Introduction à la philosophie

by Karl Jaspers, Jeanne Hersch (Translator)

Jaspers incarne, en Allemagne, l'existentialisme chrétien. Partant de la constatation primordiale de l'existence, le philosophe, échappant au réalisme matérialiste, doit rechercher les conditions du salut de l'homme, c'est-à-dire l'accomplissement de sa liberté. Cet accomplissement, Jaspers le situe en Dieu. Récusant donc la primauté de la science sur la métaphysique et la foi, Jaspers montre comment on peut, depuis Platon, déduire et construire un humanisme philosophique de la liberté.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, German Literature, Religion, Reference

192 pages, Pocket Book

First published January 1, 1950

About the author

Jaspers 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

Reviews

[Ali Reda · Rating 4 out of 5]

To philosophize is then at once to learn how to live and to know how to die. Because of the uncertainty of temporal existence life is always an experiment. Only transcendence can make this questionable life good, the world beautiful, and existence itself a fulfilment.

If to philosophize is to learn how to die, then we must learn how to die in order to lead a good life.

[Luís · Rating 5 out of 5]

I particularly like Jaspers. For him, philosophy is philosophical thought, not any set of various theses. His philosophy focuses on exploring and describing the margins and limits of experience.

[Francisco · Rating 5 out of 5]

First of all, know that this book will require a modicum of concentration, but it is highly accessible and interesting to read. I say that because somewhere along the line I got the notion that Jaspers was unreadable. I was very wrong. This little book will make philosophy real and personal for you. It won't tell you about other people's philosophies throughout the ages. Instead it will show you that the process of questioning, seeking and accepting certain beliefs as those that will give meaning and strength to your days is a process worth pursuing. To recognize that in you there is a drive to search for and believe in what is greater than the temporal and the utilitarian is to recognize the existence in you of what Jaspers calls the unconditional imperative. Unconditional because it is not dependent on custom or external authorities but is intrinsic to you in your capacity as a human being. To recognize this categorical imperative, to seek out its purpose and to try to act and communicate with others in accordance with its guidance is what Jaspers means by "philosophy." This living in accordance with a philosophy you both discover and create and most of all decide and choose is for Jaspers an act of faith. You will never attain absolute certainty that the path you choose is the right path. For sure you know it is not the only path and so there must be respect for the path's chosen by others. "I do not even know whether I believe," he writes of this faith, "however such faith expressed in such propositions strikes me as meaningful; I will venture to believe in this way, and I hope I shall have the strength to live by my faith." What do I believe in? I mean, do I believe in anything I am willing to die for, or better yet, live for? Here's one belief I am working on: I hope I have the faith needed to do my part to bring unity to my hate-filled world and to understand that this faith starts with me choosing non-violence in thought, word and deed.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Wisdom” for Jaspers is not about the practical advice of day-to-day life. Rather, it’s about “knowing” the limits of this-world knowledge and “knowing” that Truth transcends the material world. “To know” is not knowledge at all. True knowledge comes through faith. “It is not possible,” he writes, “to impose faith by rational means, by any science or philosophy.” True science and true philosophy know the limits of humanity vis-à-vis the Godhead, and that’s the prerequisite for faith. “The truth of the sciences,” Jaspers writes, moves “only amid the manifestations of being without ever attaining to being itself.”

Jaspers claims Plato as part of his “philosophical” ancestry. He states that “Plato conceived of the Godhead – he called it the Good – as the source of all knowledge.” Later, he adds that “the philosophical concept of truth…was first and for all time elucidated in Plato.” Plato’s rationality was not about the means-end coordination of daily life or about an objective understanding of the natural world. Both Jaspers and Plato leave worldly wisdom and rationality behind. “In him,” Jaspers writes of Plato, “all materiality is smelted down. The essential is the operation of transcending.” Man’s highest freedom is “transcendence from the world.” “The highest freedom,” Jaspers says, “is experienced in freedom from the world, and this freedom is a profound bond with transcendence.”

Jaspers argues like Alan Watts argues for Zen: Here’s the truth, and if you do not see it, that only means you are not seeking it in the right way, not that this transcendent truth might not exist. So what we have here is an argument that all doubters are believers in fake news. This is one of the problems that occur when the mind comes unhinged from its animal bearings. Mind soars into the stratosphere and thinks that only it possesses Truth, and is dismissive of those who think otherwise. Philosophy is more than science Jaspers says because it is “the source of a truth that is inaccessible to scientifically binding knowledge.” It is “to learn how to die or to rise to godhead – or to know being qua being.” This is a crusader-martyr mentality that annoys.

Christianity Jaspers says is but one of several forms of enlightened thought, though he clearly states his belief in the West's religious sophistication. “The spiritual foundations of humanity were laid, simultaneously and independently in China, India, Persia, Palestine, and Greece,” he writes. Jaspers calls this the simultaneous appearance of Being in the world. This is his Axial Age (800-200 BCE), an evocative and fine-sounding term that is extensively quoted by modern-day scholars to describe the appearance of these great thought systems. But these thinkers don’t know or they leave out Jaspers’ notion of Being’s descent into the world, which gives the Axial Age a wholly different meaning. And they don’t question Jaspers’ premise about the simultaneity of these schools of thought, and the possibility that extensive trading networks could explain the extensive similarities of thought during this period. (Jaspers writes, interestingly, that “Philosophy developed independently in China, India, and the West. Despite occasional intercommunication, these three worlds were so sharply separate down to the time of Christ’s birth that each one must in the main be studied in its own terms.”)

True philosophy, Jaspers argues, begins with a “forlornness.” The philosopher misses something and yearns for something more. The model is a Socrates- or a Sadhu-like figure: “Since late antiquity the philosopher has been represented as an independent man. The portrait has certain salient features: This philosopher is independent, first because he is without needs free from the world of possessions and the rule of passions, he is an ascetic; second, because he is without fear, for he has seen through the illusory terrors of the religions; third, because he takes not part in government and politics and lives without ties, in peaceful retirement, a citizen of the world. In any case this philosopher believes that he has attained to a position of absolute independence, a vantage point outside of things, in which he cannot be moved or shaken.” That’s one view of an independent thinking philosopher. Another might be that of a serious skeptic of everything Jaspers puts forward, including why Jaspers and his kind need to believe as they do.

[Marko Bojkovský · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bela Hamvaš je o Karlu Jaspersu rekao da je u njegovoj filozofiji egzistencije - a ne bi valjalo do kraja Jaspersa svrstavati u egzistencijalizam - zapad konačno odrastao, odnosno dospeo do duhovnog nivoa Istoka. Lako je složiti se takvom tvrdnjom.

Jaspers dolazi kao pomiritelj dva najveća (jedina?) mislioca zapada 19. veka - Kjerkegora i Ničea, dva originalna bljeska genijalnosti usred duhovne i intelektualne krize, ali ipak i sami bivajući delom krize, Kjerkegor je odveć hrišćanski za dato vreme, dok je potonji odveć antihrišćanski za bilo koje doba. Jaspersovo duhovno odrastanje je zapadno odrastanje, iz zapada za zapad, ne samo da uzima u obzir pomenute filozofe, već ponajviše, a prinuđen je, uzima u obzir domete Kanta i njegovo rasturanje tradicionalnih religijskih načela, Isusa Hristosa, crkvenih otaca, Hegela, antičkih grka... Ipak, ovaj "Uvod u filozofiju" je sam po sebi lažan naslov sa jedne strane, on je uvod u Jaspersovu filozofiju, no sa druge strane, odbacujući hladne, sterilne, opšte sisteme i filozofske škole, apsolutne istine - jedini uvod u filozofiju koji Karl Jaspers glavom, bradom i prstima može napisati jeste uvod u njegovu ličnu filozofiju.

Ovde je upitno koliko je filozofija uopšte filozofija. Ona pre nalikuje upravo onom stanju ljudske svesti i potrage o kojoj su pisali tradicionalisti 20. veka - a to je jedinstvo religije i filozofije, nerazdvojno, potpuno prirodno. Odnosno ne čak i jednistvo toga dva, koliko ipak treća kategorija u odnosu na njih, jer ponovno spajanje rascepane filozofije i religije ovakvih kakve ih mi poznajemo nikada ne može vratiti izvorno stanje, već stvoriti neku teološku ili sličnu nakazu. Genon bi rekao da je to tradicija, no kod Jaspersa je u pitanju ipak samotnija, ličnija kategorija. Čovek je biće na putu. Njegova filozofija je susret sa transcedentnim, razumevanjem, pronalaskom toga, negde duboko u sebi, tamo gde predmeti, objekti prestaju. Kod njega nema takođe mnogih drugih spornih momenata tradicionalista - veličanje kastinskih sistema, koketiranje sa totalitarnim režimima, anti-naučnih stavova... Ne, ovo je jedan od najčistijih, i dalje sasvim modernih puteva ka večnosti, ka istinskom oslobođenju čoveka.

