Karl Jaspers Quotes

In his finitude each individual begins anew. For his maturing he depends upon authority in order to appropriate the content that can be handed on by tradition. As he grows up within authority, the arena in which he everywhere encounters being opens up to him. If he grows up without authority, he will indeed come to possess knowledge, he will master speaking and thinking, but he will remain at the mercy of the empty possibilities of the realm where Nothingness stares him in the face.

Dieser Philosoph ist unabhängig: erstens, weil er bedürfnislos ist, frei von der Welt der Güter und von der Herrschaft der Triebe, er lebt asketisch; zweitens, weil er ohne Angst ist, denn er hat die Schreckbilder der Religionen in ihrer Unwahrheit durchschaut; drittens, weil er unbeteiligt an Staat und Politik ist, in der Verborgenheit in Ruhe lebt, ohne Bindungen, als Weltbürger. — -
This philosopher is independent, first because he is without needs, free from the world of possessions and the rule of passions, he is an ascetic; second, because he is without fear, for he has seen through the illusory terrors of the religions; third, because he takes no part in government and politics and lives without ties, in peaceful retirement, a citizen of the world. — -
Triết gia độc lập: thứ nhất vì họ không có nhu cầu, vì họ đã thoát ly được những của cải vật chất, và áp lực của thú năng, họ sống một đời khổ hạnh. Thứ hai, họ gan dạ anh hùng vì họ đã lột mặt nạ những kẻ giả mạo của thần thoại, mà các tôn giáo đã dựa vào để gieo rắc sự sợ sệt vào lòng người. Thứ ba, họ sống an nhàn ở một nơi riêng biệt không dính dáng tới một sự vật nào cả và chỉ sống như một công dân của thế giới.

For one wishing to philosophize, it is of particular, indeed of crucial importance to ascertain the difference between the object cognition that is achieved in the sciences and the transcending thought that characterizes philosophy......which transcend[s] the limits of the knowable and of the world as a whole, so that through these limits we become aware of the phenomenality of empirical existence and hence of the Comprehensive nature of being, thus entering into the area of faith.

There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant. If I do not do whatever I can to prevent them, I am an accomplice in them. If I have not risked my life in order to prevent the murder of other men, if I have stood silent, I feel guilty in a sense that cannot in any adequate fashion be understood juridically, or politically, or morally ... That I am still alive after such things have been done weighs on me as a guilt that cannot be expiated.
Somewhere in the heart of human relations an absolute command imposes itself: In case of criminal attack or of living conditions that threaten physical being, accept life only for all together, otherwise not at all.

felsefe; yolda olmak demektir.

A filozófus nem használhatja fel a maga nem-tudását arra, hogy megkerüljön minden válaszadást. Nagyon óvatosnak kell lennie filozofálás közben, s folyton ismételgetnie kell: nem tudom. Azt sem tudom, hogy hiszek-e. Mindazonáltal egy olyan hit, amely ilyen tételekben kerül kifejezésre, a szememben jelentősnek tűnik. Megpróbálok hinni benne. S remélem, meglesz hozzá a kitartásom, hogy e hitem szerint éljek.

Then the exception would be as if he did not exist at all.

Thus those who are deluded into supposing that they possess being as such often endeavour to make man forget himself. Man is dissolved in fictions of being and yet these fictions themselves always conceal a possible road back to man; hidden dissatisfaction may lead to the recovery of the authentic seriousness which becomes real only in existential presence and casts off the ruinous attitude of those who take life as it is and do what they please.

For one wishing to philosophize, it is particular, indeed of crucial importance to ascertain the difference between the object cognition that is achieved in the sciences and the transcending thought that characterizes philosophy......which transcend[s] the limits of the knowable and of the world as a whole, so that through these limits we become aware of the phenomenality of empirical existence and hence of the Comprehensive nature of being, thus entering into the area of faith.

We are more than all our knowledge. What we know confronts an infinitely encompassing unknown. The world is a mystery, and each of us is a mystery to himself.

This I know: in my freedom I am not through myself, but am given to myself, for I can fail myself and I cannot force my freedom. Where I am authentically myself, I am certain that I am not through myself. The highest freedom is experienced in freedom from the world, and this freedom is a profound bond with transcendence.

In time, this consciousness of risk remains the condition for increasing freedom. It excludes complete reliance on subjective certainty, forbids the generalization of the subjective commandment into a universal law, and bars fanaticism. Even in the certainty of the resolve, there must, in so far as it is translated into practical action, remain a certain margin of indetermination. There can be no subjective security. The pride of the absolute truth destroys in truththe world.

A critical approach to science calls for the abandonment of world systems, which is also a prerequisite to any philosophical apperception of being. True, the philosophical quest of being demands a familiarity with every branch of scientific inquiry. But it seems to be the hidden aim of science to attain through inquiry to a limit at which the area of nonknowledge is opened to the most lucid knowledge. For only fulfilled knowledge can lead to authentic nonknowledge. Then authentic being is revealed not in any world system built on knowledge but in fulfilled nonknowledge, which can be achieved only through scientific cognition, not without it and not before it. It is the supreme striving of knowledge to reach the point where cognition fails.

In time, this consciousness of risk remains the condition for increasing freedom. It excludes complete reliance on subjective certainty, forbids the generalization of the subjective commandment into a universal law, and bars fanaticism. Even in the certainty of the resolve, there must, in so far as it is translated into practical action, remain a certain margin of indetermination. There can be no subjective security. The pride of the absolute truth destroys in truth in the world.

The dissatisfaction with every particular mode of communication (c) leads to a will to total c, a will which can only be one and which is the authentically driving and binding force in all the modes of c.
But this will to communicate, which actualizes itself out of potential Existenz through reason in the three modes of encompassing, itself does not reach fulfillment. For it is continuously bound within the three modes and ,also, aroused and moved, yet it is, so to speak muddied in its mode. And finally, it finds itself limited through its own , as well as others' historicity. This historicity both brings communication in its depths before the multiplicity of truth and also lets it wrecked.
[***] It follows thirdly that ,if truth in communication can never be definitively won and established- truth like communication seeing itself, so to speak, disappear before Transcendence, change before Being- nevertheless, its resolute actualization brings forth also the deepest opennes fro Transcendence. Truth as Communicability from Reason and Existenz, Karl Jaspers