnei” miatt később lakolnia kellett. Ha egy nemzet meg akarja határozni magát, erényeit és eredményeit, gyarlóságait és hibáit egyként kell vizsgálnia. A torz, féloldalas önértékelésű nemzetek másokban keresik meg azokat a bűnöket, amiket önmagukban eltagadnak, és ez a történelmi álmoskönyv szerint semmi jót nem jelent.
(A kötet tartalmazza Hannah Arendt egy nagyon fontos cikkét a témában, valamint Csejtei Dezső és Juhász Anikó korrekt, értelmező tanulmányát.)
* Hannah Arendt erre jegyzi meg, hogy a XX. század nagy bűnözője a családapa, aki létbiztonság és a család érdekében megköti a maga kompromisszumait, és nem száll szembe a totális állammal, mi több: legitimálja azt.
** Más kérdés, hogy később elhagyta Németországot, és ezzel valamilyen szinten maga szakította meg a párbeszéd lehetőségét.
Ennél jobban zavar, hogy Jaspers arra hivatkozik, a szövetségesek is részesek a bűnben, hisz nem akadályozták meg idejekorán Hitler gonosztetteit. Ezzel csak az a baj, hogy bár racionális értelemben valóban okosabb lett volna (talán) már ’38-ban odacsördíteni a náciknak, de az már korántsem egyértelmű, hogy morális értelemben is. Hiszen megfékezni a nácikat valószínűleg csak fegyveres erővel lehetett volna – vagyis minden bizonnyal (és többek között) olyan németek élete árán, akik (mint Jaspers leszögezi, és helyesen) kollektíve nem bűnösek Hitler tetteiben. Persze később erre úgy is sor került, de ha a háborút a szövetségesek kezdik – erkölcsi értelemben nem veszítenek többet, mint így? Mindenesetre nem könnyen megválaszolható kérdés.
Mindezzel együtt nagyon fontos könyv a kollektív bűnösség fogalmáról. Egy kísérlet, hogy egy nemzet újradefiniálja önmagát. Meg aztán Jaspers, ahogy azt az elején is leszögezi, nem tesz mást, mint párbeszédet indít. Nem kinyilatkoztat, hanem várja a reakciókat. És ebben az esetben aligha tehet többet**. Ezt a párbeszédet innentől kezdve másoknak kell folytatnia – nemcsak Németországban, de másutt is. „Hisz bűnösök vagyunk mi, akár a többi nép” – írta Radnóti ’44-ben a kollektív felelősségről, és amikor azt mondta: mi, nem azzal a csoporttal azonosította magát, akiknek „bűnei” miatt később lakolnia kellett. Ha egy nemzet meg akarja határozni magát, erényeit és eredményeit, gyarlóságait és hibáit egyként kell vizsgálnia. A torz, féloldalas önértékelésű nemzetek másokban keresik meg azokat a bűnöket, amiket önmagukban eltagadnak, és ez a történelmi álmoskönyv szerint semmi jót nem jelent.
(A kötet tartalmazza Hannah Arendt egy nagyon fontos cikkét a témában, valamint Csejtei Dezső és Juhász Anikó korrekt, értelmező tanulmányát.)
* Hannah Arendt erre jegyzi meg, hogy a XX. század nagy bűnözője a családapa, aki létbiztonság és a család érdekében megköti a maga kompromisszumait, és nem száll szembe a totális állammal, mi több: legitimálja azt.
** Más kérdés, hogy később elhagyta Németországot, és ezzel valamilyen szinten maga szakította meg a párbeszéd lehetőségét.
September 24, 2025
Krátke, ale výborné dielo ohľadom (nielen nemeckej) viny za zločiny, ktoré sa diali počas 2. svetovej
vojny.
Text je výrazne nadčasový a pomôže zodpovedať a vyvolať otázky aj v dnešnej dobe a u každého z nás.
Sme spoluzodpovední na utrpení ukrajinského národa, pretože Slovensko podporuje diktátora? Som zodpovedný aj ja osobne, hoc momentálnu vládu nepodporujem? Máme cítiť nejakú vinu ohľadom utrpenia ľudí v Gaze, Venezuele alebo hocikde inde na svete? Jaspers na všetky tieto otázky, hoci knihu napísal pred 80 rokmi, ponúka náhľad, ktorý je užitočný pre každého.
Nadčasovosť sa taktiež ukazuje v až potenciálne prorockom videní sveta ohľadom Západu a demokracie.
"Nastane-li jednou v Americe diktatura v Hitlerově stylu, bude to konec zbavující lidstvo naděje na nedohlednou dobu. My v Německu jsme mohli být osvobozeni zvenčí. Je-li tu jednou diktatura, pak není možné osvobození zevnitř. Když bude anglosaský svět dobýt diktátorsky zevnitř jako dříve my, pak už nebude žádné "venku", pak nebude žádné osvobození. Svoboda, které se domohli lidé na Západě a jejíž nabytí bylo věcí staletí, ba tisíciletí, bude ta tam. Byl by tu znovu primitivní despotismus - ale s technickými prostředky."
