Lebensphilosophie (German:[ˈleːbm̩s.filozoˌfiː]; meaning "philosophy of life") was a dominant philosophical movement ofGerman-speaking countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which had developed out ofGerman Romanticism.Lebensphilosophie emphasised themeaning, value and purpose of life as the foremost focus of philosophy.[1]
Its central theme was that an understanding oflife can only be apprehended by life itself, and from within itself. Drawing on the critiques ofepistemology offered bySchopenhauer andNietzsche, notable ideas of the movement have been seen as precursors to bothHusserlianphenomenology andHeideggerianexistential phenomenology.[1]
Lebensphilosophie criticised bothmechanistic andmaterialist approaches to science and philosophy[1] and as such has also been referred to as theGerman vitalist movement,[2] though its relationship tobiological vitalism is questionable.Vitality in this sense is instead understood as part of abiocentric distinction betweenlife-affirming and life-denying principles.[3]
While often rejected by academic philosophers, it had strong repercussions in the arts.[4]
This philosophy pays special attention tolife as a whole, which can only be understood from within. The movement can be regarded as a rejection ofKantian abstract philosophy or scientific reductionism of positivism.
Inspired by the critique ofrationalism in the works ofArthur Schopenhauer,Søren Kierkegaard[according to whom?], andFriedrich Nietzsche,Lebensphilosophie emerged in 19th-century Germany as a reaction to theAge of Enlightenment, rise ofpositivism and the theoretical focus prominent in much of post-Kantian philosophy.[1][5][6] As such, Lebensphilosophie is defined as form ofirrationalism, as well as a form ofCounter-Enlightenment.[7][6] Twentieth-century forms ofLebensphilosophie can be identified with a critical stress on norms and conventions.[8]
The first elements of a Lebensphilosophie are found in the context of earlyGerman Romanticism which conceived existence as a continuous tension of "the finite towardsthe infinite", an aspiration that was always disappointed and generated either a withdrawal into oneself and detachment with an attitude of pessimistic renunciation, or on the contrary exaltation of the instinctive spirit orvital impulse of the human being, astruggle for existence or a religious acceptance of the destiny of man entrusted todivine providence.[6]
Wilhelm Dilthey was the first to seek to account for a "pre-theoretical cohesion of living", by taking thephenomenological turn and relying on the historical experience of life, by highlighting relationships specific to life (Lebensbezüge), thatMartin Heidegger would later consider both as a fundamental step, but also insufficiently radical.[9] TheLebensphilosophie movement bore indirect relation to the subjectivist philosophy ofvitalism developed byHenri Bergson, which lent importance toimmediacy of experience.[10]
An early systematic presentation was formulated by the German psychologistPhilipp Lersch [de], who, while primarily studyingBergson,Dilthey andSpengler, sawGeorg Simmel andLudwig Klages as Lebensphilosophie's most important representatives.[11]
PhilosopherFritz Heinemann considered the Lebensphilosophie as an intermediate stage in the transition from thephilosophy of spirit to thephilosophy of existence.[12]Georg Misch, Dilthey's student and son-in-law, worked out the relationship between the philosophy ofMartin Heidegger andEdmund Husserl and the Lebensphilosophie in 1930.[13]
Characteristics that regularly recur in the work of Lebensphilosophie thinkers, although not in every writer, can be summarized as follows:[14][15]
Additionally, Lebensphilosophie can be divided into following different schools:[18]
The Lebensphilosophie tries to make sense of a continuous and unresolved clash between "the infinite and the finite", that is shown in the incessant fading of living beings. The questions that the Lebensphilosophie poses find a first answer in the fifteen lectures held in 1827 in Vienna byFriedrich Schlegel who sees the nucleus ofdivine revelation in the highlighting of the infinite in the finite of man.
Referring to this romantic vision, both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, with completely different results, exalt the active character of life, contrasting it with the staticity ofidealistic perfection ofrationalism.
Schopenhauer reveals the essential irrationality of living that manifests itself in thewill to live (German:Wille zum Leben) , the senselessnoumenal essence of everything in the world that has the sole purpose of increasing itself.
Nietzsche conceives life as a continuous growth and overcoming of those values consolidated over time that would hypocritically try to normalize existence in current morality. Life, in Nietzsche's thought, contrary toDarwinism, is never adaptation, conservation, but continuous growth without which the living being dies. The typical attempt of humanity to found its life on certainties, seeking them inreligion,science,moral values, causes it to die out, overwhelmed by the proverbial "modern culture".
In the field ofancient philosophy, whilst almost all philosophers have sidestepped the question of "how man should live", some had devoted themselves to it entirely. At the time, most philosophers and schools of thought focused almost exclusively onethics andthe good spirit. For one,Socrates had assumed "know thyself" as amaxim, and said that "the unexamined life is not worth living", which forms one of the cornerstones of Lebensphilosophie thought.[19]
The roots for what would become Lebensphilosophie go back to the distinction made byImmanuel Kant, with regard toChristian Wolff; between theoretical school philosophy and a philosophy based on the concept of the world, which comes from life itself and is aimed at practical life.[20]
Other individuals associated with the earliest forms of "Lebensphilosophie" wereJohann August Ernesti andJohann Georg Heinrich Feder.[21]
At the end of the 18th century, life and world wisdom were fashionable terms in higher social circles. The philosophy of life was less a specific philosophical doctrine than a certain cultural mood that influenced large parts of theintelligentsia.[22][additional citation(s) needed]
Lebensphilosophie was equated with the popular philosophy that was widespread in the late 18th century, which deliberately distanced itself from school philosophy and, as a philosophy of practical action, was committed to the general dissemination of the ideas ofthe Enlightenment.[23]
Since then, the wisdom of life and the world has often been presented inaphorisms,[16] for example byFriedrich Heinrich Jacobi in the Ffliegen Blätter: "Philosophy is an inner life. A philosophical life is a concentrated life. Through true philosophy the soul becomes still, and ultimately devout."[24]
In terms of the history of the concept, the first works to be recorded are those ofGottlob Benedict von Schirach: On Human Beauty and the Philosophy of Life from 1772 andKarl Philipp Moritz: Contributions to the Philosophy of Life from 1780 (already in its third edition in 1791). Characteristics of Lebensphilosophie are attributed to verse fromGoethe'sFaust;[25]
All theory, dear friend, is gray, but the golden tree of life springs ever green.
The Lebensphilosophie found new inspiration inSturm und Drang movement, as well as theRomantic movement.[27] Romantics such asNovalis emphasized that not only reason, but also the feelings and wills that are more closely related to life, must be taken into account in philosophy. "Philosophy of life contains the science of independent, self-made life, which is in my own power - and belongs to the doctrine of the art of living - or the system of rules for preparing such a life for oneself."[28] In 1794,Immanuel Kant opposed this type of “salon philosophy” in his essayÜber den Gemeinspruch: Das mag in der Theorie richtig sein, taugt aber nicht für die Praxis [de].
In 1827,Friedrich Schlegel's lectures on the Lebensphilosophie, which were explicitly directed against the "system philosophers"Kant andHegel, helped the philosophy of life to gain wider attention. Schlegel viewed the formal concepts of school philosophy, such as logic, as merely preparation, not as philosophy itself. To him, philosophy must mediate between the philosophy of reason and natural science. That it is important to explore "the inner spiritual life, and indeed in all its fullness" and that the "interpreting soul" encompasses the full consciousness and not just reason.[29][additional citation(s) needed]
The interpreting soul, however, includes both the distinguishing, connecting, deductive reason, as well as the pondering, inventing, presaging imagination; it encompasses both forces, standing in the middle between them. But it also forms the turning point of the transition between understanding and will, and, as the connecting middle link, fills the gap that lies between the two and separates them.
