What do you think?
Rate this book
The Great Philosophers 3: Xenophanes, Democritus, Empedocles, Bruno, Epicurus, Boehme, Schelling, Leibniz, Aristotle, Hegel
Karl Jaspers died in 1969, leaving unfinished his universal history of philosophy, a history organized around those philosophers who have influenced the course of human thought. The first two volumes of this work appeared in Jaspers's lifetime; the third and fourth have been culled from the vast material of his posthumous papers. This is the third volume; the fourth is to be published in 1994.
In the present volume, which follows his original plan of "promoting the happiness that comes of meeting great men and sharing in their thoughts," Jaspers discusses the Xenophanes, Empedocles, Democritus, Bruno, Epicurus, Boehme, Schelling, and Leibniz. Then he turns to the Creative Aristotle and Hegel. His method is personal, one of constant questioning and struggle, as he enters into dialogue with his "eternal contemporaries," the thinkers of the past. For Jaspers believes that it is only through communication with others that we come to ourselves and to wisdom.
In the present volume, which follows his original plan of "promoting the happiness that comes of meeting great men and sharing in their thoughts," Jaspers discusses the Xenophanes, Empedocles, Democritus, Bruno, Epicurus, Boehme, Schelling, and Leibniz. Then he turns to the Creative Aristotle and Hegel. His method is personal, one of constant questioning and struggle, as he enters into dialogue with his "eternal contemporaries," the thinkers of the past. For Jaspers believes that it is only through communication with others that we come to ourselves and to wisdom.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
306 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1993
About the author
Karl Jaspers
345 books327 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 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 5, 2016
This is the third installment of Karl Jasper's "Great Philosophers" series. Only the first two were published during his lifetime. This and the following volume were constructed from his notes and edited for coherence. As such, this book reads at times like, naturally, a series of lecture notes. One section, on Schelling, is actually a paper he gave on his philosophy.
What you get out of his treatment of each philosopher will therefore greatly vary. There were some sections that were lucidly fascinating, and others that were too truncated to be graspable by a non-academic. The sections on Schelling and Hegel are almost painfully difficult, compounded by the notorious inscrutability these thinkers already possess. Other sections are unfinished in an almost tantalizing way--like with Leibniz, and his philosophy of monads. Jaspers mentions it but never delves into it at all, which is disappointing because Leibniz is almost never talked about in non-academic circles (being overshadowed by Newton), and when he is, it's usually about his contributions to calculus, not philosophy. In such cases you will have to conduct your own further research.
This is as much a blessing as a curse however, since I love books that serve as a jumping-off point. And the drawbacks above cannot really be held against Jaspers since he didn't live long enough to complete his work. But how often do you read about men like Giordano Bruno, or Jakob Boehme? Jaspers did us all a favor by shining a little bit of philosophical limelight on them.
What you get out of his treatment of each philosopher will therefore greatly vary. There were some sections that were lucidly fascinating, and others that were too truncated to be graspable by a non-academic. The sections on Schelling and Hegel are almost painfully difficult, compounded by the notorious inscrutability these thinkers already possess. Other sections are unfinished in an almost tantalizing way--like with Leibniz, and his philosophy of monads. Jaspers mentions it but never delves into it at all, which is disappointing because Leibniz is almost never talked about in non-academic circles (being overshadowed by Newton), and when he is, it's usually about his contributions to calculus, not philosophy. In such cases you will have to conduct your own further research.
This is as much a blessing as a curse however, since I love books that serve as a jumping-off point. And the drawbacks above cannot really be held against Jaspers since he didn't live long enough to complete his work. But how often do you read about men like Giordano Bruno, or Jakob Boehme? Jaspers did us all a favor by shining a little bit of philosophical limelight on them.
March 11, 2009
Overall I found this to be a well laid-out and relatively concise introduction to a variety of philosophers. However, it was just a little too weighty for me to get through it before the library's due date, which cost me all of 75 cents ;)
I am encouraged by the introduction, which noted that this (posthumous) volume is the most difficult reading. Given that, I may check out some of the other volumes in future.
I'd recommend this if you have the time, or want to get an overview of a specific philosopher's life and work.
I am encouraged by the introduction, which noted that this (posthumous) volume is the most difficult reading. Given that, I may check out some of the other volumes in future.
I'd recommend this if you have the time, or want to get an overview of a specific philosopher's life and work.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews