Skip to main content

“The Last Kantian”: Outlines of Karl Jaspers’s Ambivalent Reception of German Idealism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of German Idealism and Existentialism

Part of the book series: Palgrave Handbooks in German Idealism ((PHGI))

  • 566 Accesses

Abstract

Karl Jaspers, the renowned philosopher of Existenz was neatly characterized by his colleague Heinrich Barth as “the first and the last Kantian”. Although the existentialist movement is widely known as a critical reaction to German Idealism in general as well as to the contemporary neo-Kantianism, Jaspers’s relation to German Idealism cannot be considered as a one-sided negative criticism at all. In the article I wish to outline how from the very beginning of his authorship he was deeply inspired by Kant, whom he openly considered to be “the absolute indispensable philosopher.” At the same time, however, an attempt will also be made to outline Jaspers’s critical reactions and additions to Kantian philosophy. Being profoundly inspired by Kant’s transcendental philosophy, especially by his critical teaching on the limits of reason, Jaspers was rather critical towards the methodology of the later German idealists for dogmatically ignoring and surpassing these limits, and he characterized the later idealist systems as a kind of speculative “magic” (Zauber). In Jaspers’s view it was Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who—by breaking with Kant und misinterpreting his system—opened the way for this movement. Therefore, both Fichte’s philosophy and attitude were the targets of a sharp criticism from Jaspers, who conspicuously paid the least attention to this figure in his accounts of the German idealists. Contrary to Fichte, both Schelling and Hegel were widely discussed in Jaspers’s published writings and in his Nachlass too. As we shall see, both of them were acknowledged for their greatness as thinkers; moreover, some of their teachings were clearly appropriated by Jaspers, although this appropriation was never free from a critical distance and philosophical polemics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Jaspers 1951b, p. 339: “Kant wurde mir zum Philosophen schlechthin und blieb es mir.” I am indebted to Anton Hügli for his valuable advice for my work as well as for generously making available to me his unpublished article “Kant—Gegentypus zu Heidegger? Was Jaspers mit Kant verbindet und von Heidegger trennt.” I am also grateful to my colleague Péter Lautner for having checked my manuscript.

  2. 2.

    As Olson puts it: “Jaspers believes that in Kant, for the first time in the history of Western philosophy, we are shown that critical philosophizing is necessarily existential; that the imprint of subjectivity upon what is thought is not just accidental but formally inevitable” (Olson 1979, p. 72).

  3. 3.

    Jaspers clearly points out: “As a Kantian, I stand in opposition to neo-Kantianism” (Jaspers 1981b, p. 856).

  4. 4.

    Whereas Schopenhauer declares that his point of departure is Kant’s teaching whose effect can be considered an intellectual rebirth his opinion on the philosophy of German Idealism is purely negative: “So, working in this spirit and all the while seeing the false and the bad enjoying universal prestige, and in fact windbags’ dronings [Fichte, Schelling] and charlatanism [Hegel] held in the highest honour, I have long since renounced the approbation of my contemporaries” (Schopenhauer 2010, p. 14).

  5. 5.

    See Saner 1970, pp. 18–19 and also Jaspers’s commemoration on Schopenhauer in Jaspers 1968h, pp. 287–295. As a matter of fact, however, Jaspers found Schopenhauer’s criticism of Hegel irrelevant: “A critique such as Schopenhauer’s is meaningless: he merely scolded” (Jaspers 1993, p. 295).

  6. 6.

    Langley also emphasizes the immanent ambiguity of Jaspers’s reception of Kant: “His continuations of Kant are clear but critical. For both thinkers the domains of knowledge and being are mediated by faith. But Jaspers’s original conception of philosophical faith as a dialectic between immanent Existenz and transcendent being goes far beyond this dependence…[Jaspers] goes back to Kant’s intentions and conclusions for the basic premises of his own systematics” but his “conception of philosophizing and of philosophy goes beyond Kant” (Koterski and Langley 2003, pp. 193–194).

  7. 7.

    Jaspers 1968c, p. 250: “Ihn brauchen wir nicht als ein Fremdes zu bewundern. Mit ihm können wir leben. Ihm möchten wir folgen.”

  8. 8.

