scholarly journals Prophetischer oder marxistischer Sozialismus?

Discourse ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 25-44
Author(s):  
Max Scheler

German philosopher and sociologist Max Scheler (1874–1928) puts forward the concept of “prophetic Christian socialism” as a means of political and ideological opposition to Marxism. The concept expresses his religious-philosophical views, developed in earlier works, primarily in the main work “Formalism in Ethics and Material Ethics of Values”. Scheler compares his own views on socialism, understanding of history, the possibility of foreseeing historical processes with the views of these realities of K. Marx. Scheler's criticism of Marx's teachings is interspersed with the recognition of its partial correctness.

Discourse ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 5-24
Author(s):  
A. N. Malinkin

The article analyzes the conceptual foundations of “prophetic” socialism by Max Scheler (1874–1928). The main principles of a new political and ideological doctrine at that time, designed to become, according to the plan of its creator, an “antidote” to Marxism, are considered. The author analyzes Scheler's argumentation, directed, on the one hand, against socialism in the Marxist interpretation, and on the other, at proving the legitimacy of using the terms “Christian socialism” and “Christian prophetic socialism”. Scheler opposes socialism, first of all, to individualism, which he interprets in social and moral-philosophical senses, and only secondarily to liberalism and capitalism. Socialism and individualism, which now appear as antagonistic tendencies of sociocultural development, are for him two equally necessary and interrelated essential principles of the social being of a person, understood as a spiritual-bodily social being. Individualistic tendencies, according to Scheler, prevailed over socialist tendencies in the West in modern times, therefore socialism in its Marxist interpretation turned out to be so in demand in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But the destruction of private property is contrary to Christianity. “Forced communism” does not bring with it heaven on earth, but catastrophe and cultural degradation, he foreshadows. Based on the teachings of the Church Fathers and starting from the Catholic social doctrine, Scheler offers his vision of an ideal society in the form of a “personal community” (Personengemeinschaft), corresponding to the true destiny of a person. In it, the individual and social principles are in harmony and interdependent development. Scheler opposes the “prophetic” method of comprehending socio-historical reality, applied proceeding from the Christian solidarism ideal, to the materialistic understanding of history. He points to three advantages of his methodology: it takes into account human freedom, the uniqueness of a historical event, combines all types and methods of human cognition, without absolutizing the scientific form of knowledge. The author reveals the deep content of Scheler's definition of Marxism as “the protest ideology of oppressed classes”, drawing on the analysis of the “sociological doctrine of idols” of the late Scheler. In it, he reveals the pre-reflexive prerequisites for the formation of class ideologies. The author points to the essential kinship of the class prejudices about which the German philosopher wrote, and the national-mental prejudices of the political elites of the leading Western countries. In conclusion, he raises the question of how relevant the problems raised in Scheler's article are today in the context of modern Russian realities.


Author(s):  
Francis Dunlop

Max Scheler, usually called a phenomenologist, was probably the best known German philosopher of the 1920s. Always an eclectic thinker, he was a pupil of the neo-idealist Rudolph Eucken, but was also strongly influenced by the life-philosophies of Dilthey and Bergson. While teaching at Jena he regularly met Husserl, the founder of the phenomenological movement, and his mature writings have a strongly phenomenological, as well as a Catholic, stamp. Later he turned towards metaphysics and the philosophical problems raised by modern science. Scheler’s interests were very wide. He tried to do justice to all aspects of experience – ethical, religious, personal, social, scientific, historical – without doing away with the specific nature of each. Above all, he took the emotional foundations of thought seriously. Many of his insights are striking and profound, and sometimes his arguments are very telling, but his power to organize his material consistently and to attend conscientiously to the business of justification is poorly developed. Scheler is best known for his anti-Kantian ethics, based on an a priori emotional grasp of a hierarchy of objective values, which precedes all choice of goods and purposes. He himself describes his ethics as ‘personalist’, and makes personal values supreme, sharply distinguishing the ‘person’ from the ‘ego’, and linking this with his analysis of different types of social interaction. In epistemology he defends a pragmatist approach to science and perception; thus philosophy, as the intuition of essences, requires a preparatory ascetic discipline. His philosophy of religion is an attempt to marry the Augustinian approach through love with the Thomist approach through reason. In his later work, to which his important work on sympathy provides the transition, he defends a dualist philosophical anthropology and metaphysics, interpreting the latter in activist terms as a resolution of the tensions between spiritual love and vital impulse.


Author(s):  
Vitalii Bryzhnik

Max Sheler published his work "University and Public's University" in 1921 in Germany during the period of the history when this state  was in a state of social crisis. Having suffered a deep defeat in World War I, Germany gained serious economic, financial and domestic political problems. But the main problem for the then Germany was the crisis of social morality of the German people which had lost the traditional factors of their social integration and solidarity. Max Scheler postulated reformed higher education, that would be able  to have positive  influence upon the German society, primarily because of its educational influence on representatives of working youth, as a cultural alternative to those fallen factors. According to Max Scheler the reforming of higher education, as constructing a "public's university", had to be carried out primarily through the renewal of the leadership of educational institutions and through the involvement of new young teachers into the educational process whose main work was upbringing of students through the provision of appropriate knowledge. This knowledge must consist in such a way to combine humanitarian and professional disciplines, which will result in the formation of a young worker as an active participant of the development of the post-war German society as democratic one and it will make impossible for any ideology to influence its conscious life. Max Scheler called the personal spirit of a man to be the internal factor that determines his or her pedagogical and educational activities. Those educators who understand the presence of a personal spirit in them will carry out their pedagogical activities, focusing on the idea of spiritual national unity. The result of such pedagogical activities will be the constant constructing of the civil society by a new personality, who was brought up within out-ideological education. 


