Compare Listings

Taken only from the subjective side, it remains only a superstition.

Taken only from the subjective side, it remains only a superstition.

But phrases of this type can hide a variety of meanings, and a critical analysis of the relationship between Jaspers’ philosophy and religion is an interesting thing precisely because the existentialist philosopher often took part in controversies over religion, interpreting them unconventionally.

Yes, Jaspers often criticizes the two faces with which religion is returned to man – mysticism and authoritarianism – seeing in them a threat to human freedom. But the contradiction between mysticism and authoritarianism, which grows into a contradiction between mysticism as a “negative decision” and “rejection of the world” and ethics as a set of God-established laws of human behavior in the human world, is “solved” by him in the existentialist sense of philosophical life. inner action “and philosophical faith.

The picture of the world and man in it, which Jaspers has repeatedly sketched since Mind and Existence (1935), boils down to the fact that “comprehensive” is a new term that is thought to have originated in one of the definitions of the anaximander apeiron. (that which embraces and governs all), which means absolute reality, appears to us as divided into being in itself (the world and transcendence, that is, God) and being as we are; which, in turn, is divided into external being, that is, life, physiological functions, mental experiences, behaviors, language, actions; consciousness in general with its division into subject and object; spirit as the “life of ideas” are the ways in which “we are the world”; after all, existence, the essence of which is that “we live from the original source, which is above the empirically objectively arising being, above consciousness in general and spirit,” is the primary source.

In the above four spheres of human existence, various ways of cognition are developing: external existence gives us the usual knowledge of existing objects that we encounter every day; consciousness in general gives us obvious and forced, universal and necessary knowledge; spirit – connects the disparate data of consciousness, that is, knowledge that arises in the first two areas. And, finally, “as existence, I exist as much as I realize myself as gifted to myself by transcendence” that is, simply put, as created by God.

In “philosophical faith” Jaspers acts precisely as an act of “existence”: if in a broad sense every obviousness is “faith” (confidence of consciousness in general, confidence of spirit), then in a narrow sense faith is “an act of existence in which transcendence is realized in its reality “. Jaspers’ reflections are intended to separate the philosophical faith from the religious faith itself, which is associated with the “authoritarian objectivity” of worship, prayer, and openness in the church. In fact, we encounter here several tendencies in the understanding of faith that have already occurred in the history of religious philosophy and the philosophy of religion, but have taken on a new form in Jaspers.

Jaspers faces several challenges. The first is the relationship of faith and reason. The old antagonism of faith and reason, religion and science, the existentialist philosopher wants to overcome by arguing that faith and reason are different from each other, but support each other: the mind is necessary for faith, but faith is not reduced to reason. The old thesis of the harmony of faith and reason, derived before Thomas Aquinas, receives a new interpretation from Jaspers. Let’s compare, said Jaspers, Bruno and Galileo. Bruno believed, and Galileo knew.

The Inquisition demanded their renunciation. Bruno refused and died a martyr’s death; Galileo denied it, but it was not of fundamental importance to him, because “it still spins!”. Thus, faith is a truth that suffers from the fact that we have renounced it, while knowledge is not affected by any act of human desire. “The truth from which I live exists only in such a way that I become identical with it … The truth, the correctness of which I can prove, exists without myself; it is universal, beyond history, beyond time … To wish to die for correctness which, it is necessary, would be incomparable to anything “.

Let us turn to the comment on this subject by Doctor of Philosophy, Professor AS Bogomolov. He proposes to set aside Galileo, whom Jaspers cites as an example – his case is much more complicated than Jaspers imagined, “remember at least the Life of Galileo” by Bertold Brecht – and compare Giordano Bruno, for example, with Archpriest Habakkuk, the head of the schism. Bruno died for the scientific truth, which became his deep life conviction, Habakkuk – for the faith, for the “truth” of two-finger baptism and writing the name of Christ through one “and”.

In Bruno, objective truth and belief, knowledge and “faith” merge to a limited extent. Therefore, Jaspers is not at all right when he thinks that the objectivity of truth precludes the possibility of the belief in it that objective truth is socially and “humanly” neutral. Not “faith” but philosophical confidence, based on solid scientific knowledge – this is a characteristic of the views and behavior of Giordano Bruno, a set of knowledge and beliefs. And Jaspers still has to take this into account. He writes that “philosophical faith” exists “only in conjunction with the knowledge” even that “infinite knowledge, science is the basic element of philosophizing.”

Jaspers is a staunch irrationalist, convinced of the limitations of human knowledge, incapable of knowing the “ultimate secrets” of the universe. Simply put, the deep foundations of the world are inaccessible to human knowledge, to “ultimate” knowledge; therefore, one who philosophizes must always keep in mind the limitations of scientific knowledge, which “objectifies” that is, objectifies, materializes, kills life.

In principle, it is killed by faith, taken only from the objective side, that is, as a dogma, as a statement. Taken only from the subjective side, it remains only a superstition. The essence of “philosophical faith” is that it exists, according to the traditional formula, fides gua creditor et fides guae credirum (faith in which we believe and faith in which we believe). But this, contrary to rationalist religious teachings, is not a harmonious combination in the “holistic representation” of the subjective and the objective, faith and reason, at least under the auspices of faith, but “dialectics” as an unresolved “struggle” of opposites, as “rupture of opposites”. , which leads to antinomies without their resolution, into unresolvedness, into contradiction … retreat to the border, where being is completely broken “- as absurd. Jaspers adheres to Kierkegaard’s irrationalist tradition here and concludes it with the actual killing of the mind . At best, the role of the mind comes down to the fact that it is a “possible springboard for transcendence” that is, for the transition to God.

And according to prof. Bogomolov, God in Jaspers is the result of a degenerate, mystified by his understanding (author – Jaspers) man – the one he calls, in its highest manifestation, existence. Undefined in the very system of Jaspers’ philosophy, this concept can be defined in the system of dialectical and historical materialism as an expression of the social nature of the individual human personality. From this, Jaspers’ descriptions of “existence” become clear: its “intentionality”, that is, its focus on other personalities (“existences”), in the various relations with which it is located; and its “communication,” that is, communication with them, in all its contradictions, which evidently reflects all the contradictions of an antagonistic society; and such its “signs” as freedom, choice, decision. That is, the structure of “existence” reflects the real social relations.

Jaspers’s “philosophical faith” is quite paradoxical: it is incompatible with the religious faith, with the religion of revelation in the personal plan, but is compatible with it in the social plan. Religion, according to Jaspers, will forever remain the “philosophy” of the common man, the only authority that he recognizes in the higher issues of perception of the world. At the same time, philosophy cannot solve religious problems and always leaves room for religion. Philosophy goes beyond religion, but remains under its rule. Because “a philosopher is an individual, he lives at his own risk … But, as a person, he is a member of some whole, and his philosophizing is also in this relationship from the very beginning. This relationship is provided in the world by the state and religion in an authoritarian form. Without authority, human life is impossible. “

Jaspers interprets freedom as “free obedience to God’s will.” And if a person claims real, genuine freedom, then he is a “rebel” and “if rebellion becomes a life principle, is considered truly true and free, then man is in a state without existence, in life without any basis, not based on anything “.

Explaining the myth of Prometheus, Jaspers wrote that although the latter made man a being who may no longer be afraid of the wrath of the gods – man’s knowledge and skills make him independent – but the same Prometheus brought man misery. The “trouble” caused by Prometheus to humans is that “any invention, from fire to looms and railroads, while it conquers nature, multiplies sins and diseases.”

Thus, religious existentialists (besides Jaspers, for example, Kierkegaard) demanded a renunciation of reason, a kind of “metaphysical”, that is, philosophical, suicide. This, incidentally, strongly disagreed with the French existentialist philosopher Camus, who believed that man’s understanding of the absurdity of his existence should not be accompanied by consent to accept such “nonsense”, he said that “roses of illusions” eat only donkeys; “The absurd, which is the metaphysical state of a man who has consciousness, does not lead to God.”

We will assume that we have explored, at least in part, Jaspers’ basic views on man and his existence. Let’s summarize some results.

Thus, Jaspers divided being into that which appears in three main manifestations: “being-in-the-world”; “existence” and “transcendence”. Only under the influence or during life in extreme situations, a person is able to barely touch the understanding of true being, to understand that the world in which he lives separates him from him (true being).

Jaspers is inclined to the interesting idea that wars and other cataclysms caused directly by man are the result of an “explosion of evil” that is concentrated under the influence of all mankind, not just a certain group, this explosion is only realized by this group …



Related posts

Naukowcy zidentyfikowali kilka zmiennych, które mogą zwiększać ryzyko śmiertelności

Naukowcy zidentyfikowali kilka zmiennych, które mogą zwiększać ryzyko śmiertelności"Od...

Continue reading
by ahmetgashi

No entanto, há um outro ângulo para a referida lei

No entanto, há um outro ângulo para a referida leiApós o final da campanha, as especulações...

Continue reading
by ahmetgashi

Prendi lo stagista il cui mentore inizia a spingere il suo corpo contro il suo durante l’intervento, per esempio

Prendi lo stagista il cui mentore inizia a spingere il suo corpo contro il suo durante...

Continue reading
by ahmetgashi