    Olson 1979, pp. 73–74: “Adapting the critical epistemological insights of Kant to the language of Existenz, Jaspers recovers what he believes to be the essential intent and purpose of Kantian Kritik, namely a disclosure of the limits of objectifying thinking which does not put an end to thinking, but permits transcending or true metaphysical thinking to begin at a critical level.”

  9. 9.

    Diehl 2008.

  10. 10.

    Hügli forthcoming.

  11. 11.

    In one of his notes Jaspers evaluates Heidegger’s philosophizing highly critically: “ist es faktischer Nihilismus, der durch falsche Versprechungen sich verschleiert—und dazu der ungeheure Ehrgeiz und Machtwille, der den Zauberern, aber nie den spekulativ wahrhaften Philosophen eignet?—äußerster Gegenpol: Kant, Spinoza,—verwandt: Fichte—” (Jaspers 1978, p. 87).

  12. 12.

    Jaspers 1957a, p. 24: “Im Kreise der Berufsphilosophen galt ich als Fremder…Ich besaß nicht einmal den Dr. phil., war Dr. med. Die traditionelle philosophische Ausbildung fehlte mir. So blieb ich outsider, auch als ich nun Ordinarius geworden war.”

  13. 13.

    Aristotle, De anima. III.8, 431b21.

  14. 14.

    Presas 1974, p. 783: “Es ist in der Tat sehr bedeutend, daß Jaspers als ‘Anhang’ dieses Buches ein Referat über Kants Ideenlehre hinzufügen ließ, das er fünf oder sechs Jahre früher für das Kant-Seminar von Emil Lask verfasst hatte.” See also Koterski and Langley 2003, p. 174 and Jaspers 1968a, p. 512.

  15. 15.

    Kant 1965, pp. 310–311: “Plato very well realized that our faculty of knowledge feels a much higher need than merely to spell out appearances according to a synthetic unity, in order to be able to read them as experience. He knew that our reason naturally exalts itself to modes of knowledge which so far transcend the bounds of experience that no given empirical object can ever coincide with them, but which must nonetheless be recognized as having their own reality, and which are by no means mere fictions of the brain.”

  16. 16.

    1920, 1921–1922, 1922, 1924–1925, 1925–1926, 1927–1928, 1928–1929, 1931, 1931–1932, 1932, 1932–1933, 1933–1934, 1934–1935, 1945–1946, 1947, 1947–1948, 1948.

  17. 17.

    1924, 1926.

  18. 18.

    1925.

  19. 19.

    1919–1920, 1922–1923, 1923–1924, 1924–1925, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1930–1931, 1932–1933, 1933, 1935, 1935–1936. From Jaspers’s correspondence appears that he gave some lectures on Hegel also in Basel: see Kohler and Saner 1993, pp. 315, 350.

  20. 20.

    Jaspers 1986, p. 22: “Jaspers’s preoccupation with Kant is in fact…a foundation of Jaspers’s philosophy….”

  21. 21.

    Jaspers explicitly refers to this Kantian distinction in his university lectures in Frankfurt in 1937: “Kant begriff weiter, wie alles Gegenstandsein für uns unter der Bedingung des denkenden Bewußtseins steht…; oder anders: daß alles ‘Sein für uns’ Erscheinung des ‘Seins an sich’ ist, wie es sich dem für uns alles Sein umfassenden Bewußtsein überhaupt darstellt. Die Entwicklungen der ‘tranzendentalen Deduktion’ gehen auf den einen Ruck des Seinsbewußtseins: sie erzeugen und erhellen das Wissen um die Erscheinungshaftigkeit allen Weltseins durch das Innewerden des Umgreifenden des Bewußtseins überhaupt” (Jaspers 1974, p. 16).

  22. 22.

    See Arendt’s first enthusiastic impressions about the chapter on Kant of the book in her letter to Jaspers on August 29, 1957 (Kohler and Saner 1993, pp. 316–319).

  23. 23.

    Oddly enough, this part of the German original is lacking in the English edition.

  24. 24.

    See the proposition 6.54 of his Tractatus logico-philosophicus: “My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder after he has climbed up on it.)/He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly” (Wittgenstein 1960, p. 189).

  25. 25.