2020 ◽  
Vol 82 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 136-153
Author(s):  
Kenneth Berg

It is often thought that the mark of the moral is unselfishness. It is also often said that Jesus preached an ideal of unselfishness so high as to be unfulfillable. The German philosopher Max Scheler disagreed on both counts. The idea that to be moral is to be unselfish is a modern idea, he says. It evolved with the idea that human beings are naturally selfish. Both ideas are wrong: unselfishness is not the essence of goodness, nor are human beings selfish by nature. This article discusses his arguments. It also briefly discusses the ideas of K.E. Løgstrup, who first introduced Scheler’s thought in Denmark. It is argued that Løgstrup’s thinking reflects that of Scheler, except that Løgstrup continued to revere the so-called “ethical demand” beyond what would be warranted in an ethical system like Scheler’s.


Problemos ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 159-166
Author(s):  
Heiner F. Klemme

Straipsnyje aptariamos vokiečių filosofo J. H. Abichto (1762–1816), Kanto sekëjo, dirbusio Vilniaus universitete, pagrindinio veikalo „Neues System eines aus der Menschheit entwickelten Naturrechts“ idėjos.Reikšminiai žodžiai: J. H. Abichtas, Kantas, Chr. Wolffas, asmuo, teisė. THE GOALS AND RIGHTS OF HUMANKIND IN THE WORK OF J. H. ABICHT ON NATURE LAWHeiner F. Klemme Summary  The article discusses the ideas of German philosopher J. H. Abicht (1762–1816), who was Kant’s follower and worked at Vilnius university, as exposed in his main work „Neues System eines aus der Menschheit entwickelten Naturrechts“.


Author(s):  
John Cutting

This article discusses the philosophy of Max Scheler (1974–1928), a German philosopher known for his work in phenomenology, psychopathology, sociology, psychology, ethics, and philosophical anthropology. After a brief biographical sketch, the article focuses on Scheler’s philosophical trajectory, beginning with his undergraduate and postgraduate theses on some of the various realms of knowledge such as ethics, logic, psychology, and the transcendental approach of Immanuel Kant, and how he was influenced by Edmund Husserl’s phenomenological philosophy. It then examines Scheler’s two important treatises on the phenomenology of emotion and value: Zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Sympathiegefühl und vom Liebe und Hass (On the Phenomenology and Theory of the Feeling of Sympathy and of Love and Hate) and Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik (Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values). Scheler’s works on philosophical anthropology, metaphysics, knowledge, and the realms of existence are also considered.


2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Holger Funk

In the history of botany, Adam Zalužanský (d. 1613), a Bohemian physician, apothecary, botanist and professor at the University of Prague, is a little-known personality. Linnaeus's first biographers, for example, only knew Zalužanský from hearsay and suspected he was a native of Poland. This ignorance still pervades botanical history. Zalužanský is mentioned only peripherally or not at all. As late as the nineteenth century, a researcher would be unaware that Zalužanský’s main work Methodi herbariae libri tres actually existed in two editions from two different publishers (1592, Prague; 1604, Frankfurt). This paper introduces the life and work of Zalužanský. Special attention is paid to the chapter “De sexu plantarum” of Zalužanský’s Methodus, in which, more than one hundred years before the well-known De sexu plantarum epistola of R. J. Camerarius, the sexuality of plants is suggested. Additionally, for the first time, an English translation of Zalužanský’s chapter on plant sexuality is provided.


Author(s):  
Vanessa Lemm

Readers of Giorgio Agamben would agree that the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) is not one of his primary interlocutors. As such, Agamben’s engagement with Nietzsche is different from the French reception of Nietzsche’s philosophy in Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze and Georges Bataille, as well as in his contemporary Italian colleague Roberto Esposito, for whom Nietzsche’s philosophy is a key point of reference in their thinking of politics beyond sovereignty. Agamben’s stance towards the thought of Nietzsche may seem ambiguous to some readers, in particular with regard to his shifting position on Nietzsche’s much-debated vision of the eternal recurrence of the same.


Author(s):  
Johann P. Arnason

Different understandings of European integration, its background and present problems are represented in this book, but they share an emphasis on historical processes, geopolitical dynamics and regional diversity. The introduction surveys approaches to the question of European continuities and discontinuities, before going on to an overview of chapters. The following three contributions deal with long-term perspectives, including the question of Europe as a civilisational entity, the civilisational crisis of the twentieth century, marked by wars and totalitarian regimes, and a comparison of the European Union with the Habsburg Empire, with particular emphasis on similar crisis symptoms. The next three chapters discuss various aspects and contexts of the present crisis. Reflections on the Brexit controversy throw light on a longer history of intra-Union rivalry, enduring disputes and changing external conditions. An analysis of efforts to strengthen the EU’s legal and constitutional framework, and of resistances to them, highlights the unfinished agenda of integration. A closer look at the much-disputed Islamic presence in Europe suggests that an interdependent radicalization of Islamism and the European extreme right is a major factor in current political developments. Three concluding chapters adopt specific regional perspectives. Central and Eastern European countries, especially Poland, are following a path that leads to conflicts with dominant orientations of the EU, but this also raises questions about Europe’s future. The record of Scandinavian policies in relation to Europe exemplifies more general problems faced by peripheral regions. Finally, growing dissonances and divergences within the EU may strengthen the case for Eurasian perspectives.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document