No, ne može biti čoveka koji njegovim putem može koračati do samog kraja. Do Boga, večnosti, Brahme vodi sedam milijardi puteva, i na posletku baš to je suština ove knjige. Potraga, promišljanje, skok, vera, susret, razgovor, pronalazak. Filozofija postaje živim pokretom ka večnosti. Ali ne može biti jasperizma, kao što ne može biti ni hrišćanstva, ni mehamedanstva. Jedan je jedini bio hrišćanin na svetu - Isus Hristos, drugi su u najboljem slučaju koračali stazom nalik njegovoj, a takvih jedva da je bilo, ako je bilo. I nije tu stvar u nedostojnosti čoveka u odnosu na bogočoveka, na sina čovekova i božija, ne. Nema ulaska u istu reku čije je ušće u beskonačnost. Dobra je vest da bez obzira na to, paradoksalno, ista ta reka vazda čeka da u nju uronimo celi, u možda samo jednom jedinom, sudbonosnom skoku.



----

I jedna zabeleška koja nema veze sa samom knjigom. "Uvod u filozofiju" sam čitao u hrvatskom izdanju iz, čini mi se, 2012. godine i ostao prilično zapanjen nivoom do kojeg je taj jezik promenjen u odnosu na zagrebačka izdanja filozofskih spisa iz vremena SFRJ. Dok obični, pučki jezik nije pretrpeo toliko temeljne promene, ili se one nisu primile, makar u ovom slučaju, akademski, filozofski rečnik je promenjen do neprepoznatljivosti. Tako da ljudima iz Srbije, koji nisu naviknuti na hrvatski filozofski pojmovnik, ipak preporučujem engleski ili srpski prevod ukoliko su dostupni, jer će ovaj inače ne posebno neprobojan spis, potencijalno, učiniti dosta težim za čitanje.

[Beatriz Coelho · Rating 2 out of 5]

Escrita difícil, dei por mim a reler muitas vezes a mesma frase.
Não aconselho como introdução a filosofia.

[Márcio Ricardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Uma boa leitura, me identifiquei muito em alguns temas com o autor como a morte, a religião e outros. Karl Jaspers nos traz neste livro uma iniciação à Filosofia por temas. Estes são o universo e a vida, a história e o presente, o conhecimento fundamental, o homem, o debate público, a posição do homem na política, conhecimento e juízo de valor, psicologia e sociologia, a opinião pública, os enigmas, o amor e a morte.
O livro é escrito numa linguagem simples e acessível a todos, porém, fruto principalmente dos temas, a leitura torna-se arrastada em alguns momentos porque não dá pra ler normalmente sem se pensar no que está escrito. Isto se se quiser compreender, obviamente. É engraçado ler um grande nome da filosofia e de repente vermos mencionadas coisas que sempre pensamos, mas nunca debatemos com ninguém. Afaga-nos o ego e nos faz ter esperança num mundo melhor, ou não.

[Nathanial · Rating 4 out of 5]

Jaspers has this idea, and that idea is that ideas do matter, but they're not everything. He's not interested in debates about how we can know what's 'really' true or if there actually is a 'real' world out there; he's more interested in how we come to decide what to do here and now. Since the early 1950s, his work has provided a reference point both for cultural relativists and oppositional scholars, but his ideal audience seems to be concerned individuals who are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs and who want to understand how we got to this point, what it can mean to be human now, and who want to have faith in each other and our actions.

His emphasis on Christian theology may be off-putting to some; at the same time, Jaspers is perhaps most well-known for developing the concept of the Axial Age of philosophic inquiry, when cultures around the world independently and simultaneously began to question tradition and talk about people as if we can do wonderful, terrible, and amazing things in the world - whether we place ourselves in the lineage of Greek heroes, Confucian scholars, or Persian mystics.

Jaspers' successors have done much to challenge and expand on these categories, of course; as his student Hannah Arendt said, "The time may have arrived to replace the Philosophy of Man with the philosophy of men." Books like "Feminism is for Everyone" and "Democracy and Humanistic Criticism" don't necessarily owe a debt to Jaspers, but they do elucidate some of the ideas that Jaspers had dislodged from the sacred shrine of "I think, therefore I am." Perhaps in indirect response to the work Jaspers does to make philosophy both more accessible to wider audiences and to change the basis of philosophical discourse itself, writers such as Edward Said and bell hooks have stepped out of the ivory tower to address the ideas that isolate us and contribute to histories that make it easier for us loners and dreamers to communicate.

[Rebecca · Rating 5 out of 5]

No matter your personal philosophical beliefs, this book will open your eyes and give you a new perspective on philosophy. Love this book.

[Paul/Suzette Graham · Rating 5 out of 5]

Instead of wasting your time on Nietzsche, Sartre, Heidegger, and other existentialist (more or less) and give Jaspers a try. He’s refreshingly open, honest, and willing to grapple with the unknown or unknowable in a productive manner. This book is a collection of radio lectures, so it is for a general audience. Some parts are more dense than others, but if you’ve read primary source material of any philosopher, you should be fine...

[David Gross · Rating 1 out of 5]

Got about half-way through and couldn't stand it any longer. Maybe it just isn't translatable. It seems to be largely the odd gnostic pronouncements of Jaspers about his idea of God, but he doesn't argue for them so much as throw them at you in a relentless rain of prophecy. Seems a strange way to introduce philosophy.

[Nicole · Rating 2 out of 5]

My philosophy prof realized that the class wasn't really feeling Jaspers, so he decided that we're done with it, and I'm perfectly okay with that. My prof said something along the lines of: "When I speak to you about Jaspers it's like I'm talking into a void."

[Julia · Rating 4 out of 5]

In zwölf Kapiteln (bzw. Radiobeiträgen) möchte Karl Jaspers in die Philosophie einführen. Wie schwierig diese Aufgabe ist, das folgt schon aus dem ersten Vortrag "Was ist Philosophie?". Denn Jaspers hält fest, dass in ihrer doppelten Form, als Wissenschaft einerseits und als ein grundsätzliches menschliches Tun andererseits, Merkwürdigkeiten zutage treten.
In was führt Jaspers also ein? Die Leserin, die von Jaspers einen systematischen Überblick über die Entwicklungen, Schulen und Bereiche der Philosophie, wie sie heute an einer Einführungsveranstaltung an der Universität gelehrt werden würden erwartet, wird enttäuscht. Zwar gibt Jaspers in dem Appendix einen groben Überblick hierüber, aber sein Kernanliegen liegt weniger darin, einen möglichst neutralen Überblick über das Untersuchungsobjekt 'Philosophie' zu geben - es geht ihm um eine Einführung in die Philosophie nicht in erster Linie als Wissenschaft, sondern als menschliches Tun.
In was Jaspers einführt, ist die Philosophie in Form seiner Philosophie. Das entspricht dem Verständnis von Philosophie, das er zu Beginn offenlegt: Jede einzelne Philosophie definiere sich selbst durch ihre Verwirklichung, Philosophie sei der Vollzog des lebendigen Gedankens. Daraus folgt, dass eine Definition der Philosophie als philosophia perennis, als etwas, das alle Philosophie wirklich umfasst, der Punkt ist, der in den einzelnen Philosophien zwar umkreist, aber nicht erreicht werden kann. Eine Einführung in die Philosophie als das, was in einzelnen Philosophien angestrebt, aber nicht erreicht wird und gleichzeitig in der Erzeugung einer eigenen Definition vollendet werden kann, bedeutet, dass Jaspers seine eigene Philosophie 'zeigen' muss. Hier kommt mir die Frage: Warum braucht es eine Einführung von Jaspers, wenn sich jede einzelne Philosophie selbst vollendet, oder wenn, wie er im Appendix schreibt "[j]eder Philosoph, gründlich studiert, [...] Schritt für Schritt in die gesamte Philosophie und in die gesamte Geschichte der Philosophie [einführt]". In seinen Texten wirkt Jaspers bescheidener als jemand, der behauptet, gerade er sei der Philosoph, an dem durch ein gründliches Studium in die gesamte Philosophie und ihre Geschichte durchführen lasse. Den Zweck, den Jaspers mit der Einführung unter diesen Voraussetzungen verfolgt, bleibt mir dunkel.

Die Lektüre der weiteren Vorträge hat mir trotzdem gefallen; sowohl in den Aspekten, in denen mich Jaspers zum Widersprechen aufgerufen hat und in denen ich ihn langweilig fand (denn ich hatte den Eindruck er erlaubt mir diese Urteile) als auch in Beobachtungen und Analysen, die ich wirklich originell fand, wie den Vortrag zur Unabhängigkeit des philosophierenden Menschen.