Diktatúra dobýva bývalú "Zem slobodných", technické prostriedky sú účinnejšie ako hocikedy predtým a momentálne to vyzerá tak, že nám Európanom neostáva nič iné, len oči pre plač.
vojny.
Text je výrazne nadčasový a pomôže zodpovedať a vyvolať otázky aj v dnešnej dobe a u každého z nás.
Sme spoluzodpovední na utrpení ukrajinského národa, pretože Slovensko podporuje diktátora? Som zodpovedný aj ja osobne, hoc momentálnu vládu nepodporujem? Máme cítiť nejakú vinu ohľadom utrpenia ľudí v Gaze, Venezuele alebo hocikde inde na svete? Jaspers na všetky tieto otázky, hoci knihu napísal pred 80 rokmi, ponúka náhľad, ktorý je užitočný pre každého.
Nadčasovosť sa taktiež ukazuje v až potenciálne prorockom videní sveta ohľadom Západu a demokracie.
"Nastane-li jednou v Americe diktatura v Hitlerově stylu, bude to konec zbavující lidstvo naděje na nedohlednou dobu. My v Německu jsme mohli být osvobozeni zvenčí. Je-li tu jednou diktatura, pak není možné osvobození zevnitř. Když bude anglosaský svět dobýt diktátorsky zevnitř jako dříve my, pak už nebude žádné "venku", pak nebude žádné osvobození. Svoboda, které se domohli lidé na Západě a jejíž nabytí bylo věcí staletí, ba tisíciletí, bude ta tam. Byl by tu znovu primitivní despotismus - ale s technickými prostředky."
Diktatúra dobýva bývalú "Zem slobodných", technické prostriedky sú účinnejšie ako hocikedy predtým a momentálne to vyzerá tak, že nám Európanom neostáva nič iné, len oči pre plač.
February 24, 2017
In the context of post-WWII denazification in Germany, and in light of the Nuremberg trials, Jaspers attempts to objectively understand an essential question - "Are the German people guilty?" - guilty for following military orders and federal law? guilty for allowing a Nazi political takeover? guilty for standing by and watching the systematic extermination of the Jewish people?
He does so through the creation of a four-part philosophical framework of guilt that explores what it means to be held accountable for both action and inaction.
His analyses ring chillingly relevant in today's political landscape.
"True, among our people many were outraged and many deeply moved by a horror containing a presentiment of coming calamity. But even more went right on with their activities, undisturbed in their social life and amusements, as if nothing had happened. That is moral guilt.
But the ones who in utter impotence, outraged and despairing, were unable to prevent the crimes took another step in their metamorphosis by a growing consciousness of metaphysical guilt."
-- "Guilt" (67)
He does so through the creation of a four-part philosophical framework of guilt that explores what it means to be held accountable for both action and inaction.
His analyses ring chillingly relevant in today's political landscape.
"True, among our people many were outraged and many deeply moved by a horror containing a presentiment of coming calamity. But even more went right on with their activities, undisturbed in their social life and amusements, as if nothing had happened. That is moral guilt.
But the ones who in utter impotence, outraged and despairing, were unable to prevent the crimes took another step in their metamorphosis by a growing consciousness of metaphysical guilt."
-- "Guilt" (67)
April 13, 2023
очень двойственное ощущение от этой книги. с одной стороны, очень подробный и полезный разбор вины и ответственности, личной и коллективной, моральной и метафизической, но если вы сидите в твиттере, вы всё это уже прочитали и не один раз. что меня лично подбешивает, так это сразу с первых же фраз необсуждаемое наличие бога. и в целом книга очень уж похожа на проповедь, проповедь смирения, нравственного перерождения и пр.
что хорошего, хотя это конечно "хорошо" весьма условно, смех сквозь слезы, так это поразительная похожесть с нынешней нашей ситуацией. похожесть что в поведении государств, что в общественном мнении, да даже вот это взаимное обвинение уехавших и оставшихся - просто то же самое, что я сегодня опять прочитала в твитере.
когда нибудь люди изменятся?
что хорошего, хотя это конечно "хорошо" весьма условно, смех сквозь слезы, так это поразительная похожесть с нынешней нашей ситуацией. похожесть что в поведении государств, что в общественном мнении, да даже вот это взаимное обвинение уехавших и оставшихся - просто то же самое, что я сегодня опять прочитала в твитере.
когда нибудь люди изменятся?
Read
October 22, 2022Pročitao 2/3.
April 19, 2022
Так странно смотреть старые отзывы на эту книгу и видеть «очень противоречиво», «слишком много софистики» и т.д. Вспоминаю как сама читала это лет десять назад и вижу большую разницу. Невозможно воспринимать это отстранённо в свете войны. Кто-то месяц назад сказал, что это «должно стать настольной книгой каждого русского человека», и я с этим согласна. Но я бы и сказала, что это вообще должно стать настольной книгой для многих, кто не ввязан войну непосредственно в 2022-м, потому что Ясперс говорит о всём мире, об ошибках, которые вылезли в разбирательствах судебных и о моральной отстраненности людей, в конфликт не вовлечённых, но формирующих активное о нем мнение.
Грустно и невыносимо больно перечитывать это сейчас. Но и много надежды при перечитывании, потому что здесь есть вера в то, что к свету обратиться получится
Грустно и невыносимо больно перечитывать это сейчас. Но и много надежды при перечитывании, потому что здесь есть вера в то, что к свету обратиться получится
January 26, 2018
Fascinante. Ao analisar a culpa do povo alemão sob o nazismo, Jaspers vai além, e dá um testemunho lúcido de fé na humanidade.
April 15, 2023
When the investigation muddies the subject.
The pressing question, "What is to be done with the Germans," is a rephrasing of that other notorious German Question. Note that in 1945 history has not yet settled out so smoothly. The German Solution is still on the table, and it is with a sense of this adrenaline-dread moment that Jaspers' work on Guilt should be understood. That is, if we are to come into an understanding of its primary function as an exculpatory project.
The four categories put forth by Jaspers are particularly muddled. In contrast with what appears to be the impression of many readers, they are not a very useful scaffold for the discussion of guilt. If we are more attentive, we find that in Jaspers' work there are, in fact, only two categories: the Guilty and the Not-Guilty, and Jaspers is interested in delimiting these categories as strongly as possible.
On the Guilty Category (Criminal Guilt)
If we acknowledge that the Reich's apparatus made such acts non-criminal and instead judge on the basis of, "natural law and international law, if not the positive law in force at the time in one’s own country," then we can easily condemn those who operated the killing fields and everyone up the chain. Though Jaspers appears to be begging the question with his assumption that criminal acts can be straightforwardly delimited and tried, such that he has already separated the guilty from the not-guilty before the discussion has begun. ("What about the auxiliary units without which the function of the death squads would not have been possible, and those who made denouncements with knowledge of what would happen, and those who appropriated property and still possess it..." "What about those Einsatzgruppen members and camp guards who only carried out orders due to compulsion on penalty of death and those officers who did the same, and those commanders who did the same...") (Within a year of the publication of this text, the Nuremburg trials will already have shown Jaspers' approach to be outdated.) The omission of so-called "marginal cases" would be striking if we did not understand that the objective is the delimitation of the Einsatzgruppen from the German. Jaspers is also aware his definition of "natural law" implicates the Allied bombing of Dresden and other acts of Total War, and we might notice that he subsequently pardons these acts with the implication that neither side is in the position to be inquiring after skeletons in closets.
On the Not-Guilty Categories
The remaining categories are for those who "have already been punished enough." Political guilt: for victims of circumstance. Moral guilt: a self-condemnation which is already its own punishment. Metaphysical guilt: the only necessary deutero-category: an explicitly exculpatory category which exists to explain the suspicions of guilt which persist despite, in Jaspers' opinion, not being guilty in the strict sense. That the Holocaust requires an unprecedented framework for the judgment of those, such as Eichmann, who could not even do violence to another body, yet arranged the deaths of millions, remains an open question. In a sense, the text appears to be an artifact of pre-war ideology. Hannah Arendt would remark, in her comments on the Eichmann trial, the paradoxical fact that as responsibility for mass-killings increased, one became by degrees more abstracted from the violence of the killing fields.
(I will remark here, in passing, the framework for a slightly more robust scheme for the discussion of guilt based on Jaspers' priors. It seems he would like to categorize guilt according to two dipoles: first, that of 'accomplished' actions which have occurred versus 'speculative' actions which have not occurred but could have, and, second, that of 'definite' processes which are the (almost) certain consequences of actions versus 'aleatory' processes which are not guaranteed consequences. If we imagine a 2x2 grid, Jaspers would consider guilty all 'accomplished' and 'definite' actions, such as executing someone with a firearm and signing paperwork authorizing the execution. All 'accomplished' and 'aleatory' actions, such as cooking food for the executioner, are 'not guilty.' All 'speculative' and 'definite' actions, such as not having intervened to fire upon the executioner, are 'not guilty.' All 'speculative' and 'aleatory' actions, such as not having been more politically active against the executioner's party, are 'not guilty.' This clarifies the discussion without as many redundant categories, but also highlights the problemata involved in the judgment of marginal cases (Is the camp guard performing a 'definite' or 'aleatory' action when, although he does nothing, by his presence prevents the escape attempt of a would-be victim...).) (The concept of 'speculative'-'aleatory' action as a viable criterion for guilt is the basis of an interesting discussion to be had regarding the quality of guilt/sin as "luxury dissolved into the atmosphere," now with particular reference to the climate emergency as tragedy of the commons and the doctrine of original sin with respect to consumption and desire. Either way, it is clear those who so readily condemn 'speculative' actions for others are not quite aware of the portentous weight of opening this category up to the guilt-judgment.)
What is to be done with the German People
The text has a response for readers, both the Non-German and the German. For the Non-German, the text is meant to address the (not uncommon) sentiment that the German people, as a whole, are guilty (mostly as aggressors and initiators of the world war). Though perhaps correct that the German people are not much worse than any other, the urgency of this proof produces some contortions. The ready employment of the "master-slave dialectic" demonstrates that, in confronting and disarming the Germans, we are actually making them nobler, stronger: "The decision to stay alive in impotence and servitude is an act of life-building sincerity." The, ironic, implication being that you would really punish the Germans by allowing re-unification and re-armament, which would therefore make them worse. The consideration of the possibility that the United States could become a fascist autarchy, which some readers have remarked as prescient, is merely the logically necessary argument for German re-armament to "disrupt the emerging US-USSR dipole," which does not appear to be an uncommon sentiment, even at the time.
For the German, the message is one of upbuilding. First, by exculpating the German from the guilt of the war, Jaspers permits a recognition of the past, which the German, aware of his likely guilt, does not even begin to recognize. This is probably a good thing. For those who are able to at least get that far, Jaspers would like them to made into productive, liberal citizens, acting to better the world in cognizance of sublimation of the guilt associated with living under the Reich.
But perhaps he goes a bit too far in the practice of sage burning, because we can sense an opening of Jaspers up into a reading of Deleuze, with consequences Jaspers might shrink from. If we are not to punish the fulminant anti-Semite simply because he hasn't killed anyone, why should we proceed with the punishment of the so-called "criminally guilty" who are now disarmed and unlikely to become recidivists. If punishment does not prevent a future crime, nor act as a form of restitution, should we not also refrain here as well (especially in light of the consequences of the Nuremburg trials in which many in Jaspers' "criminally guilty" category were also found to be not-guilty), and with recognition of the carceral punishment as actually never justified, per Deleuze, "The guilty party escapes in the moment punishment is applied to the body and reifies a different person."
December 22, 2020
Filósofo e psiquiatra alemão, Karl Jaspers fora desligado de seu cargo na Universidade de Heidelberg em 1937 pelo regime nazista. Readmitido em 1945 — e, posteriormente, passando a lecionar filosofia na Universidade da Basileia —, Jaspers concebe “A questão da culpa” por ocasião dos julgamentos de Nuremberg. Nessa obra, o intelectual busca resgatar a consciência moral de um povo e uma nação que viram nascer e culminar o nazismo. Contudo, é possível culpar o povo alemão? É possível culpar apenas o povo alemão? “Todos os Estados reconheceram o regime hitlerista. […] Em 1936, foi celebrada a Olimpíada em Berlim. […] Com irritação secreta e dor, víamos os estrangeiros que lá apareciam e que nos tinham abandonado à própria sorte–mas eles sabiam tão pouco quanto boa parte dos alemães. Em 1936, a Renânia foi ocupada por Hitler. A França tolerou. Em 1938, foi publicada no Times uma carta aberta de Churchill a Hitler, na qual se liam frases como esta: ‘Se a Inglaterra vier a entrar em uma desgraça nacional semelhante à da Alemanha em 1918, eu pedirei a Deus que nos envie um homem com a sua força de vontade e de espírito’ […].”
Particularmente importante é a diferenciação entre os conceitos de culpa: a culpa criminal, a culpa política, a culpa moral e a culpa metafísica. “As diferenciações entre os conceitos de culpa devem nos proteger da superficialidade do falatório de culpa, em que tudo é levado para um único nível, sem gradações, para depois ser avaliado com rudeza bruta à moda de um juiz ruim.” Segundo essa diferenciação, tornam-se claros quem são os réus, os juízes, as instâncias de juízo, as responsabilidades feridas e as punições cabíveis/exequíveis. “Cada ser humano é corresponsável pelo modo como é governado”; por suas leis, por seus líderes, por seus deuses, por sua própria consciência.
Por que, então, ler esse livro, se sou brasileiro, sem qualquer ascendência ariana e nascido muito após o auge do regime nazista alemão? Que “culpa” tenho eu nisso? Primeiramente, por ele falar tão diretamente à nossa realidade política, misturada com algo que vai da alienação ao fanatismo; do interesse ao desinteresse. Jaspers antevê: “[…] será que os outros povos são mais felizes devido a destinos políticos mais favoráveis? Será que eles cometem os mesmos erros que nós, mas até agora sem as consequências fatais que nos levaram ao abismo? Eles rejeitariam receber alertas vindos de nós, os desacreditados e infelizes.” “O destino da Alemanha poderia servir de experiência para todos. Se ao menos essa experiência pudesse ser compreendida! Não somos uma raça pior. Em todo lugar, pessoas têm características parecidas. Em todo lugar existem minorias violentas, criminosas, vitalmente ativas, que à primeira oportunidade tomam o poder e procedem de modo brutal.” “[…] Falta-nos em grande medida falarmos uns com os outros e ouvirmos uns aos outros. Isso ainda é agravado pelo fato de que tantas pessoas não querem pensar realmente. Elas buscam apenas palavras de ordem e obediência. Elas não perguntam e elas não respondem, a não ser pela repetição de fórmulas batidas. Elas só sabem afirmar e obedecer, e não examinar e reconhecer, e por isso também não podem ser convencidas. Como falar com pessoas que não querem ir aonde se examina e se raciocina, onde as pessoas buscam a sua autonomia por meio do reconhecimento e da convicção?”
Mas, principalmente, devemos ler esse livro para não sermos culpados de não lê-lo. O mal do mundo espreita os cantos que escolhemos ignorar.
Particularmente importante é a diferenciação entre os conceitos de culpa: a culpa criminal, a culpa política, a culpa moral e a culpa metafísica. “As diferenciações entre os conceitos de culpa devem nos proteger da superficialidade do falatório de culpa, em que tudo é levado para um único nível, sem gradações, para depois ser avaliado com rudeza bruta à moda de um juiz ruim.” Segundo essa diferenciação, tornam-se claros quem são os réus, os juízes, as instâncias de juízo, as responsabilidades feridas e as punições cabíveis/exequíveis. “Cada ser humano é corresponsável pelo modo como é governado”; por suas leis, por seus líderes, por seus deuses, por sua própria consciência.
Por que, então, ler esse livro, se sou brasileiro, sem qualquer ascendência ariana e nascido muito após o auge do regime nazista alemão? Que “culpa” tenho eu nisso? Primeiramente, por ele falar tão diretamente à nossa realidade política, misturada com algo que vai da alienação ao fanatismo; do interesse ao desinteresse. Jaspers antevê: “[…] será que os outros povos são mais felizes devido a destinos políticos mais favoráveis? Será que eles cometem os mesmos erros que nós, mas até agora sem as consequências fatais que nos levaram ao abismo? Eles rejeitariam receber alertas vindos de nós, os desacreditados e infelizes.” “O destino da Alemanha poderia servir de experiência para todos. Se ao menos essa experiência pudesse ser compreendida! Não somos uma raça pior. Em todo lugar, pessoas têm características parecidas. Em todo lugar existem minorias violentas, criminosas, vitalmente ativas, que à primeira oportunidade tomam o poder e procedem de modo brutal.” “[…] Falta-nos em grande medida falarmos uns com os outros e ouvirmos uns aos outros. Isso ainda é agravado pelo fato de que tantas pessoas não querem pensar realmente. Elas buscam apenas palavras de ordem e obediência. Elas não perguntam e elas não respondem, a não ser pela repetição de fórmulas batidas. Elas só sabem afirmar e obedecer, e não examinar e reconhecer, e por isso também não podem ser convencidas. Como falar com pessoas que não querem ir aonde se examina e se raciocina, onde as pessoas buscam a sua autonomia por meio do reconhecimento e da convicção?”
Mas, principalmente, devemos ler esse livro para não sermos culpados de não lê-lo. O mal do mundo espreita os cantos que escolhemos ignorar.
May 18, 2025
3.5⭐️
„𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐦ö𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐡, 𝐰𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐟. 𝐃𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐢𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐳𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐭, 𝐬𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐧 𝐚𝐮𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐄𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭.“
Die Schuldfrage von Karl Jaspers erörtert die von ihm selbst vorgenommene Einteilung in kriminelle, politische, moralische und metaphysische Schuld (ich zitiere):
1. Politische Schuld:
Sie besteht in den Handlungen der Staatsmänner und in der Staatsbürgerschaft eines Staates, (…) dessen Gewalt ich unterstellt bin und durch dessen Ordnung ich mein Dasein habe. Es ist die Mitverantwortung jedes Menschen, wie er regiert wird.
2. Moralische Schuld:
Niemals gilt schlechthin: „Befehl ist Befehl.“ Vielmehr bleiben Verbrechen Verbrechen, auch wenn sie befohlen sind.
3. Metaphysische Schuld:
Wenn ich nicht tue, was ich kann, um sie zu verhindern, so bin ich mitschuldig (…) auf eine Weise schuldig, die juristisch, politisch und moralisch nicht angemessen begreiflich ist.
4. Kriminelle Schuld:
Verbrechen zieht Strafe nach sich.
Durch die philosophische Herangehensweise des Autors wird man auf eine gedankliche Reise mitgenommen, die dazu anregt, bekannte geschichtliche Ereignisse des Zweiten Weltkriegs aus einer neuen Tiefe zu betrachten. Auch wenn manche Gedanken etwas repetitiv wirken mögen, bietet jede der vier Schuldformen interessante Aspekte und Denkanstöße.
Der Zweite Weltkrieg ist Teil der deutschen Kultur, da er Teil der deutschen Identität sein muss. Man könnte argumentieren, ob dies nicht auch zur Verantwortung im Sinne moralischer Schuld gehört. Die Bedeutsamkeit der Weitergabe der Deutschen Geschichte wird durch ein Zitat von Herodot deutlich: „Der Einzelne wird hineingeboren, durch Glück oder Verhängnis; er muss übernehmen, was überkommen und wirklich ist. Kein Einzelner und keine Gruppe kann mit einem Schlage oder auch nur in einer einzigen Generation diese Voraussetzungen ändern (…)“
„𝗪𝗼 𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘇? 𝗜𝗺 𝗙𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗮𝘁𝘀𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗻𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗲 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝘁𝗲. 𝗡𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗺 𝗞𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗴 𝗸𝗮𝗻𝗻 𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗶𝗻 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗶𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗶𝗻. (…) 𝗗𝗮𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗘𝗶𝗻𝘄𝗮𝗻𝗱: 𝗚𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗹𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗶𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗵𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗵𝘁.“
Es wird häufig vergessen, dass die Alliierten – und darüber hinaus die Welt – sahen, wie das deutsche Volk unterworfen wurde, aber nicht eingriffen. So schreibt Jaspers:
„Die heutige Weltkatastrophe ist der gigantische Preis, den die Welt dafür zahlen muss, dass sie sich taub gestellt hat gegenüber allen Alarmsignalen, die von 1930 bis 1939 in immer schrilleren Tönen die Hölle ankündigten (…)“
Und weiter:
„… dass die Deutschen (…) die ersten waren, die mit Terror und Massenhypnose überwältigt wurden, und dass alles, was dann später die besetzten Länder zu erdulden hatten, zuerst den Deutschen selbst zugefügt worden ist – eingeschlossen das allerschlimmste Schicksal: zu Werkzeugen weiterer Eroberung und Unterdrückung gepresst oder verführt zu werden.“
Etwas, das ich besonders spannend fand, ist der juristische Leitsatz:
„Nulla poena sine lege– d. h. es kann ein Urteil nur gefällt werden auf Grundlage eines Gesetzes, das bereits vor der Tat bestand.“
In den bekannten Nürnberger Prozessen jedoch wurden die Gesetze nachträglich von den Siegern erstellt – und auf dieser Grundlage geurteilt. Was nicht bedeutet, dass die Alliierten falsch gehandelt haben, lediglich, dass die Macht außerhalb des Bestehenden stand.
Ich kann nur sagen, dass, obwohl das Buch 1946 geschrieben wurde und sich auf die philosophisch-ethische Schuldfrage im zweiten Weltkrieg bezieht, ich zahlreiche Parallelen zu den Kriegen sehe, die heute geführt werden. Wir sind alle Teil der Menschheit, Teil der Augenzeugen vor dem internationalen Gericht – und stehen dennoch nur passiv da, während unsere eigenen Staatsregierungen (die unser „Dasein“ definieren) Menschen ausbeuten und ausrotten.
„𝐕𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐦ö𝐠𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐡, 𝐰𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐡 𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐟. 𝐃𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐢𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐳𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐆𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐥𝐭, 𝐬𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐝 𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐢𝐧 𝐇𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐧 𝐚𝐮𝐟 𝐝𝐢𝐞 𝐄𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐭.“
Die Schuldfrage von Karl Jaspers erörtert die von ihm selbst vorgenommene Einteilung in kriminelle, politische, moralische und metaphysische Schuld (ich zitiere):
1. Politische Schuld:
Sie besteht in den Handlungen der Staatsmänner und in der Staatsbürgerschaft eines Staates, (…) dessen Gewalt ich unterstellt bin und durch dessen Ordnung ich mein Dasein habe. Es ist die Mitverantwortung jedes Menschen, wie er regiert wird.
2. Moralische Schuld:
Niemals gilt schlechthin: „Befehl ist Befehl.“ Vielmehr bleiben Verbrechen Verbrechen, auch wenn sie befohlen sind.
3. Metaphysische Schuld:
Wenn ich nicht tue, was ich kann, um sie zu verhindern, so bin ich mitschuldig (…) auf eine Weise schuldig, die juristisch, politisch und moralisch nicht angemessen begreiflich ist.
4. Kriminelle Schuld:
Verbrechen zieht Strafe nach sich.
Durch die philosophische Herangehensweise des Autors wird man auf eine gedankliche Reise mitgenommen, die dazu anregt, bekannte geschichtliche Ereignisse des Zweiten Weltkriegs aus einer neuen Tiefe zu betrachten. Auch wenn manche Gedanken etwas repetitiv wirken mögen, bietet jede der vier Schuldformen interessante Aspekte und Denkanstöße.
Der Zweite Weltkrieg ist Teil der deutschen Kultur, da er Teil der deutschen Identität sein muss. Man könnte argumentieren, ob dies nicht auch zur Verantwortung im Sinne moralischer Schuld gehört. Die Bedeutsamkeit der Weitergabe der Deutschen Geschichte wird durch ein Zitat von Herodot deutlich: „Der Einzelne wird hineingeboren, durch Glück oder Verhängnis; er muss übernehmen, was überkommen und wirklich ist. Kein Einzelner und keine Gruppe kann mit einem Schlage oder auch nur in einer einzigen Generation diese Voraussetzungen ändern (…)“
„𝗪𝗼 𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘇? 𝗜𝗺 𝗙𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗮𝘁𝘀𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗻𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗲 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝘁𝗲. 𝗡𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗺 𝗞𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗴 𝗸𝗮𝗻𝗻 𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗶𝗻 𝗚𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗶𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗶𝗻. (…) 𝗗𝗮𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗘𝗶𝗻𝘄𝗮𝗻𝗱: 𝗚𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗹𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗶𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗵𝘁 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗵𝘁.“
Es wird häufig vergessen, dass die Alliierten – und darüber hinaus die Welt – sahen, wie das deutsche Volk unterworfen wurde, aber nicht eingriffen. So schreibt Jaspers:
„Die heutige Weltkatastrophe ist der gigantische Preis, den die Welt dafür zahlen muss, dass sie sich taub gestellt hat gegenüber allen Alarmsignalen, die von 1930 bis 1939 in immer schrilleren Tönen die Hölle ankündigten (…)“
Und weiter:
„… dass die Deutschen (…) die ersten waren, die mit Terror und Massenhypnose überwältigt wurden, und dass alles, was dann später die besetzten Länder zu erdulden hatten, zuerst den Deutschen selbst zugefügt worden ist – eingeschlossen das allerschlimmste Schicksal: zu Werkzeugen weiterer Eroberung und Unterdrückung gepresst oder verführt zu werden.“
Etwas, das ich besonders spannend fand, ist der juristische Leitsatz:
„Nulla poena sine lege– d. h. es kann ein Urteil nur gefällt werden auf Grundlage eines Gesetzes, das bereits vor der Tat bestand.“
In den bekannten Nürnberger Prozessen jedoch wurden die Gesetze nachträglich von den Siegern erstellt – und auf dieser Grundlage geurteilt. Was nicht bedeutet, dass die Alliierten falsch gehandelt haben, lediglich, dass die Macht außerhalb des Bestehenden stand.
Ich kann nur sagen, dass, obwohl das Buch 1946 geschrieben wurde und sich auf die philosophisch-ethische Schuldfrage im zweiten Weltkrieg bezieht, ich zahlreiche Parallelen zu den Kriegen sehe, die heute geführt werden. Wir sind alle Teil der Menschheit, Teil der Augenzeugen vor dem internationalen Gericht – und stehen dennoch nur passiv da, während unsere eigenen Staatsregierungen (die unser „Dasein“ definieren) Menschen ausbeuten und ausrotten.
February 22, 2023
Suçluluk Sorunu, Karl Jaspers'ın Almanya'nın siyasal sorumluluğu alt başlığıyla 1946'da 2. Dünya savaşının hemen ardından yazdığı ve konferanslarda sunduğu bir metin. Bu metni yalnızca siyasal sorumluluk kapsamında değerlendirmek pek doğru olmaz, çünkü büyük bir bölümünde suçluluk sorununu bireysel ve kolektif sorumluluklar açısından da ele alıyor.
Bir ülkenin siyasi karar ve eylemleri o ülkede yaşayan halkı bağlar mı? Birey olarak herkes kendisiyle bir muhakemeye girmeli midir? Herkes kendine "ben suçsuz muyum?" diye sormalı mıdır? Sessiz kalmak da suç mudur?
2. Dünya Savaşı sona erdiğinde Almanya'nın gerek yurt içinde gerekse yurt dışındaki siyasi karar ve faaliyetleri üzerine Alman halkının bunda payının ne kadar olduğuna dair tartışmalar baş gösterir. Neredeyse bütün dünya Almanya'yı ve Almanlar'ı suçlar. Farklı görüşler öne sürülür. Jaspers kitabın başında ısrarla "konuşmalıyız" vurgusu yapar ve herkesin suçlu olduğunu iddia eder. O halde suçlar arasında bir ayrım yapılmalıdır. Kısaca, suç kategorizasyonunu şu şekilde yapar: cezai suç, siyasi suç, ahlaki suç ve metafizik suç. Biraz daha açarsak, "bu sizin suçunuz" ifadesi şu anlamlara gelebilir: "Müsamaha gösterdiğiniz rejimin eylemlerinden dolayı sorumlusunuz" -burada söz konusu olan siyasi suçumuzdur.
"Bundan başka, bu rejimi desteklediğiniz ve onunla işbirliği yaptığınız için suçlusunuz" -ahlaki suçumuz burada yatmaktadır.
"Suçlar işlenirken pasif kalmış olduğunuz için suçlusunuz" -burada metafizik suç kendisini gösterir.
Kitap her ne kadar Almanların kendileriyle bir öz hesaplaşma yapması için yazılmışsa da, bu kitabın güzelliği, burada yazılanların farklı millet ve örnekler için de geçerliliğini koruyabilmesi. İlgiyle okuduğum bir kitap oldu, çevirisi de oldukça başarılıydı. Suç konusunu farklı açılardan ele almak isteyenler için çok faydalı bir kaynak olabilir.
Bir ülkenin siyasi karar ve eylemleri o ülkede yaşayan halkı bağlar mı? Birey olarak herkes kendisiyle bir muhakemeye girmeli midir? Herkes kendine "ben suçsuz muyum?" diye sormalı mıdır? Sessiz kalmak da suç mudur?
2. Dünya Savaşı sona erdiğinde Almanya'nın gerek yurt içinde gerekse yurt dışındaki siyasi karar ve faaliyetleri üzerine Alman halkının bunda payının ne kadar olduğuna dair tartışmalar baş gösterir. Neredeyse bütün dünya Almanya'yı ve Almanlar'ı suçlar. Farklı görüşler öne sürülür. Jaspers kitabın başında ısrarla "konuşmalıyız" vurgusu yapar ve herkesin suçlu olduğunu iddia eder. O halde suçlar arasında bir ayrım yapılmalıdır. Kısaca, suç kategorizasyonunu şu şekilde yapar: cezai suç, siyasi suç, ahlaki suç ve metafizik suç. Biraz daha açarsak, "bu sizin suçunuz" ifadesi şu anlamlara gelebilir: "Müsamaha gösterdiğiniz rejimin eylemlerinden dolayı sorumlusunuz" -burada söz konusu olan siyasi suçumuzdur.
"Bundan başka, bu rejimi desteklediğiniz ve onunla işbirliği yaptığınız için suçlusunuz" -ahlaki suçumuz burada yatmaktadır.
"Suçlar işlenirken pasif kalmış olduğunuz için suçlusunuz" -burada metafizik suç kendisini gösterir.
Kitap her ne kadar Almanların kendileriyle bir öz hesaplaşma yapması için yazılmışsa da, bu kitabın güzelliği, burada yazılanların farklı millet ve örnekler için de geçerliliğini koruyabilmesi. İlgiyle okuduğum bir kitap oldu, çevirisi de oldukça başarılıydı. Suç konusunu farklı açılardan ele almak isteyenler için çok faydalı bir kaynak olabilir.
Read
March 3, 2023Das Niveau der Sprache ist eins der besten, die ich bisher in deutscher Literatur erlebt habe (Was jetzt nicht so viel heißt, ich habe noch nicht so viel auf Deutsch gelesen. Ist aber echt gut.) Schon nur dafür lohnt sich die Lektüre, außerdem natürlich auch wegen dem Inhalt, wobei ich hier zugeben muss, dass ich in dem letzten Viertel nicht mehr so konzentriert gelesen habe.
In der kriegenden Europa wird es wieder auf Aktualität gewinnen, was ist unsere Schuld an dem russischen Masaker der Ukrainer? An dem einem Jahr, der vielleicht auch anders verlaufen könnte?
Ich kann mir die Stimmung in Deutschland nach 1945 nur schwierig vorstellen und der Weg, den die deutsche Gesellschaft seitdem gegangen ist, ist ein kleines Wunder. Wenn ich aus meiner Erfahrung mit den heutigen weltoffenen, verantwortungsvollen und rücksichtsvollen jungen Deutschen ausgehe.
In der kriegenden Europa wird es wieder auf Aktualität gewinnen, was ist unsere Schuld an dem russischen Masaker der Ukrainer? An dem einem Jahr, der vielleicht auch anders verlaufen könnte?
Ich kann mir die Stimmung in Deutschland nach 1945 nur schwierig vorstellen und der Weg, den die deutsche Gesellschaft seitdem gegangen ist, ist ein kleines Wunder. Wenn ich aus meiner Erfahrung mit den heutigen weltoffenen, verantwortungsvollen und rücksichtsvollen jungen Deutschen ausgehe.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews