Possibilities For Contemporary Philosophizing

JOEL C. SAGUT UST-GRADUATE SCHOOL WRITTEN REPORT

PROF. FLORENTINO H. HORNEDO, Ph.D. KARL JASPERS AND GABRIEL MARCEL

“POSSIBILITIES FOR CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHIZING” (A reflection on Karl Jaspers’ First and Fifth Articles in Reason and Existenz) Introduction When we talk about philosophy, what valuation can we give to this discipline? What is the significance of philosophy in our time? For some pragmatic-oriented people, they started to despise the value of the disciplines in the humanities because, they claimed, these disciplines, philosophy included, no longer bear tangible pragmatic effects on human life. Some people are more enamored to pursue careers in sciences, mathematics and especially engineering because these are believed to be capable of yielding tangible effects on the human person, in addition to the fact that they are perceived to be generators of bigger incomes. Hence, a kind of prejudice against humanities and philosophy is beginning to emerge as seen in the diminishing number of students and subjects on humanities in more advanced universities. However, aside from the fact that philosophy is an age-old discipline, there is something in this field that does not immediately give up amidst these attacks. There is something in philosophy that cannot be rendered irrelevant despite the contemporary paradigms that value the pragmatic consequences of things more than anything else. Philosophy remains to be valued because of its indispensable vocation to search for the truth. That philosophy is a discipline that takes as its vocation the reflection on “the truth of human existence” makes philosophy a “classic” discipline in the sense that it may be old but it would always remain to be timely, for truth and meaning are indispensable concerns of human life. Hence, if we talk about relevance and significance, philosophy as a discipline cannot be totally stripped of it. The philosophical enterprise would always remain to be important because this is meant to guide the human person as he/she endeavors to understand the realities of human existence. In the same way as we value the fruitfulness of various disciplines, we could not also deny the significance of philosophy. With the observation about the current status of the philosophical discipline, there is a need to question the value of doing philosophy in our time. If philosophy’s vocation is to reflect for the truth and meaning of human existence, there remains the question as to how philosophy fulfills this vocation. How does philosophy uphold the truth and meaning of human life? How does philosophy aid the human person in understanding the truth and meaning of his human existence? It is along this line that Karl Jaspers’ reflection about the nature of philosophical thinking in our time becomes vastly helpful. Somehow, the way philosophy is done in the previous eras

JOEL SAGUT (KARL JASPERS)

1

contributed to the declining appreciation of the discipline. The competing claims of various disciplines about the truth of the reality has allowed especially the sciences to validate their own methods of doing things and this has relegated philosophy to the sidelines. The sciences have successfully convinced our present generation that truth is something that is proven in actual experiences of things. The sciences have allowed us to see that truth can never be isolated or separated from the actual experience of man. Truth can never be a mere product of speculation. Truth needs validation and such can be done through repetitive experimentation. The sciences have erected their banner in truth-seeking so powerfully that our current generation are led into thinking that the true thing is only that which is scientific. The unscientific ideas are reduced into fictions, hearsays or mere opinions. Unless an idea is validated in experience or experiments, it can no longer be held as true. With the successful introduction of the thought that there is a need to validate a claim before it can be considered as a truth, philosophy has started to soften its ground in the rivalry of disciplines for truth-seeking. Philosophical discipline has been displaced by science, and with that philosophy has slowly lost its own relevance. Unless philosophy can again prove that it is an authentic reflection about the truth and meaning of human life, philosophy can hardly regain its recognized status among the disciplines. Philosophy must overcome the perception that all it can offer are opinions and speculations that are, in most cases, not even grounded in reality. Philosophy must let the people see that she (philosophy) still has the capacity to stir them into reflection, and influence them to re-evaluate their existence. Without this rethinking of what philosophy can do, philosophy can hardly reclaim the recognition that it once had in the course of history. In Karl Jaspers’ philosophy, we are reminded about the original vocation of philosophy, and we are at the same time informed about what had happened in the truth-seeking venture of philosophy. The not so long past of philosophy’s history has proceeded to the restrictive path of reducing the truth into mere propositions. Truth has been reduced to a maxim that can be held as universal and is therefore accepted by all. Truth is universal. Truth is trans-historical. Truth is eternal. However, there were dangers accompanying this conception of the true. The truth in this case has been devoid of its existential significance. The truth has strayed far from human existence. With this kind of philosophizing, the truth has been isolated from life, and instead of reflecting the realities of life, truth has become a kind of an imposition. Truth is imposed, and any disregard of “The Truth” is, by logical consequence, false. In the recent times, many critics have stood against the propositional way of philosophizing. These reactors have vehemently objected the seeming undermining of experience in the “truth” of propositional philosophy. But a philosophy that is not mindful of life is not a true philosophy. In fact, a philosophy that rests on propositions has contributed to the growing contempt against philosophy in the business of truth-seeking. Philosophy has lost its ground in the past because it was represented by the naïve way of propositional philosophy.

JOEL SAGUT (KARL JASPERS)

2

Karl Jaspers’ reflection about philosophy reveals that philosophy can only be authentic if it addresses the actual existence of man. Hence, he calls it as Existenz philosophy.1 He clarifies this Existenz philosophy saying: “in Existenz philosophy, out of the decisiveness of our fundamental bases, the clarity of a life related to Transcendence should again become communicable in thought, as a philosophizing with which we actually live.”2 Reflecting on these words, I think Jaspers tries to argue that philosophy can no longer be a single, complete system to be brought out as a presentation of concepts that represent the thought of great thinkers. Jaspers warns us against this tendency to create a system of philosophy. He believes that a system destroys philosophy. There can only be a philosophy of an individual person. A philosophy is a person’s articulation of a particular encounter with the world. 3 It is an attempt to name that which the person discovers as s/he faces his/her own existence. This does not however mean that the truth is not shared or could not be a product of communication. Rather, Jaspers only says that we refrain from talking about concepts as if the concepts that we attach to a philosopher is his philosophy. Philosophy to be real should not be conceptual, and it should never be reduced to a system. Jaspers himself says, “Concepts which were originally reality pass through history as pieces of learning or information. What was once life becomes a pile of dead husks of concepts and these in turn become the subject of an objective history of philosophy.”4 Jaspers believes that philosophy has to proceed in the manner that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche5 developed their own. It has to be a product of one’s confrontation with his world rather than staying complacent with the already accepted sets of truths or concepts. Jaspers himself has even said, “It is as though we again sought on these paths of philosophizing the quietude of Kant and Spinoza, of Nicolas of Cusa and Parmenides, turning away from the ultimate unrest of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche. But still these latter philosophers remain as lighthouses still burning, perpetual indicators of directions, without which we would relapse into the deception of supposing there were teachable philosophic doctrine or contents, which as such are without power.” 6 Real philosophy is born in the actual struggle through life, in seeing that in life, there are events that may not be defined and fully comprehended but still need to be articulated. It is in this encounter with life itself that we should do our philosophizing. The tension between the rational and its opposite (the non-rational)

1

Karl Jaspers, Reason and Existenz. (USA: Noonday Press, 1955), 128. Jaspers 1955: 128. 3 Jaspers said, “philosophical activity is fully real only at the summits of personal philosophizing… objectivized philosophical thought is a preparation for, and a recollection of, it.” http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/jaspers.htm. Retrieved last December 16, 2007. 4 http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/jaspers.htm. Retrieved last December 16, 2007. 5 “Their (Kierkegaard’s and Nietzsche’s) earnestness and absoluteness overpower us as standards although we do not follow them in their content. That we owe something new to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche – the possibility of laying the deepest foundations – and yet that we do not follow them in their essential decisions, makes up the difficulty of our philosophical situation.” (Jaspers 1955: 129 – parenthetical notes were added). 6 Jaspers 1955: 130. 2

JOEL SAGUT (KARL JASPERS)

3

Jaspers has noted that the history of philosophy reveals the tension between the realm of the rational and that of its opposite, the non-rational. He cited as an example the highly rational articulation of the Greeks of ancient philosophy who are also at the same time confronted by the irrationality of Fate. Jaspers said that this tension has even gone further until the time of Christianity where the desire to rationalize the faith through theology is also accompanied by faith’s assent to mystery. Christianity has articulated the irrational especially in the language of Providence whereby a Christian openly accepts that there are things that are beyond his capacity and understanding but fall within the providence of God, and hence have to be accepted and obeyed. In other words, in man’s tendency to rationalize the environment, the reality of the non-rational also emerges at the same time. “All philosophizing which would like to dissolve Being into pure rationality retains in spite of itself the non-rational.”7 And further he says, “even in the most radical defiance of reason, there remains the minimum of rationality.” 8 The human person could never really escape his/her tendency to employ the use of reason as s/he confronts the world around him/her, as s/he wants to understand the reality that lies beyond him/her. Yet, at the same time also, it is a fact that the human person would also obviously fail to rationalize everything in his/her world. There would always be something that goes beyond one’s comprehension. The invitation of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche In the history of philosophy, Jaspers noted, there are two thinkers (Kierkegaard and Nietzsche) who have endeavored to establish the balance of reason and the non-rational. Jaspers said that the emergence of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche was also accompanied by a particular turn in the reality of the Western man: “a destruction of all authority, a radical disillusionment in an overconfident reason.”9 Hence, one striking character of the two is their doubt towards the so-called scientific men (the experts). Jaspers noted that “both suspect truth in the form of scientific knowledge.”10 The experts have the tendency to believe that everything in the world can be explained, and can be subjected to experiments and scientific investigation. The experts hold that the world is comprehensible. But Jaspers lament over the experts’ incapacity to experience the “maturity of that critical point where everything turns upside down.”11 What the experts, ironically, fail to understand is the fact that there are things that escape man’s absolute comprehension. However, despite their critique against reason, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are not also abrogating reason altogether. They too agree that to perceive Being happens only through interpretation and so Being comes to man also only through reason. But such interpretation cannot be total. It cannot be so comprehensive as if it can speak the entirety of Being. Whereas they believe that reason interprets the existence of man, they also posit that interpretation is continuous and even endless.12 For Jaspers, man confronts his existence and articulates it 7

Jaspers 1955: 20. Jaspers 1955: 20. 9 Jaspers 1955: 23. 10 Jaspers 1955: 25. 11 Jaspers 1955: 26. 12 Jaspers said, “The age of reflection has, since Fichte, been characterized as reasoning without restraint, as the dissolving of all authority, as the surrender of content which gives to thinking its measure, 8

JOEL SAGUT (KARL JASPERS)

4

through his use of reason. But the human person has to be made aware that the interpretation, even if it seems to be decisive, is but temporary and it can change anytime. With the finite nature of every interpretation, the philosopher is cautioned to be incessantly vigilant of his own existence because he knows that his articulation of it continues through time.13 The Need to Interpret through the exception Jaspers has noted that Kierkegaard and Nietzsche are not really the exemplars of their time. They are even sometimes ignored by their contemporaries. They too have not left a particular school of thought or a particular philosophical system. But they are studied even long after their deaths. They continue to haunt the minds even of the contemporary men. For Jaspers, these two, though they are the exceptions of their era because they dared to think differently, can serve as our inspirations in the way we do philosophy today.14 Philosophy has to cease from being a mere naming of concepts (from mere handing on or passing down of a philosopher’s doctrine (content) from one generation to the next). Philosophy has to transform into a real reflection (interpretation) of existence. A philosopher has to become constantly attentive to what Jaspers calls as the ciphers, as those which can point to the human person the possibilities for his/her future. The task of the philosopher is to confront the Encompassing, the Infinite possibilities, to which s/he could project herself/himself, and to begin a journey towards transcendence. With this kind of philosophizing, we must not forget to discern and decide for our purpose, for our direction, for our reasons. In journeying towards the unknown future, we must continue to ask: what else could come from here? Where would I like to proceed? What would I like to do? For us to become authentic philosophers, we have to constantly push ourselves in order to make decisions that can bring us beyond our boundaries. To philosophize is to journey toward the beyond. To philosophize is Existenz. Jaspers describes his lecture on Reason and Existenz as follows: “this lecture has no intention of surveying the whole, but rather of making the present situation perceptible by reflecting upon the past. No one knows where man and his thinking are going. Since existence, man, and his world are not at an end, a completed philosophy is as little possible as an anticipation of the whole.” 15 He further says, “the contemporary problem is not to be deduced from some a priori whole; rather it is to be brought to consciousness out of a basis which is now experienced and out of a content still unclearly willed.”16 In short, when Jaspers reflected about the possibilities of the contemporary way of doing philosophy, he was insistent on the philosopher’s attentiveness to his present. The present is purpose and meaning, so that from now on, without hindrance and as an indifferent play of the intellect, it can fill the world with noise and dust… reflection cannot exhaust or stop itself. It is faithless since it hinders every decision.” (Jaspers 1955: 31). 13 “Philosophy as thought is always a consciousness of Being which is complete for this moment, but which knows it has no final permanence in its form of expression.” (Jaspers 1955: 48). 14 Jaspers said, “through them, we have become aware that for us there is no longer any selfevident foundation. There is no longer any secure background for our thought.” (Jaspers 1955: 46). 15 Jaspers 1955: 48. 16 Jaspers 1955: 48. JOEL SAGUT (KARL JASPERS)

5

where man lives and creates his life. This is the non-rational part of philosophy: to be engaged, as it were, in what is happening at present. It is part of philosophizing to feel the agony of those who suffer, to rejoice with those who are in triumph, to fight the cause of the oppressed, to seek for justice for those who are marginalized, to experience the beauty of art and music, and I think, even to practice the faith of a believer. To philosophize, one has to be fully conscious of his present, of his situation, and of his context. However, Jaspers also realized that those who are so emphatic about the present also missed an important aspect of philosophizing. He admits that every mode of philosophizing could not totally dispense the use of reason. The present is so varied and enigmatic. Part of philosophizing is to create a whole, a unity, out of the multiplicity of the present. This is where reason plays its role. Reason however should not be conceived as mere objective thinking.17 Reason is one’s grasp of beings that bring out the latter’s existential significance. It is that which pushes the variety and multiplicity of Existenz towards a kind of unity, even if such unity can never really be achieved.18 Jaspers believes that philosophy has to be rooted in the selfhood of the human person. The philosopher perceives Being as the Encompassing, which is a horizon of infinite possibilities. When Jaspers was said to contend that philosophy is “primarily an activity in which people gain illumination into the nature of their existence and that content and doctrines are relatively unimportant,”19 he probably means that philosophizing is simply an articulation of humankind’s journey towards freedom and authenticity. The future of mankind surely depends on the kind of interpretation that we give to the ciphers of the Encompassing. Our future depends on the decisions that we presently assume as part of our own journey to Existenz. CONCLUSION How important then is philosophy in our time? This is a question that concerns not just philosophers but all of us. All of us do philosophy. We do it in every moment that we become Existenz. Philosophy is practiced in every act of choice, in every moment of decision. When humankind takes a leap from its old self to its new being, philosophy spells its significance. Philosophy is man’s basic and fundamental search for the truth. But such truth has now ceased to become propositional. Rather, philosophy reflects on the truth by confronting the person’s present existence, and discern for the proper things to be done. The human civilization is in a continuous journey. We could not but decide for the future of our race because the moment that we cease deciding for ourselves, we are also endangering the continuous existence of our race. In all these moments of decisions, how can we ignore the value of philosophy?

17

John K. Roth, ed., World Philosophers and their Works. (California: Salem Press, Inc., 2000),

18

Roth 2000: 951. Roth 2000: 945.

950. 19

JOEL SAGUT (KARL JASPERS)

6

Karl Jaspers insisted on Existenz philosophy because this is the kind of philosophizing that can properly guide humankind to its future. When our present generation is confronted with so many questions in the areas of morality, medicine, technology, and even human reproduction, philosophy is held responsible to remain true to its vocation. Philosophy would cease to become relevant if it fails to speak about these things. Then, who would ever say that the business of philosophers is passé? Philosophers would never run out of things to ponder upon. The business of philosophers will only be gone if the philosophers themselves would shrink back from their vocation to think. But as long as humanity continues to exist, and as long as there are people who continue to embrace the vocation “to meditate, reflect, or think,” then the business of philosophy is never done.

JOEL SAGUT (KARL JASPERS)

7