In a non-German-speaking environment is Jaspers sometimes mistakenly called as an existentialist. But Jaspers saw himself as a philosopher of existence, and he sharply criticized existentialism. This error arose because of confusion in the translations of the names Existenzphilosophie and Existentialismus from German into other languages. The difference between these terms was actively discussed immediately after Sartre’s lecture on humanism, in which Sartre, as he thought, announced a new direction in philosophy — existentialism (Existentialisme), to which he also included Jaspers (...) as a religious member of this direction. The purpose of paper is to investigate and analyze Jaspers’ criticism of existentialism and his rejection of it. Because long before Sart re’s lecture, Jaspers wrote about the false philosophical method of the investigation of human being as opposed to the true way — the elucidation of existence (Existenzerhellung), and also noted that he created a new word to denote this false method — existentialism (Existentialismus). While Jaspers understood the elucidation of existence as self-reflection and self-experience, which deepen in the experiences of boundary situations (Grenzsituationen), he considers existentialism as the knowledge of human being as a certain object among other objects. Already later — after Sartre’s lecture — Jaspers began to criticize existentialism as a direction that arose under the influence of the philosophy of existence and as its decline. Jaspers connected existentialism mainly with Sartre and outlined the main grounds of his criticism: existentialism is based on bare abstraction and Sartre’s main slogan — existence (of personality) precedes essence — is an evidence of this; existentialism uses a certain poetic vagueness of some statements, and is an attempt to overcome nihilism through nihilism itself; this philosophy denies the existence of any transcendent basis of human and world. For these reasons, Jaspers rejected existentialism, which is fundamentally different from the philosophy of existence. (shrink)

Der Titel dieses Aufsatzes mag zunächst befremden, gar als unsachliche Bösartigkeit aufgefaßt werden, doch „Vorurteil“ und „Wahn“ sind im Rahmen von Psychologie bzw. Sozialpsychologie und Psychopathologie definierte Begriffe. Untersucht man unter diesem Aspekt den mathematischen Grundlagenstreit in diesem Jahrhundert, der richtiger „logisch-mathematischer Grundlagenstreit“ zu nennen wäre, dann wird ein Argumentationsklima deutlich, das von Vorurteils- und Wahnstrukturen geprägt ist, das sich zu Ungungsten der empirisch orientierten Begründungsposition auswirkte. Sollte sich angesichts erneuter Stimmen für die empirische Position wieder eine Grundlagendiskussion entwickeln, wäre (...) das Argumentationsniveau zu verbessern. Hierzu gehört zunächst die Erwägung von Alternativen, besonders bezüglich möglicher Gegenstände von Logik und Mathematik. Weiterhin wären erkenntnistheoretische Konzepte zu entwickeln, die dem eigenständigen Charakter von „reiner“ Logik und Mathematik gerecht werden, aber dennoch empirische Begründung ermöglichen. (shrink)