Der Kern von Jaspers Philosophie scheint mir gegründet zu sein in dem Umgreifendem, dem was außerhalb der Spaltung von Subjekt und Objekt liegt, das uns nicht durch wissenschaftliche Erkenntnis erreichbar und trotzdem unsere existenzielle Voraussetzung ist. Dieses Umgreifende scheint eng verbunden zu sein mit Jaspers Gottesverständnis und schlägt sich auch in seinen Empfehlungen für eine philosophische Lebensführung nieder, die neben der Besinnung auf eigene Fühlen, Denken und Handeln auch eine transzendentale Besinnung umfasst, eine Erinnerung an das eigentlich Seiende. Diesen Teil - vielleicht sogar der zentrale Teil - von Jaspers Philosophie konnte ich nicht genügend verstehen. Damit kann ich dann auch nicht die Frage beantworten, ob Jaspers die Einführung in die Philosophie gelungen ist oder nicht. Mich hat sie sicherlich zum Nachdenken angeregt, den Ansatz, keine Einführung in die allgemeinste und unpersönlichste Philosophie zu geben, finde ich angemessen und sympathisch; aber vielleicht folge ich Jaspers Rat und lasse mich weiter von Platon in die Philosophie einführen.

[Fedra · Rating 4 out of 5]

En el caso de Jaspers, me he encontrado con él por pura casualidad, en un seminario de teología en Alemania. Pero tengo que decir que es, contando con la acogida editorial y mediática que él mismo trabajó, un filósofo muy infravalorado. Las traducciones de su obra, sobre todo al español, son escasas y muchas veces deficientes, cuando no están directamente descatalogadas. Digo esto porque creo que es de los ejemplos más interesantes en el panorama alemán de la introducción de la dialéctica en el discurso de la trascendencia y lo innombrable, y porque cada vez veo más calado de esa aproximación en filósofos de la talla de Kristeva, Adorno (a quien Jaspers, si no me equivoco, no le caía muy en gracia), Levinas, Blanchot y, por supuesto, Paul Ricoeur. Dicho esto, incluso a sabiendas de que su proximidad al cristianismo protestante se hace notar hasta en fundamentos importantes, p. ej. en su defensa de la interpretación de los símbolos míticos, religiosos o fenoménicos como apariciones de la libertad hacia la Existenz auténtica de cada particular, creo que la obra de Jaspers deja suficiente espacio para aprovecharla como ateo perverso. Para Jaspers, los símbolos no pueden despojarse de su ambivalencia, y si sólo pueden ser interpretados desde la apertura del existente a la más extrema incertidumbre, siempre tenemos que estar dispuestos a pagar un precio cuando los interpretamos y cuando los formulamos. Eso hace que la escritura filosófica atraviese, como Holbein pintando su Cristo muerto, el verdadero horror en pos de trascender sus propios símbolos y hacer que la libertad aparezca, ya no en la escritura ni en una definición vacía, sino en el existente concreto que la introduce como signo suyo en cada momento. La metafísica debe temblar.

[Fernando Guerra · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was going for a two-star rating, but both appendices were actually interesting to read (although biased, especially the second one) and encouraged me to add the third star. I have to state that the only section that felt remotely like a proper "introduction to philosophy" was the second appendix, "On Reading Philosophy". As it is, I really wouldn't recommend this work as an introduction to the topic of philosophy and free thinking.

Being an atheist myself, I expected this book to be reasonably unbiased, but it struck me early on as a pamphlet on philosophical theocentrism, although camouflaged as it turns out to be in this particular case. Nevertheless, I managed to finish it and wasn't all that disappointed with the outcome.

The discussion on topics that are not involved (better yet, entangled and choked) with his idea of god or, as he likes to appoint it, the "Comprehensive" are actually reasonable and worth reading. I particularly liked the historical sections (both history of man and of philosophy) and the first appendix, treating the frail relationship between [modern] sciences and philosophy. The latter turned out to be the section I mostly enjoyed, and this actually saddened me because it's not even a part of the main book.

[Dennis Erwin · Rating 1 out of 5]

A book trying to make a humanist case for philosophy outside of scientism. There is no doubt Karl Jaspers is brilliant, but this book reads like a cross between a well-read scholar and Deepak Chopra writing about physics.

His basic notion is that philosophy is a path toward transcendence that moves outside of objective being. Since science can only concern itself with objectivity, then philosophy is outside the realm of science's grasp. In fact, this transcendence must be reached by each person individually.

The claim is articulated better by Heidegger in the first chapter of Being and Time. I think Jaspers is trying to democratize and psychologize Heidegger's work (which is a sort of critique of Heidegger). Maybe it would be better to say he's mythologizing Heidegger, providing a path that everyone could follow toward Wisdom (which is to say - toward ontology).

The question then is whether Jasper successfully provides a guide to such a path, or makes a successful argument for its existence. Unfortunately, I don't think he does either one.

[eryk · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. A book from a philosophy course taken ages ago, but which I appreciate today more than I could have back then. Clear, concise, very readable. The translation is excellent. It has motivated me to apply myself more seriously to the study of philosophy, especially in the ambient culture of today in which there is so much confusion, incoherence, absence of methodological approaches to important questions, esp. regarding the meaning of existence. Jaspers was a German-Swiss medical doctor and psychotherapist turned philosopher, in part to understand how it was possible that totalitarianism had come into existence and managed to wreak so much havoc in so short a period of time in the modern era during the 20th century. And how totalitarianism remains an ever-present danger.

[Andrew Langridge · Rating 4 out of 5]

I believe this book represents an accurate understanding of philosophy as a discipline. Jaspers recognises that irrespective of their content as fixed ideas, the great works of philosophy embody an ineffable thread of truth that has to be continually reinterpreted by successive readers, in the same way that a musical masterpiece or Shakespeare's plays must be reinterpreted in performance. This derives from their participation in a more fundamental universal truth about the human condition.

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 2 out of 5]

A bit too much theology. Good insight: we have to read every book - at first - as if everything in it is true.

[João Pedro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Apesar da brevidade do livro, trata-se de uma obra de fôlego. Nela, Jaspers propõe fazer uma introdução à filosofia que seja, por si, filosofante. O autor não faz um mero enunciado de pressupostos básicos ou alistamento das discussões vigentes, como se para filosofar isso fosse o fundamental. Mas propõe-se a discutir determinados temas e, a partir disso, dispõe o seu próprio pensamento.

A linguagem é desafiadora; muitas vezes para alguém que está começando o caminho da filosofia, pode se tornar um verdadeiro entrave.

Dou quatro estrelas apenas porque a edição não é boa - trata-se de um fac-símile da edição antiga. Valeria a pena uma nova edição.

[Ahmed Abd Elhammied · Rating 5 out of 5]

الكتاب متاح بترجمتين، ترجمة للدكتور السوري جورج صدقني، وترجمة للدكتور المصري محمد فتحي الشنيطي. أنصح بالترجمة السورية لأن الترجمة المصرية مليئة بالأخطاء. الكتاب مش مدخل إلى الفلسفة بالمعنى الاعتيادي، اللي هو أستاذ الفلسفة بيعرض قدامك الفلسفة ومباحثها ومشكلاتها، كأنه بيتفرج من برة، الكتاب مدخل إلى الفلسفة من جوة الفلسفة، مدخل إلى الفلسفة عن طريق فلسفة كارل ياسبرز، وممكن تعتبره بشكل ما مدخل إلى فلسفة كارل ياسبرز برضو. كانت رحلة عظيمة جدًا وكنت أتمنى لو كارل ياسبرز كتب تاريخ للفلسفة زي بيرتراند راسل لأن آخر جزء اللي اتكلم فيه عن تاريخ الفلسفة مليء بالhot takes الحقيقة.

[Darek Pilař · Rating 2 out of 5]

Stil better story than Twilight

[Mz · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://www.respublica.gr/2021/07/pos...

[Hector Worsley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is the one I read? Read in French called ‘introduction à la philosophie’. Was expecting more of a summary, ended up being an interesting take on spirituality from Jaspers. Enjoyed.

[Rain Wizard · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's always a strange and humbling experience to honestly face the important questions that define the human existence and experience. Perhaps stranger is to listen to someone who has spent more time thinking about them than what is - for you - already an impossibly long time.
This was a uncommon experience for me, taking so long to finish such a short book. Even though I was expecting a simplistic language and perhaps a superficial look into some of these heavy questions, what I actually got was neither - it was actually a love letter to the act itself of philosophy. Beautifully, Karl Jaspers works on the assumption he himself lays out in one of his chapters - the idea that philosophy is for everyone (I'm paraphrasing) and starts producing philosophical building blocks that connect themselves throughout this book. Here, Jaspers discusses life. religion, love, politics and reality with little preconcieved notions, and with an exceptionally open mind to any lines of thought, openly rejecting none - except marxism and freudianism, which is greatly appreciated by me - whilst he defends the indispensability of rational and reason. This, I believe, is the main reason of why I enjoyed the book so thoroughly: the aparent conflict between these sides of the same "human experience" coin is a question that's near and dear to my own heart. Somewhat ironically, the book that indirectly praises the fundamental importance of the human reason is the object of and reason for my justifiably blind love. Not once in these pages, however, did I ever think or feel they degraded the sublime beauty and necessity of all of the human experience that comes through emotions: it praises both for their roles in a meaningful existence.
Even though I do not necessarily agree with the author's views in everything - on topics such as religion, transcendence and death - and other points are beyond certainty, although not above debate - his division of the reality of consciousness into a dichotomy between subject and object - I still think it's a wonderful discussion of so much that surrounds us. Much deeper and much, much more thought through and supported by logic (thankfully) than some others I've had recently, it's honestly (dare I say it?) a breath of fresh air to see that, despite what I sometimes feel, humans never lost the capacity to explore the abyss with courage, honesty and brilliance.