It was not until the second half of the19th century until Lebensphilosophie could be tangibly identified as a real movement. It nevertheless contained many of the ideas that were already present in the predecessors, but radicalized and extrapolated them and developed them into a fully-fledged philosophy through the efforts of noted thinkers.[30][31]
Lebensphilosophie's emergence contributed toCharles Darwin'stheory of evolution andthe effect it had on society; resulting in an proverbial "biologization" of man and society in which everything began to be interpreted in terms ofsurvival andnatural selection (i.e.social Darwinism). Man was no longer seen as a being that was completely different from animals, but only as one of them, although he was often placed higher on the evolutionary ladder. This opened the door to the Lebensphilosophie, which had to expand this tendency and extend it to all areas of reality.[32][33][34]
The other factor that paved the way for Lebensphilosophie was the situation at German universities in the second half of the 19th century. The German government then decided to impose strict censorship on German universities. However, this also affected philosophy, in the sense that only the philosophy accepted by the state was allowed to be disseminated and philosophy was limited toepistemology andlogic.
However, the German public also needed another philosophy, an ethics or metaphysics, a philosophy that could be a guideline for life. In order to fill this void, a group of philosophers emerged in Germany who developed their own philosophy independently of academic thinking. Philosophers such asArthur Schopenhauer andFriedrich Nietzsche are the prime examples of this.[a] The thinking of these precursors of the Lebensphilosophie reached the public through their writings, which are notable for their absence of philosophical jargon and were distributed outside of academic circuits.[35]
Thirdly, the political factor is also important, namely in political defeats, had their repercussions in philosophy. Lebensphilosophie precursorArthur Schopenhauer's 1818 workThe World as Will and Representation, was not a success upon its release, but found its audience following the failure of theGerman revolutions of 1848–1849 and the subsequent mood of the country. Indeed, under these circumstances didFriedrich Nietzsche discover Schopenhauer's work and inspire him.[36] Additionally, the German defeat duringFirst World War led to a revival of the so-called German Lebensphilosophie, which in turn also had its influence on the rise ofNational Socialism.[10]
Friedrich Nietzsche,Wilhelm Dilthey andHenri Bergson are considered to be the founders of Lebensphilosophie,[37][38] withMax Scheler writing the first overview of the Lebensphilosophie in 1913, in which he pointed out the similarities between Nietzsche, Dilthey and Bergson.[39]
The main precursor and source of inspiration for the Lebensphilosophie was the German philosopherArthur Schopenhauer. He made the first approaches to formalizing Lebensphilosophie, when he no longer placedreason, butwill - thusly actual life - at the centre of his thinking. Seeing that the will is the primary basis of ideas, which is a blind, unstoppable urge that encompasses all of nature. Reason and knowledge are dependent on it and are an expression of the will, with the entire life force of the world being reflected in the will.[40]
Since the will, the thing in itself, the inner content is the essence of the world; life, the visible world, the appearance, is only the mirror of the will; this will accompany the will as inseparably as its shadow accompanies the body: and if there is will, life, the world will also exist. The will to live is therefore certain of life.
His philosophy is largely set out in his 1818 workThe World as Will and Representation. In it, Schopenhauer voiced his criticism towards idealistic philosophers - such asJohann Gottlieb Fichte andHegel - whom he accused of placing too much emphasis on reason and intellect. Schopenhauer himself was a follower of Kant and retained his distinction between the "thing as we see it" and the "Thing-in-itself"; that reality in itself is unknowable and is inaccessible to our senses.
Schopenhauer, however, also states that there is another way to know the "Thing-in-itself": if one looks into oneself, one experiences that man is nothing more than the expression of an all-encompassing Will that lies hidden behind all phenomena. Reality as we experience it is therefore in fact only an illusory veil that lies over reality as it really is: in reality the world is nothing other than a World Will that, without any rational principle, continually produces new phenomenal manifestations, such as man, in order to express its own will. The world is therefore anything but rational and benign, and reason is certainly not central. The world is indifferent to man, and man himself is primarily a "willing" being: he continually desires things, without rational grounds, but only on the basis of emotions and drives.
