yorick’s yearnings

Josef Rattner / Gerhard Danzer: Existenzphilosophie. Denkmode oder bleibende Aktualität?, Königshausen & Neumann, Würzburg 2008

Existence philosophy turned out to be the most influential topic last century’s philosophy. Thinkers like Heidegger have been discussed continuously and widely, their influences extend deep into popular discourse and affect fields far beyond sociology, ethics, or theology. It could be argued that existence philosophy represents a habitus or feeling that, at times, spread through most of European middle (and upper) classes. It’s topics contain more than the usual quest for the “happy life” or an acceptable ethics; instead, existence philosophy deals with “existencial problems” like the question of “God” (and consequently: morality as such) or “Being” as a whole, thus trying to answer a deep rooted insecurity within European intelligentsia that perhaps has been most vibrant between 1850 and 1950.

Seen in this context, Rattner’s resp. Danzer’s extremely well and understandably written monograph adresses a very important question while asking whether existence philosophy might be jut a passing fancy or not, still having actuality for our times. The basic question would be: does existence philosophy ask relevant questions that are not only connected to a (mode of) Being conditioned by its times? Are the times that formed existence philosophy’s ideas still relevant for our understanding of the world, of society, or ourselves? We like to see historic developments everywhere, and especially the 20th century has been a very, a fundamentally eventful time period. It would be easy to argue from a Christian or Hegelian point of view that with the rise and the stabilization of a democratic and pluralistic society and the expansion of a new, democratic, capitalist, in short: “western” ethics and values the past becomes irrelevant to us – indeed, formulations related to an “end of history” come to mind.

Not only the current financial and cultural crisis make this approach very questionable. It would be a grotesque exaggeration that Western values can be defined in a clear manner – it’s background is far beyond our experience. The imprint of Christianity on the society has waned for centuries, humanist ideals have thoroughly been questioned by philosophic tradition and the belief in a continuous development of mankind has been shattered by the European wars, the shoah and continuing ethnic “cleansings” all over the world. While it seemed for some time – especially during the Cold War – that a certain European or even Western consensus, some form of common identity could be reached, today, these hopes are severely dashed by particularists, nationalists and populists all over Europe and the Western world – not to speak of other regions.

Unfortunately, the question whether the answers of existence philosophy are acceptable and could provide some common ground remains unanswered as well in Rattners book. In fact, despite its title, these questions are neither asked nor discussed. The definitions of the conditio humana given by existence philosophy remains untackled, its quest for a modern ethics and identity unanswered. The reason lies not so much in the fact that the authors do not provide a fresh, critical opinion on the authors (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Jaspers, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Camus, and Löwith) they discuss. On the contrary, their personal comments are always compassionate, understanding and thoughtful, although – especially in the case of Heidegger, who is seen as a prominent, but paltry, provincial thinker and racketeer opportunist – not always doing complete justice to the discussed subject. The problem lies elsewhere. The authors have obviously failed to decide on the kind of book they wanted to write – a thorough discussion of the matter, as suggested by approach and title or a short introduction that is very limited in space and profundity. The result is a very readable introduction that has nice ideas and the occasional refreshing and thoughtful remark but contains nothing fundamentally new and is highly questionable even from the outset: Why were these thinkers chosen, especially if Löwith is seen as “less independent thinker” (p. 207) – or de Beauvoir, who is less a philosopher than an essayist, auto-biographer, novelist and scientist, as the authors themselves formulate it (p. 157)? Why not include Scheler, Plessner, Rosenzweig or others? Another severe problem of the book lies in space. While it is – especially regarding its undeniable introductory character – very pleasing to see the authors placed in a context of biographical introdution and a short discussion of their works, there hardly is to be found a  general conclusion that is worth reading. If there is one at all, it often does not exceed more than a few lines (in the case of Heidegger it is a meagre page, in the cases of Camus and Löwith it is missing completely). The bibliography of the book comprises of three pages – which is, again, somewhat pathetic regarding the fact that the books deals with eight major figures of existence philosophy – for a mere introduction, however, it might barely suffice.

…Er geht vor mir. Ich kann ihn immer sehn
und bin doch bange, ihn zu überholen.
Von seinen Schritten biegen sich die Bohlen,
und seine Schultern schließen die Alleen.

Er weiß den Weg, als wär das Land sein Eigen;
die Kreuzwegpfähle mit den langen Händen
scheinen sich von den Orten fortzuwenden
und heimlich hinter ihm auf ihn zu zeigen…

(Rainer Maria Rilke, Vom Tode – Worpsweder Skizzen II)

A une passante

La rue assourdissante autour de moi hurlait.
Longue, mince, en grand deuil, douleur majestueuse,
Une femme passa, d’une main fastueuse
Soulevant, balançant le feston et l’ourlet ;

Agile et noble, avec sa jambe de statue.
Moi, je buvais, crispé comme un extravagant,
Dans son oeil, ciel livide où germe l’ouragan,
La douceur qui fascine et le plaisir qui tue.

Un éclair… puis la nuit ! – Fugitive beauté
Dont le regard m’a fait soudainement renaître,
Ne te verrai-je plus que dans l’éternité ?

Ailleurs, bien loin d’ici ! trop tard ! jamais peut-être !
Car j’ignore où tu fuis, tu ne sais où je vais,
Ô toi que j’eusse aimée, ô toi qui le savais !

the perfect start-up for a culture-themed blog, especially as this guideline can be easily extended to all other areas: arts, music…