[Pham Tung · Rating 2 out of 5]

Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) là một triết gia Đức thuộc trào lưu hiện sinh (existentialism), đồng thời chịu ảnh hưởng mạnh từ Kant.

Ông quan niệm triết học không chỉ là lý thuyết mà còn là một hành trình tự khám phá và sống thật với chính mình.

Tóm tắt
- Triết học bắt đầu từ kinh ngạc, hoài nghi, giới hạn.
- Nó không thay thế khoa học hay tôn giáo, mà bổ sung bằng việc tìm ý nghĩa tồn tại.
- Triết học dẫn ta đến tự do, trách nhiệm, giao tiếp chân thành và sự siêu việt.

Hạn chế
- Thiếu tính hệ thống rõ ràng
- Không đi sâu vào phân tích từng trường phái
- Bản dịch đã quá cũ; từ ngữ, văn phong rườm rà, khó hiểu.
- Thiên về niềm tin tôn giáo.
- Ít quan tâm đến đời sống xã hội, chính trị.

Nhận xét
Nhập môn triết học của Karl Jaspers không phải là cuốn sách dễ đọc, và cũng khó coi là một “nhập môn” đúng nghĩa đối với độc giả hiện đại. Ngay từ những chương đầu, người đọc có cảm giác triết học bị kéo gần sang thần học nhiều hơn là một nỗ lực lý tính. Đây không phải triết học thuần lý mà nghiêng sang một dạng thần học triết học, vì luôn mặc định có một “Thượng đế/Siêu việt” để con người hướng tới.

Cách trình bày của Jaspers đôi khi mơ hồ, ông thích dùng khái niệm lớn, trừu tượng (“bao dung”, “siêu việt”, “tồn tại đích thực”) mà không làm rõ qua ví dụ cụ thể. Điều này khiến người mới học dễ rơi vào cảm giác triết học chỉ là một trò chơi từ ngữ rối rắm.

Hạn chế lớn khác là Jaspers thường gắn triết gia với hình ảnh mang màu sắc gần như tôn giáo: như những người giác ngộ, sống khác thường, đứng trên đám đông. Ông xem các nhà hiền triết cổ đại như những dấu chỉ thiêng liêng, thay vì phân tích trong bối cảnh lịch sử – xã hội cụ thể. Quan điểm này làm triết học của ông xa rời tính phê phán thực tiễn, thiếu sức sống khi đặt cạnh các triết gia khác, những người dám đối diện trực diện với vấn đề xã hội và chính trị.

Tóm lại, cuốn sách này có giá trị như một tư liệu để hiểu Jaspers và dòng triết học mang hơi hướng tôn giáo, nhưng nếu ai tìm một cuốn nhập môn mạch lạc, gần gũi và có tính khai sáng cho đời sống, thì đây là một lựa chọn khó tiêu hóa. Nó dễ gây ấn tượng về sự uyên bác, nhưng lại khiến triết học trở nên xa cách, thiếu hơi thở của hiện thực đời người.

[Temple Du Livre · Rating 4 out of 5]

Karl Jaspers philosophe et psychiatre Allemand a essayé à travers ce livre d’introduire de la meilleure façon son lecteur dans le monde de la philosophie. C’est un livre qui s’adresse au néophyte qui cherche à avoir leur premier contact avec la philosophie. De par sa forme et son fond, ce livre vous permettra de comprendre la philosophie et de penser philosophie !
.
.
C’est sur un registre de langue courant que le philosophe nous entraine dans la découverte de ce domaine. Il commence tout d’abord à définir la philosophie en excluant tout dogmatisme en son sein, car ce n’est ni une vérité ni une science exacte, mais une ébauche de vérité qui s’ouvre sur d’autres questionnements. Ainsi, tout philosophe qui se proclame détonateur d’un savoir définitif n’a plus rien avoir avec le domaine philosophique et devient scientifique.
.
.
Après les chapitres des définitions et des origines de la philosophie, l’auteur traite des thèmes majeures de la philo ( Mort, homme, Dieu…etc) et donne sa propre interprétation sur ces derniers. Il est indéniable que Karl Jaspers est un existentialiste de premier ordre, car tout tourne autour de l’homme et son sens dans la vie, cependant, ce dernier est un des rares à ne pas rejeter Dieu de sa perception des choses. Puisque pour lui, le libre arbitre est une manifestation de Dieu qui a donné cette faculté qu’à l’homme, afin que ce dernier pense à Dieu et à ce qu’il l'entoure. Il critique bien sûr toute forme de dogmatisme et du rejet de la philosophie par les Croyants qui se referment dans leur propre croyance, sans pensée religieuse.
.
C’est vraiment un livre qui renoue le croyant avec la philosophie, en les incitant à aller vers cette dernière. Seul petit bémol, le livre aurait pu expliquer les courants philosophiques et les concepts des grands penseurs de l’histoire, afin de les vulgariser au grand public.

[Pedro Lira · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eu diria que 'uma introdução ao pensamento filosófico' encaixaria melhor neste livro. Isto porque, diferente de outras iniciativas, o livro de envereda no modo de pensar existencialista. Levando isso em conta, são desenvolvidos pensamentos que clareiam o que é o homem, o que é a existência, qual a posição do homem na natureza, história, universo, dentro outros pontos não menos interessantes.

No Prefácio é dito que cada capítulo seria uma conferência voltada para um programa de rádio da época, onde havia a ideia de que o homem médio alemão precisava ser exposto a tias questionamentos para lidar com o pós-guerra e com o mundo na beira do apocalipse da guerra fria. E bem, acho que a educação alemã da época foi superior à minha atual porque não de fácil leitura imediatamente. Os argumentos são razoavelmente bem construídos e ligeiramente mais longos do que estou acostumado, sem falar que não tenho base/contexto de filosofia, logo, os termos escolhidos e minha forma de pensar não se deram muito bem. Então o começo da leitura foi consideravelmente lento mas intelectualmente recompensador.

Por fim, acredito que este livro envelheceu bem e continua sendo um bom ponto de início para repensar a realidade - e iniciar um novo caminho de leitira. Apesar de tocar em vários questionamentos, não considero que estas reflexões foram superficiais. Elas são, na medida do possível, densas, de forma que o livro não é apenas um livro introdutório é uma introdução ao pensamento filosófico.

[Anderson Paz · Rating 2 out of 5]

Esse é um livro bem ruim. Não é bem uma inttrodução ao pensamento filosófico. São reflexões do Jaspers acerca de temas filosóficos. Em geral, discussões superficiais e sem rigor acadêmico (não é um livro com citações e disputas argumentativas). Por capítulos, as discussões são:
1) a ciência estuda um mundo fragmentado, a filosofia analisa o mundo a partir dele mesmo e traz o homem de volta a si;
2) somos seres históricos e nosso desafio é encontrar na história um elo de paz;
3) é preciso modificar a atitude interior para apreender a realidade abrangente do mundo externo;
4) o homem é um fim em si, um ser natural, histórico e mundano que se define;
5) a importância de debates políticos ponderados;
6) liberdade política contra a falência da política;
7) onde há liberdade, há juízo de valor, não um simples juízo empírico puro;
8) psicanálise e marxismo são caricaturas de filosofia;
9) opinião pública é o campo de batalha pela verdade e não se coaduna com segredo e censura;
10) os enigmas surgem de tensionamentos com a transcendência e o mistério;
11) o amor é um bem elevado que precisa se adequar à moral e não justifica qualquer coisa;
12) o saber da mortalidade possibilita viver a vida como ela é;
13) a filosofia está limitada ao mundo e reflete sobre suas questões mais fundamentais.

Em geral, um livro existencialista rasteiro.

[Andrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

Titolo fuorviante, non si tratta di una introduzione in senso classico. Il testo è complesso ed oscuro in certi punti, poiché Jasper utilizza il linguaggio dell’esistenzialismo, pur non appartenendovi esplicitamente. Si tratta di un saggio in cui Jaspers affronta le tematiche filosofiche dal punto di vista del suo peculiare filosofare. Per Jaspers la filosofia occidentale ormai è morta e sepolta. Tenta quindi di offrire una possibile soluzione per riabilitarla nonostante la presenza dello scientismo, della tecnica e dei fideismi, i quali hanno reso sterile e arido il mondo. Tutto molto bello e interessante, peccato che a nessuno freghi più nulla della filosofia, e men che meno all’uomo medio a cui interessa solamente godere nel sesso e nelle pervertite ricchezze ed edonismi. Quando là fuori nel mondo hai l’uomo medio, i tamarri, i cocainomani e le zozze da like su Instagram e tiktok, quando questi sono i modelli del mondo, come è possibile fare filosofia se tutto è letame e degrado? Mah…