    Jaspers 1955, p. 284: “Die Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus in ihrer vielfachen Gestalten hat das Gemeinsame, eine Philosophie des Sichabschließens, der Kommunikationslosigkeit zu sein in der Behauptung und systematischen Darstellung des absoluten Wissens. Es ist…eine Philosophie, die man als Anhänger in gehorsamer Unterwerfung glauben und fanatisieren,…die aber unfähig ist, zu Dasein und Lebensform durch den Ernst einer sie ergreifenden Existenz zu werden.”

  26. 26.

    As for this received view see, for example, Kroner 1921.

  27. 27.

    Anton Hügli elaborates this aspect of Jaspers’s attitude towards Fichte very clearly (Hügli forthcoming). Contrary to Hügli, Franco Gilli apparently ignores this negative aspect and focuses on the similarities between the two thinkers (Gilli 2013, pp. 340–353).

  28. 28.

    Jaspers 1955, pp. 282–283: “Fichte ist ein bohrender Konstrukteur, fanatisch und dogmatisch, nationalistisch und moralistisch, aktivistisch als Rhetor, mit der Neigung zur Sensation im Dreinschlagen, Barbar, von fragwürdigem Anstand, nicht selten unwahrhaftig. In seiner Konstruktion hat er eine Unablässigkeit des Weiterfragens, eine erstaunliche Denkenergie. Er berührt das Letzte, zumal in späteren Schriften, manchmal, nicht oft, echt und ergreifend. Aber er bleibt im Versprechen dessen, was noch kommen soll, und er gerät ständig in absurde Konsequenzen der Haltung und des Gedankens. Wo er hinkommt, macht er Krach.” As for Fichte’s relation to Schelling, see Jaspers 1955, pp. 285–299.

  29. 29.

    Jasperscalls Fichte a “ingenius figure” also in his Der philosophische Glaube angesichts der Offenbarung. See Jaspers 1962b, p. 423.

  30. 30.

    Jaspers 1955, p. 338: “In Umgang mit Schelling geschiet Anziehung und Abstoßung mit ungewöhnlicher Stärke…Man erfährt durch ihn Beschwingung und Lähmung. Man steht vor ihm mit Bewunderung und Empörung.”

Bibliography

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1989. Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Ed. Ronald Beiner. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1935. On the Soul. Parva Naturalia. On Breath. Trans. Walter S. Hett. London and Cambridge, MA: William Heinemann and Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, Ulrich. 2008. Ist Jaspers ein Kantianer? In Karl Jaspers – Philosophie und Psychopathologie, ed. Knut Eming and Thomas Fuchs, 169–181. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, Leonard H. 1975. Karl Jaspers: Philosophy as Faith. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilli, Franco. 2013. Fichtesche Anklänge im Denken Karl Jaspers. Versuch einer hermeneutischen Lektüre. Fichte-Studien 37: 340–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 2018. The Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. Michael Inwood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hügli, Anton. forthcoming. Kant—Gegentypus zu Heidegger? Was Jaspers mit Kant verbindet und von Heidegger trennt. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Karl Jaspers Gesellschaft 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaspers, Karl. 1919. Psychologie der Weltanschauungen. Berlin: Julius Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1951a. Rechenschaft und Ausblick. Reden und Aufsätze. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1951b. Mein Weg zur Philosophie (1951). In Rechenschaft und Ausblick. Reden und Aufsätze, 323–332. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1951c. Über meine Philosophie (1941). In Rechenschaft und Ausblick. Reden und Aufsätze, 333–365. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1954. Schellings Größe und sein Verhängnis. Studia Philosophica 14: 12–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1955. Schelling. Grösse und Verhängnis. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1957a. Philosophische Autobiographie. In Karl Jaspers, ed. Paul Arthur Schipp, 1–79. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1957b. Die grossen Philosophen. Die maßgebenden Menschen: Sokrates, Buddha, Konfuzius, Jesus; Die fortzeugenden Gründer des Philosophierens: Plato, Augustin, Kant; Aus dem Ursprung denkende Metaphysiker: Anaximander, Heraklit, Parmenides, Plotin, Anselm, Spinoza, Laotse, Nagarjuna. Vol. I. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1962a. Kant. Ed. Hannah Arendt. Trans. Ralph Manheim. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1962b. Der philosophische Glaube angesichts der Offenbarung. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968a. Aneignung und Polemik. Gesammelte Reden und Aufsätze zur Geschichte der Philosophie. Ed. Hans Saner. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968b. Das radikal Böse bei Kant (1935). In Aneignung und Polemik. Gesammelte Reden und Aufsätze zur Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. Hans Saner, 183–204. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968c. Immanuel Kant. Zu seinem 150. Todestag (1954). In Aneignung und Polemik. Gesammelte Reden und Aufsätze zur Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. Hans Saner, 242–250. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968d. Kants ‘Zum ewigen Frieden’ (1957). In Aneignung und Polemik. Gesammelte Reden und Aufsätze zur Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. Hans Saner, 205–232. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968e. Kants Schrift ‘Zum ewigen Frieden’ (1957). In Aneignung und Polemik. Gesammelte Reden und Aufsätze zur Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. Hans Saner, 233–241. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968f. Schellings Größe und sein Verhängnis (1954). In Aneignung und Polemik. Gesammelte Reden und Aufsätze zur Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. Hans Saner, 251–277. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968g. Schelling. Erinnerung an seinen Tod vor hundert Jahren (1954). In Aneignung und Polemik. Gesammelte Reden und Aufsätze zur Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. Hans Saner, 278–286. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1968h. Arthur Schopenhauer. Zu seinem 100. Todestag (1960). In Aneignung und Polemik. Gesammelte Reden und Aufsätze zur Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. Hans Saner, 287–295. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1974. Existenzphilosophie. Drei Vorlesungen gehalten am Freien Deutschen Hochstift in Frankfurt a. M. September 1937. 4th ed. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1978. Notizen zu Martin Heidegger. Ed. Hans Saner. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1981a. Die grossen Philosophen. Nachlaß 1. Darstellungen und Fragmente. Ed. Hans Saner. Munich and Zurich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1981b. Reply to My Critics. In The Philosophy of Karl Jaspers, ed. Paul Arthur Schlipp, 748–869. Lasalle: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1986. Basic Philosophical Writings: Selections. Ed. Edith Ehrlich, Leonard H. Ehrlich, and George B. Pepper. Athens, Ohio and London: Ohio University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1993. The Great Philosophers. Xenophanes, Democritus, Empedocles, Bruno, Epicurus, Boehme, Schelling, Leibniz, Aristotle, Hegel. Vol. III. Ed. Michael Ermath and Leonard H. Ehrlich. New York, San Diego, and London: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanuel. 1965. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Norman Kemp Smith. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Critique of Judgement. Trans. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. To Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Trans. Ted Humphrey. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2009. Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason. Trans. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Lotte, and Hans Saner, eds. 1993. Hannah Arendt-Karl Jaspers Correspondence 1926–1969. New York: Saunders College Publishing/Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koterski, Joseph W., and Raymond J. Langley, eds. 2003. Karl Jaspers on Philosophy of History and History of Philosophy. Amherst and New York: Humanity Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroner, Richard. 1921. Von Kant bis Hegel. Vols. I–II. Tübingen: Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonhard, Joachim-Felix, ed. 1983. Karl Jaspers in seiner Heidelberger Zeit, Heidelberger Bibliotheksschriften. Vol. 8. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Verlagsanstalt und Druckerei.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Alan M. 1979. Transcendence and Hermeneutics: An Interpretation of the Philosophy of Karl Jaspers, Studies in Philosophy and Religion. Vol. 2. The Hague, Boston, and London: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Presas, Mario A. 1974. Kantischer Ursprung und existentielles Ziel der Philosophie Karl Jaspers. In Akten des 4. Internationalen Kant-Kongresses Mainz 1974, ed. Gerhard Funke, 782–788. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saner, Hans, ed. 1970. Karl Jaspers in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopenhauer, Arthur. 2010. The World as Will and Representation. Vol. 1. Trans. Judith Norman, Alistair Welchman, and Christopher Janaway. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Chris. 2013. Form and Content in Jaspers’s Psychopathology. In One Century of Karl Jaspers’s General Psychopathology, International Perspectives in Philosophy and Psychiatry, ed. Giovanni Stanghellini and Thomas Fuchs, 76–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1960. Tractatus logico-philosophicus, with an introduction by Bertrand Russell. 8th ed. London: Routledge & Kegan and Paul.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to István Czakó .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Czakó, I. (2020). “The Last Kantian”: Outlines of Karl Jaspers’s Ambivalent Reception of German Idealism. In: Stewart, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of German Idealism and Existentialism. Palgrave Handbooks in German Idealism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44571-3_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics