While Schelling’s anticipation of Freudian psychoanalysis is well established, it has thus far gone unnoticed that Schelling’s ideas also proved fruitful in the context of a distinctively philosophical theory of the psyche developed by a younger contemporary of Freud. During the 1920s Helmuth Plessner, a key figure of philosophical anthropology, outlined a complex conception of the psyche as an individualized, inner region of reality. Although Plessner did not present his philosophical psychology in a systematic form, its building blocks can (...) be found in The Unity of the Senses, The Limits of Community, and Levels of Organic Life and the Human, among other writings. Moreover, Plessner left a clue as to how these building blocks fit together, which suggests that Plessner viewed his philosophical psychology as structurally analogous to the model of personality outlined in Schelling’s 1809 treatise on human freedom. I propose that Plessner sought to formulate an alternative to both idealism and realism about the psyche that might reconcile the insights motivating these rival positions. Schelling provided Plessner with a workable model for such a reconciliation. After reviewing textual evidence for my hypothesis, I sketch Schelling’s predecessor theory. Based on the Schellingian template, I then reconstruct Plessner’s non-reductively naturalistic theory of the psyche, which aligns the real bodily ground of the psyche with its ideal existence. Highlighting the strengths of Plessner’s philosophical psychology against the foil of Paul Ricoeur’s and John McDowell’s relevant arguments, I argue that the theory reconstructed here deserves contemporary consideration as a plausible contender. –––– NOTE: It was only after publication of this article that I came across an important piece of biographical evidence in support of my claim about the significance of Schelling's Freiheitsschrift for Plessner's philosophical psychology. In 1923, Max Scheler claimed to be powerfully impressed by two of his recent readings, namely, Adolf von Harnack’s major study on the second-century Christian heretic Marcion and Schelling’s Freiheitsschrift (Peter Wust, “Schelers Lehre vom Menschen,” Das Neue Reich 9 [1928–29], 138, quoted in Guido Cusinato, “Schelling come precursore dell’antropologia filosofica del Novecento,” Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, 9/2 [2010], 64.). Given that Scheler and Plessner were in constant intense exchange during the relevant period, it seems likely that Plessner’s invocation of Marcion in the concluding passage of Levels of Organic Life and the Human reflects a familiarity with that author that was mediated by Scheler’s reading of Harnack. By the same token, Scheler’s praise for Schelling’s Freiheitsschrift in 1923, along with the textual indications noted in my paper, suggests that the Freiheitsschrift was very much present on Plessner's intellectual horizon when he referred to “the ur-ground character, or better said un-ground character of the psyche” in The Limits of Community, which was published a year later. (Whether it was Scheler who alerted Plessner to the Freiheitsschrift or the other way around is a moot question.). (shrink)

This paper aims to explore the theme of art in Helmuth Plessner’s philosophical anthropology and show the possibilities of its use in the analysis of artistic creation and artwork. The article is divided into three parts: in the first part, it presents the background of Plessner’s anthropological project and the intersection of his philosophy with Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology. This strategy enables the synergy of both approaches which can be used for reflection of art. The second part displays the scope (...) and ingenuity of Plessner’s approach through a selection of texts where he addresses art. And finally, the third part delves into a functional elaboration of the anthropology of an artwork, specifically, using Max Beckmann as an example, into the question of anthropological foundations in art making, and the question of new form in art. For the latter question, I use the approach to architecture as an example relying on corporeality and Umwelt as guiding concepts. This analysis provides, on the one hand, description of anthropologically significant phenomena of artistic production of the first half of the twentieth century, and on the other hand, reveals functional determinations of corporeality, the world, and resonance with the world, the so-called equilibrium, which can be used to understand the artwork, and artistic production in the creation of a new form in art. Keywords: philosophical anthropology, phenomenology, Helmuth Plessner, Edmund Husserl, Max Beckmann, corporeality, Umwelt, resonance, new form. (shrink)

Plessner, Helmuth, The Limits of Community: A Critique of Social Radicalism (reviewed by Steven Grosby).

Einleitung Im Vorwort zur zweiten Auflage der Stufen des Organischen schreibt Helmuth Plessner über das Verhältnis zwischen der Phänomenologie und seiner Philosophischen Anthropologie: « Man wird Verständnis dafür haben, daß ich das Vorwort zur Neuauflage nicht durch Auseinandersetzungen mit Lehrmeinungen beschwere, die zu diesem Buch keine Beziehung haben. Bei Sartre, vor allem in seinen frühen Arbeiten, und bei Merleau-Ponty finden sich manchmal überraschende Übereinstimmungen mit meinen Formulier­ungen, so daß nicht nur ich mich gefragt habe, ob sie nicht vielleicht doch (...) die Stufen kannten. Aber das gleiche ist mir auch bei Hegel passiert, auf den ich mich hätte berufen müssen, wären mir damals die entsprechenden Stellen bekannt gewesen. Konvergenzen beruhen nicht immer auf Einfluß. Es wird in der Welt mehr gedacht, als man denkt. » 1 Doch nicht nur kannte Plessner, als er die Stufen verfasste, die von ihm selbst angesprochenen Hegel-Stellen nicht, sondern es war ihm auch ein beträchtlicher Teil von Husserls Beiträgen zur Intersubjektivitätsthematik, z.B. die V. Cartesianische Medita­tion , unzugänglich. 2 Aufgabe dieses Aufsatzes ist es, einige nicht auf direktem Einfluss beruhende, aber doch Konvergenzen aufweisende Aspekte der Husserlschen und auf Husserl zurückgehenden Phänomenologie einerseits und der Plessnerschen Position andererseits darzustellen. Im Zentrum der Überlegungen steht neben den Stufen ein zweites Hauptwerk. (shrink)

The essay contains an analysis of selected socio-political ideas of Helmuth Plessner. The basic assumption of this study is the existence of a close categorial relationship between Plessner’s reflections in The Limits of Community (1924) and in Die Stufen des Organischen (1928). As the interpretative key, the author uses one of the pivotal concepts of Plessner’s philosophy of life, namely the category of “border.” Showing the adequacy of this category in relation to Plessner’s social and political concepts, the essay (...) addresses the issue of the individual-society relationship, the question of social roles and their possible deviations, and the problem of political leadership. (shrink)

The author goes out from Helmuth Plessner’s book Die Grenzen der Gemeinschaft to show how the basic categories of Plessner’s philosophical anthropology, especially the eccentric position conception, apply to his critique of community-oriented societies like communism and fascism. Plessner saw the alternative to a community-based society in a model where social bonds took place by association, and in which the anthropological a priori enjoyed the optimum conditions for self-expression. This social model also allows the full establishment of social roles (...) in the anthropological sense, something that is annihilated by community-type societies. The author also addresses the different ways in which the “social role” category is interpreted by Plessner and Ralf Dahrendorf, and concludes with a few concrete and methodologically grounded objections to Plessner’s theory. (shrink)

Mit dieser Edition wird erstmals ein Vorlesungszyklus aus Helmuth Plessners wissenschaftlichem Nachlaß der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht. Das klar und übersichtlich gegliederte Kolleg "Elemente der Metaphysik" präsentiert in leicht verständlicher Sprache und gut nachvollziehbarer Gedankenentfaltung die Grundzüge von Plessners Anthropologie, die dieser in seinem nur schwer rezipierbaren Hauptwerk, den "Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch" von 1928, entwickelt hatte, und stellt sie in einen umfassenden philosophischen Kontext. Die Vorlesung umfaßt drei Hauptteile: Im 1. Teil, der "Metaphysik des Bewußtseins", zeigt Plessner, (...) daß der klassische bewußtseinsphilosophische Ansatz zur Beantwortung zentraler metaphysischer Probleme nicht in der Lage ist. Die entscheidende Frage nach dem Sein des Bewußtseins ist – wie Plessner nachweist – im Rahmen der Bewußtseinsproblematik, wie sie von der neuzeitlichen Philosophie seit Descartes entfaltet wurde, nicht zu beantworten. Die Bewußtseinsphilosophie muß daher – so Plessners Grundthese – durch einen lebensphilosophischen Ansatz überwunden werden. Dieser Übergang zur Problematik des Lebens und die breite Ausführung des neuen philosophischen Zugriffs steht im Mittelpunkt des 2. Teils. Plessner unternimmt hier vor allem den Versuch, das Wesen des Lebens durch das Verhältnis des Körpers zu seiner Grenze zu bestimmen und hält fest, daß solche Körper, die ihre Grenzen realisiert haben, "Positionaliät" besitzen. Dieser Begriff der Positionalität wird zum Zentralbegriff von Plessners Biophilosophie, die im Fortgang dieses Teils der Vorlesung ausführlich dargestellt wird. Im Zentrum der Darlegung, die Plessner im engen, kritischen Kontakt mit der biologischen Forschung hält, steht u.a. die Beziehung von Organismus und Umwelt, die Organisationsformen des Lebens, die Struktur der tierischen Umwelt, die Bestimmung des Bewußtseins, das Verhältnis von Bewußtsein und körperlichem Sein und das Problem des Gedächtnisses. Im abschließenden 3. Teil skizziert Plessner die Grundzüge seiner philosophischen Anthropologie, wobei er den Menschen als dasjenige Lebewesen bestimmt, das – in Abhebung vom Tier, dem eine zentrische Organisationsform zukommt – eine "exzentrische Positionalität" besitzt, und das in einem dreifachen Bezug zur Außenwelt, zur Innenwelt und zur Mitwelt steht. Die besondere Bedeutung dieser Vorlesung liegt einerseits in ihrem Charakter als leicht nachvollziehbare Hinführung zu Plessners Philosophie des Lebendigen. Andererseits enthält sie neue Inhalte – insbesondere im 1. und 2. Teil – und trägt dadurch zur Erweiterung unserer Kenntnis von Plessners Philosophie bei. (shrink)

Zeitgleich mit Cassirers erstem Band der „Philosophie der symbolischen Formen“ erscheint mit der „Einheit der Sinne. Grundlinien einer Ästhesiologie des Geistes“ das frühe, weithin unbemerkt gebliebene Hauptwerk Helmuth Plessners. Um Plessners schwieriges Werk in seiner Originalität und darin in seiner Aktualität sichtbar zu machen, werden beide Werke als kulturphilosophische ‚Parallelaktion‘ rekonstruiert, der es darum geht, systematisch die Spannweite der menschlichen Symbolwelten zwischen Mythos bzw. Kunst auf der einen, Wissenschaft auf der anderen Seite zu erschließen.

The article takes Helmuth Plessner’s Political Anthropology from 1931 as a postfoundationalist theory of society avant la lettre - which is very similar to the later works of Claude Lefort, Ernesto Laclau, and Chantal Mouffe. Or, the article takes Plessner’s essay as an ‘ontology’ of the Political. After introducing remarks on the historical debates, in which Plessner aimed to intervene, his theory of the Political is reconstructed, within the three categories of ‘unfathomability’, of the constitutive outside, and of the (...) vulnerability of the human body. In a third and last step, Plessner’s most central and most problematic category for the Political - the ‘popular existence’ - is discussed: The ‘people’ is made visible as being a key notion of postfoundational theories of modern democracy, for it is - beneath the ‘Individual’ - one of the imaginary foundations, one of the foundational outsides of a democratically instituted collective. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Internationales Jahrbuch für philosophische Anthropologie Jahrgang: 5 Heft: 1 Seiten: 219-236.

Axel Honneth and Hans Joas claim that Helmuth Plessner’s philosophical anthropology is problematically ‘solipsistic’ insofar as it fails to appreciate the ways in which human persons or selves are brought into being and given their characteristic powers of reflection and action by social processes. Here I review the main argument of Plessner’s Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch: Einleitung in die philosophische Anthropologie with this criticism in mind, giving special attention to Plessner’s accounts of organic being, personhood, language, (...) sociality, and historicity in that text. I argue that Honneth and Joas’s criticisms understate the extent to which Plessner takes sociality to be a constitutive condition of human forms of life within the structure he calls ‘ex-centric positionality’. This reading of Plessner also provides resources for answering a more common criticism of his philosophical anthropology – namely, that it is problematically ‘essentialist’, paying insufficient heed t.. (shrink)

The essay reviews references to Immanuel Kant’s transcendental philosophy in the work of Helmuth Plessner. First discussed is the Krisis der transzendentalen Wahrheit im Anfang, in which Plessner effects a critique of the transcendental method and shows that overcoming its crisis requires philosophy to rigorously restrict the applicability of theory to the experimental sphere and put it up for judgment by the tribunal of practical reason. Next under scrutiny is Plessner’s programmatic text in philosophical anthropology, in which he strives (...) to employ Kant’s deductive method for the construction of his own system of organic forms. (shrink)

Die moderne Philosophie hat seit Descartes und Kant und vollends seit dem Ausgang des 19. Jahrhunderts ihre Grundlegung in der Subjekttheorie gesucht. Unter Verdrängung von Metaphysik und Ontologie hat bevorzugt die Anthropologie den Platz der "ersten Philosophie" eingenommen. Hans Heinz Holz möchte demgegenüber die Anthropologie in den Rahmen einer allgemeinen Ontologie und Naturphilosophie zurückführen. Er greift dabei Ansätze auf, die sich aus dem Werk Helmuth Plessners ergeben, und die er im Sinne einer Dialektik der Natur weiterentwickelt.

Die moderne Philosophie hat seit Descartes und Kant und vollends seit dem Ausgang des 19. Jahrhunderts ihre Grundlegung in der Subjekttheorie gesucht. Unter Verdrängung von Metaphysik und Ontologie hat bevorzugt die Anthropologie den Platz der "ersten Philosophie" eingenommen. Hans Heinz Holz möchte demgegenüber die Anthropologie in den Rahmen einer allgemeinen Ontologie und Naturphilosophie zurückführen. Er greift dabei Ansätze auf, die sich aus dem Werk Helmuth Plessners ergeben, und die er im Sinne einer Dialektik der Natur weiterentwickelt.

Though Helmuth Plessner (1892-1985) elaborated his philosophical anthropology independently of the classical pragmatisms, there are many parallels with them. He combined a phenomenology of living beings (a parallel with William James) with a semiotic reconstruction (a parallel with Charles Sanders Peirce) of what we are already using whenever we specify living beings, among them ourselves as human living beings in nature, culture, and society. In Plessner’s distinction between having a body (Körperhaben) and being (or living) a body (Leibsein), there (...) is a parallel with George Herbert Mead’s “Me” (taking over the perspective of others) and “I” (spontaneous actions/reactions of an organism in a situation). Dewey and Plessner elaborated a public procedure for overcoming the old dualism of matter and idea in a process of learning better habits. Their historical conceptions of communication involve the primacy of interactions on three levels (discursive, conscious, pre-conscious living). Facing the plasticity of human conduct, both approaches open the door to a pluralistic self-understanding that includes value-conflicts and that therefore needs civilized forms to solve such conflicts. With regard to the limits of human conduct, Plessner proposed a phenomenology (of laughing and crying) that seems to have no equivalent in pragmatism. (shrink)

This dissertation critically examines Helmuth Plessner's philosophically ambitious explanation of laughter presented in his Laughing and Crying: A Study of the Limits of Human Behavior. The aim of this dissertation is to demonstrate that Plessner's philosophical anthropology makes a distinctive contribution to our knowledge of the human capacity to laugh and, in the process, to our knowledge of human nature. This dissertation is accordingly addressed not only to philosophers interested in the question of human nature, but to physiologists, psychologists, (...) sociologists, and all other scientists interested in explaining laughter. ;Plessner, who lived from 1892 to 1985, was one of the founders and foremost representatives of the twentieth-century movement of thought known as philosophical anthropology, which he characterizes as "the systematic discussion of questions of the structure of human nature." Against Cartesian dualism, Plessner undertakes to investigate "how the psychological is clasped together with the physical." The project of Laughing and Crying , first published in German in 1940 and translated into English in 1970, is to investigate the conditions of possibility of these two forms of expression "in the basic figure of human existence under the spell of the body." ;Plessner's thesis in Laughing and Crying is that these two forms of expression outstandingly disclose "the secret composition of human nature," which in turn "constitutes the basis of laughing and crying." This dissertation is restricted to laughter in order to facilitate the exposition of this "secret composition," which Plessner names our "eccentric positionality." Chapter 1 establishes a role for philosophical reflection on the phenomenon of laughter in the light of physiological, psychological, and sociological findings. Chapter 2 discusses some of Plessner's earlier writings insofar as they form the background of and thus illuminate his approach to laughter. Chapter 3 examines and elaborates upon the development and details of Plessner's argument in Laughing and Crying. Chapter 4 assesses a criticism of Plessner's argument as "behaviorist." After locating Laughing and Crying within Plessner's corpus and Plessner's corpus within the movement of philosophical anthropology in his day, the conclusion addresses the question of the ongoing significance of this discipline of thought. (shrink)

“Philosophical Anthropology,” which is reconstructed here, does not deal with anthropology as a philosophical subdiscipline but rather as a particular philosophical approach within twentieth-century German philosophy, connected with thinkers such as Max Scheler, Helmuth Plessner and Arnold Gehlen. This paper attempts a more precise description of the core identity of Philosophical Anthropology as a paradigm, observes the differences between the authors within the paradigm, and differentiates the paradigm as a whole from other twentieth-century philosophical approaches, such as transcendental philosophy, (...) evolutionary theory or naturalism, existentialism, and hermeneutic philosophy. In determining the human being as “excentric positionality,” Philosophical Anthropology arrives at unique categorical intertwinings between the biological, social and cultural sciences. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to reconsider the relationship between living body and artefacts in the perspective of Helmuth Plessner’s aesthesiology. According to the outcomes of Plessner’s aesthesiology, I present two main theses: 1) artefacts are not created, but rather discovered and expressed by human agency, and 2) the bodily dimension of the human being is the condition of the “discovery” of material and symbolic artefacts. To argue these theses I highlight a) the process of “somatisation” that engages (...) the Kantian transcendental model of subject in Plessner’s philosophical anthropology, b) Plessner’s rejection of the Kantian profile of Uexküll’s theory of Umwelt as an application of this transcendental model of subjectivity in the biological field, and c) the development in Plessner of a type of transcendental aesthetics, which can be linked with S. Crowell’s recent theory of perception. (shrink)

Seit dem 18. Jahrhundert gibt es zahlreiche theoretische Versuche, Asthetik und Kunst als Wesensmerkmale des Menschen auszuweisen. Aber erst mit der Entwicklung der modernen philosophischen Anthropologie im 20. Jahrhundert gelang es, philosophische, soziologische und naturwissenschaftliche Aspekte zu einem uberzeugenden Gesamtkonzept zu verknupfen. Dabei sind erstaunlicherweise die einschlagigen Reflexionen der beiden profiliertesten Vertreter der philosophischen Anthropologie, Arnold Gehlens und Helmuth Plessners, bisher kaum zur Kenntnis genommen worden, obwohl sie sich zeitlebens mit asthetischen und kunstgeschichtlichen Fragen beschaftigt haben. Michael Hog untersucht (...) die beiden Gesamtwerke nach Moglichkeiten und Grenzen einer anthropologischen Asthetik und asthetischen Anthropologie sowie ihren Implikationen fur die moderne Kunst bis zur Gegenwart. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Internationales Jahrbuch für philosophische Anthropologie Jahrgang: 7 Heft: 1 Seiten: 285-292.

In German discussions over the last twenty years of the difference between what it is to be a body (in German: Leibsein) and what it is to have a body (Körperhaben), many have been concerned to remind us that we owe this conceptual distinction to the philosophical anthropologist Helmuth Plessner. He introduces the distinction in an essay from 1925—written in collaboration with the Dutch behavioral researcher Frederick Jacob Buytendijk—“Die Deutung des mimischen Ausdrucks. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom Bewusstsein des (...) anderen Ichs” (“The Interpretation of Mimetic Expressions: A Contribution to Understanding One’s Consciousness of Other Subjects”). Buytendijk later explained that it was Plessner who worked out the .. (shrink)

OUR UNDERSTANDING OF OURSELVES and our place in nature constitutes, if not the central, at least a central problem of metaphysics. Yet, faced with this question, modern philosophical thought has for the most part swung helplessly between an empty idealism and an absurd reductivism. It is time we overcame our narrow factionalism and learned not only to think more independently ourselves about persons, minds, and living nature, but to profit from the efforts of those who have already given us concepts (...) and arguments which could help us along this road. Among such writings, Helmuth Plessner's major work, Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch, seems to me outstanding, in that it provides both a firm rational basis for the biological sciences, in their many-levelled structure, and for the sciences of man. (shrink)