On chapter 46 ofThe World as Will and Representation, entitled "On the Nothingness and Suffering of Life," Schopenhauer describes man as a suffering and lost individual who only finds salvation through death. Man lives in a constant desire with limitless wishes and inexhaustible demands, so that he can never find happiness and salvation. If a wish is fulfilled, it immediately becomes unreal and only grief and pain remain. In this way, human life is nothingness, emptiness (vanitas) and vanity, covered by the deceptive veil of Maya. In earthly life, man can only escape this emptiness throughabstinence andasceticism, the highest form of which, complete contemplation, can be found in art. Schopenhauer's additional reflections on the practice of life can be found in the aphorisms on theParerga and Paralipomena.
The thought ofFriedrich Nietzsche is also considered a forerunner of the Lebensphilosophie. Nietzsche was a follower of Schopenhauer's philosophy and was known for expressing his skepticism towards reason, science,culture and the modern ideal of the search for truth.
Throughout his work, Nietzsche developed ideas that are considered to be inspiration for the Lebensphilosophie, such as a view of world events as an organic structure and the concepts of thewill to power and theeternal return. Nietzsche turned Schopenhauer's concept of the will as the will to live into the formula of the will to power, which dominates all life.
Already in his early workThe Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche established that thehuman condition is determined by a contradiction between two different forces: on the one hand, the reasonable and calmApollonian force and on the other, the exuberant and wastefulDionysian force; a contradiction that he also observed present in the classicalGreek tragedy. Nietzsche explicitly connected the Dionysian force with Schopenhauer's metaphysical Will.
In ancient Greece there was a good balance between both principles. However, this was disturbed by theancient philosophy ofSocrates andPlato. They rejected the Dionysian side of life and focused only on the Apollonian side, a shift that can be found throughout the history ofWestern philosophy.[42]
Nietzsche also called for getting rid of the too rationalistic side of life because it mainly results in a denial of life itself. Traditional philosophers praise theascetic life as the highest form of life, but according to Nietzsche this is only a denial of the creative and dynamic power that life possesses.
In his work,Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche states that:
Saying yes to life even in its strangest and hardest problems; the will to live, finding joy in the sacrifice of its highest types of its own inexhaustibility - I called that Dionysian, I guessed that was the bridge to the psychology of the tragic poet.
Nietzsche also determined that there is notranscendental world to mirror ourselves in or to direct ourselves towards (after death); there is only this world and this life. All this is reflected in his well-known propositions such as "God is dead" and the "eternal recurrence" from his 1882 work,The Gay Science.
The death of God implied the loss of any kind of transcendental orientation, and the idea of eternal return can serve as a new guideline for life: the person should live in such a way that they would want it to return again and again. There was also the concept of "will to power": man, life, and even all of reality does not strive for things like "the good" or "the truth", but rather only for more power.
Largely due to the influence of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, the early modern form of Lebensphilosophie emerged in Germany near the end of the19th century. The initial movement was known as "historicism", which was primarily presented byWilhelm Dilthey,Rudolf Eucken andGeorg Simmel.[44]
One noted progenitor wasWilhelm Dilthey, in whose works the notion of "life" or "human experience" is central. He strongly opposed thedeterministicphilosophy of nature as defended byJohn Stuart Mill andHerbert Spencer. Human experience always involves experiencing a coherence; a coherence that cannot be divided into scientific "atoms" orbasic elements.
Dilthey argued that there was a difference between the natural sciences and the human sciences (Geisteswissenschaften). In the natural sciences, the scientist "explains" and refers to the causes (erklären). In the human sciences, however, the scientist "understands": in ahermeneutic process, the scientist must place the concept in a broader historical context in order to gain insight into it (Verstehen). In this Verstehen, knowledge is not a product of the mind, but rather an outgrowth of the emotions and will of the person in question. According to Dilthey, both disciplines therefore require a differentepistemological approach. The classical mechanistic model ofnatural science is therefore unsuitable for understanding life andhuman history.
With this idea in mind, Dilthey proposedhermeneutics as a scientific method for the human sciences. The historian or sociologist must always see a certain (historical) fact in relation to the whole, the context in which it took place and at the same time understand the whole on the basis of the different parts. However, hermeneutics is not limited to the written word, but can also be applied to other areas such as art, religion or law.
Dilthey's philosophy gained many followers, mainly incultural philosophy, includingHans Freyer,Theodor Litt,Georg Misch,Erich Rothacker,Oswald Spengler andEduard Spranger. Dilthey also had a strong influence on the theologianErnst Troeltsch and the British philosopherR. G. Collingwood.[45]
The philosopher and sociologistGeorg Simmel agreed with Kant when he stated that human cognition possessesa prioricategories of thought, but argued that these undergo a development. The categories are therefore not a timeless given that is eternally fixed, but on the contrary they can evolve over time, both at the level of humanity and at the level of the individual. Human perception, together with these categories, ensures that the chaos of sensory impressions that man receives, is ordered. However, the human mind is not able to grasp reality in its entirety: thus "the truth" is separate from the human mind. According to Simmel, "truth", or what man considers to be truth, determines behavior. What is true is therefore determined by means of natural selection through the evolution of man, and thus largely by the utility that particular view has.
According to Simmel, "moral must" is also originally a category of human reason that is only "formally" determining, but the content of what must and what may change throughout history. In this moral must, the will of the sex is also expressed: altruism is understood by Simmel, for example, as egoism of the sex.
In France, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, a series of philosophers emerged who defended similar life-philosophical ideas. The first philosophers to take up the fight against themechanism andidealism of the 19th century wereMaurice Blondel andÉdouard Le Roy. Blondel, for example, already set out his version of the Lebensphilosophie in his 1893 work "L'Action", with the development of the "philosophy of action". Other French philosophers - such asÉmile Boutroux,Jules Lachelier andFélix Ravaisson-Mollien - are also associated with the early French-strain of Lebensphilosophie.[46]
However, it was not until the philosophy ofHenri Bergson that French Lebensphilosophie took on its definitive form and had a strong influence on the further course of French philosophy. In his philosophy he expounded a strong form ofvitalism and anti-mechanism. Bergson had been a follower ofHerbert Spencer's philosophy in his early thinking, but later renounced this kind of philosophy because he found Spencer's philosophy much too mechanistic.
He expounded his own thinking mainly in four works, each covering an area of his philosophy of life: first beingTime and Free Will, in which he expounded histheory of knowledge,Matter and Memory, detailing his views on psychology,Creative Evolution, detailing his views onmetaphysics, andThe Two Sources of Morality and Religion, in which Bergson expounds hisethics andphilosophy of religion.
According to Bergson, there are two different ways of knowing the world, which arise from a fundamental contradiction in man himself. Just as we can conceive of time as either a mathematical series of successive points or a continuous flow (durée) that we experience, we can also know the objects around us according to these two methods:analysis on the one hand andintuition on the other. Analysis essentially means that one reduces the object one wants to know to more fundamental parts that are already known.
However, Bergson argues that in this way one is not really dealing with reality, but isolating some repeatable aspects of it. Classical movements such asidealism and/orrationalism place this form of knowledge central, while analysis according to Bergson can never penetrate reality itself, but can at most play a role in our practical dealings with the world. In contrast, there is knowledge through intuition. Through intuition, man can understand the world in itself without reducing it to something else. Bergson conceives the contrast between the two methods as analogous to the two ways in which one can describe the movements of our actions: either we perceive our action from within as a whole, or we can describe it from without, but then it falls apart into smaller parts and is by definition incomplete. Bergson also sees this method of analysis at work in the sciences, which is why he shows a certain contempt for science.[47]
In his 1907 work,Creative Evolution, Bergson argued that the two classical models to explain life, the mechanical andteleological models, were wrong. They do not take into account duration (durée). Starting from his epistemology he argued that both currents wrongly mirror themselves on reason instead of intuition.
In contrast, life must be understood as a life stream that follows its own creative, irrational path through reality. Life cannot be explained by mechanisms or final causes, but has its ownlife drive (élan vital) that brings it into being and drives it forward. Life has followed an ascending path through plants and animals in its history, ultimately resulting in man. In man, in addition to reason, intuition also emerged and thus the possibility of truly understanding reality. This dynamic and creative interpretation is not limited to life, however, but covers everything: the whole of reality is evolution. In reality, there are no 'things', only actions and becoming.[48][49]
Towards the end of Bergson's career, various philosophers emerged who supported his philosophy and even radicalized it. So much so that the movement can be identified as "Bergsonism". Examples of this is a whole series ofCatholic thinkers such asLucien Laberthonnière andAlfred Loisy.
The philosophical movement of Lebensphilosophie at the end of the 19th century began clearly distinguishing itself from the definition that "Philosophy of Life" meant in the late 18th century 100 years prior, which was to provide orientation for practical life. This new form of Lebensphilosophie critically examined modernepistemology andontology and seek to gain a systematic standpoint.
Lebensphilosophie became a part of the reaction towards the contemporaryzeitgeist, which was characterized by the rapid progress of technology,industrialization and the rationality of the positive sciences and the modern economy. It found support within thefin de siècle,the German youth movement andArt Nouveau, along with theSymbolism movement and/orDecadent movement, all sharing the need to find a "new beginning" against the constraints of modern civilization.[50][51][52]
Followingthe defeat of Germany at the end ofFirst World War, a new school of Lebensphilosophie emerged, which had its influence primarily inbiology, but also inpolitics. The main thinkers who belonged to this school wereHans Driesch,Karl Joel,Hermann Graf Keyserling andLudwig Klages.
Largely under the influence of post-World War I pessimism, they associated reason and intellect with the shortcomings of "civilization" and therefore advocated arejection of intellectualism. Instead, they focused their attention primarily on the irrational forces of life and lust. This largely resulted in an equation of nature and culture and a biological interpretation of society. This is said to have contributed to the rise ofNational Socialistracism.[10][7][8]
Hans Driesch, a philosopher and biologist, concluded from a number of experiments in which bacteria were split and only new bacteria were formed, that life could not be a product of causal natural forces, but instead had to be understood in the light ofentelechy. That behind living matter there is an immaterial force that purposefully creates and supports life. Driesch was therefore considered one of the main representatives ofvitalism.
Ludwig Klages, on the other hand, emphasized the contrast between the unity of body and soul on the one hand and the human spirit or reason on the other. This contrast is also reflected in the title of his main work,Der Geist als Widersacher der Seele, released 1929-1932.
According to Klages, soul and body are inseparable and if the soul could work undisturbed, then man would see the world as a continuous stream of images. However, through the action of the spirit and human reason, the illusion is created that body and soul can be separated from each other. According to Klages, the natural science that emphasizes this division is therefore a danger to life itself. As a result, Klages adopted a stronglyirrationalist position and was very hostile to human reason. Partly because of this, his teaching was influential withinNazi ideology.[7]
Oswald Spengler is occasionally cited as a Lebensphilosophie representative of the interwar period, having introduced a verypopulist form in his work, that was popular in post-World War Germany (i.e.Weimar Republic), especially amongst the politicallyright-wing circles.[7][53][54][55]
The Lebensphilosophie was very popular in the first half of the 20th century, but quickly lost its following after theSecond World War. Its initial popularity can be understood by the fact that it emerged as an alternative to the then dominantscientific andpositivist philosophy. Positivism denied the relevance of an ethic or philosophy of life and emphasized epistemology and science. The Lebensphilosophie broke with this tradition and wanted to make philosophy relevant again for "the life of the man on the street".
It's quick dissipation following the second world war is believed to be due to the associations that this type of philosophy had leading toNazism andfascism, which also appealed to similarbiological,vitalistic andirrational elements. Additionally, other philosophical movements, such asexistentialism, overtook Lebensphilosophie.
The ideas of the Lebensphilosophie have entered many other contemporary movements, which often rejected the "irrational" character of the Lebensphilosophie. The philosopherOtto Friedrich Bollnow for example, claims to be a follower of the Lebensphilosophie developed by Dilthey, but also connects this movement with insights fromexistentialism andphenomenology. The work ofJosé Ortega y Gasset, and especially his 1930 workThe Revolt of the Masses, also contains many elements from the Lebensphilosophie and is strongly influenced by theperspectivism ofFriedrich Nietzsche.[56]
While not outright identified with LebensphilosophiePierre Hadot, notable for his conception ofancient Greek philosophy as abios or way of life, is associated with the movement. Lebensphilosophie is also seen as an influence to German philosopher and sociologistMax Horkheimer.[38] Other philosophers influenced and/or associated with Lebensphilosophie includeJakob von Uexküll,Hans Jonas,Florian Znaniecki,Viktor Frankl.
The direct influence of Lebensphilosophie thinkers on academic philosophy remained limited, despite their great popularity with the masses, mainly because of their hostility to reason and science. Instead, someone like Bergson had an influence on other genres, such as writers likeMarcel Proust andpolitical scientists likeCharles Péguy andGeorges Sorel.[42]
Only after the Second World War, when the Lebensphilosophie lost importance, didHenri Bergson's influence also become clear in academic philosophy. Later thinkers such asJean-Paul Sartre andMaurice Merleau-Ponty often contrasted their views with those of Bergson in order to expose the differences, but in doing so they nevertheless betrayed the influence that Bergson had exerted on their work. Traces of the Lebensphilosophie can also be recognized in the work ofMax Scheler andMartin Heidegger.
This is even more explicit in the work of the French poststructuralistGilles Deleuze, who characterized himself as a "vitalist". In 1966, Deleuze wrote a book, "Le Bergsonisme", which revived the study of Bergson's work. Furthermore, the Lebensphilosophie can also be found in the form of concepts such asbiopolitics andbiopower in the work ofMichel Foucault orGiorgio Agamben.[21]
In 1993,Ferdinand Fellmann attempted to rehabilitate the Lebensphilosophie, after it had been rejected as a "disturbance in philosophy" due to the ideological abuse byNational Socialism. According to Fellmann, human self-understanding is not only the product of a "Cartesiancogito", but must also take into account the irrational physical and emotional aspects of human existence. He also points out that contemporaryanalytical philosophy and thephilosophy of mind are also influenced by the Lebensphilosophie.
Although the American movement of pragmatism is often seen as an independent movement, it has many similarities with the Lebensphilosophie.[57] For example, pragmatism and the Lebensphilosophie are often placed together under the heading of "anti-intellectualism". This is mainly due to the works ofWilliam James andJohn Dewey, and is present to a much lesser extent in the work ofC.S. Peirce.[58]
William James' philosophy, which incorporated numerous influences from various movements, explicitly referred to the work of Bergson.[59] The two philosophers, Bergson and James, were also good friends and the latter's well-known concept of consciousness as astream of consciousness shows a strong affinity with former's concept of duration (durée).[60]
As a bridge between pragmatism and Lebensphilosophie, the so-called "dialectical school" should also be mentioned. This school consisted of a number of thinkers, such asFerdinand Gonseth andGaston Bachelard, grouped around the philosophical journalDialectica, founded in 1947. They stated that truth was alwaysdialectical and therefore a temporary and changeable given. For the dialectical school too, there was no absolute truth separate from practical life itself.
Before theSecond World War, Lebensphilosophie drew derision fromneo-Kantian andrationalist thinkers, such asHeinrich Rickert[61] andErnst Cassirer.[62] Following the Second World War, various studies have found links betweenLebensphilosophie andNazism.[7][8][63]
A reproach often made against Lebensphilosophie is that ofirrationalism. Some Lebensphilosophie philosophers endorse the irrationalist element in their philosophy, but critics find this unacceptable. To give up reason as a means to truth means to give up philosophy and even thought as a whole.
For example,Bertrand Russell states in his 1946 bookA History of Western Philosophy that according to Lebensphilosophie;"intellect is the misfortune of man, while instinct is seen at its best in ants, bees, andBergson" and concludes that for"those to whom action, if it is to be of any value, must be inspired by some vision, by some imaginative foreshadowing of a world less painful, less unjust, less full of strife than the world of our every-day life, those, in a word, whose action is built on contemplation, will find in this philosophy nothing of what they seek, and will not regret that there is no reason to think it true."[64]
This criticism is also shared byGeorge Santayana.[65] He states that Lebensphilosophie is a symptom of a spiritually impoverished imagination, that in it;"the mind has forgotten its proper function, which is to crown life by quickening it into intelligence, and thinks if it could only prove that it accelerated life, that might perhaps justify its existence."[66]
In his 1953 book,The Destruction of Reason, Marxist philosopherGeorg Lukács also strongly criticized the Lebensphilosophie and characterized it as an extreme form ofirrationalism, which served as a method to justify theruling ideology of the "imperialistbourgeoisie" (i.e.bourgeois nationalism).[7]
Another criticism is that the principle of vitalism, which is upheld by the Lebensphilosophie, namely that there is a kind of life force behind life, containscircular reasoning.
Other philosophers accuse the Lebensphilosophie of falling into a form ofrelativism.[67] Because certain knowledge is no longer possible, due to the irrationalist nature of the Lebensphilosophie, it is impossible to provide any form of criticism of ideas, because one would then have to use reason anyway. The result is that all ideas and visions would then be of equal value.
This stems fromWilhelm Dilthey'shermeneutics andhistoricism - which laid the basis of Lebensphilosophie - being already scrutinized for being of relativistic thought.[68] If ideas or institutions have to be assessed in the specific historical context in which they exist, it is always possible to shield these ideas from any form of criticism. Criticism of an idea is then interpreted as the failure to correctly understand the idea in its specific context. Every idea is correct, as long as it is understood within the specific historical context in question.
In Germany the corresponding school [tovitalism], known asLebensphilosophie ("philosophy of life"), began to take on aspects of a political ideology in the years immediately precedingWorld War I. The work ofHans Driesch andLudwig Klages, for example, openly condemned the superficial intellectualism of Western civilization. In associating "reason" with the shortcomings of "civilization" and "the West", Lebensphilosophie spurred many German thinkers to reject intellection in favour of the irrational forces of blood and life. In the words ofHerbert Schnädelbach, at this point "philosophy of life tendentiously abolished the traditional difference between nature and culture and thus facilitated the success of the general biologism in the theory of culture, which culminated in National Socialist racism."
In his 1953 bookThe Destruction of Reason, having concluded thatLebensphilosophie merely represented irrationalism from the standpoint of the "imperialist bourgeoisie",Georg Lukács also concluded that it was an ideological development towards Nazism. Lukács sawLudwig Klages in particular as the forerunner of fascism, having "transformed [German vitalism] into an open attack on reason and culture." He additionally pointed toOswald Spengler and his work (primarilyThe Decline of the West) being a key part in “reconstructing [German vitalism] as a philosophy ofmilitantreaction” following the first world war, resulting in a “veritable, direct prelude tofascist philosophy.”[7]
Intellectual historianCarl Müller Frøland concluded that Lebenphilosophie movement experienced an "Völkisch-Ideological Turn", which formed the ideological basis for the Nazism. He saw that the biopolitical vitalism of Lebenphilosophie was easily connected withsocial Darwinist thought, with an co-current strain of Nietzschean-style vitalism mixed withVölkisch nationalism rising within Imperial Germany. At outbreak of the first world war, these ideas fused into a proverbial "war-worshipping vitalism", which was an progenitor of Nazism.[63]
The Israeli-American historian Nitzan Lebovic identifiedLebensphilosophie with the tight relation between a "corpus of life-concepts" and what the German education system came to see, during the 1920s, as the properLebenskunde, the 'teaching of life' or 'science of life'—a name that seemed to support the broader philosophical outlook long held by most biologists of the time. In his book Lebovic traces the transformation of the post-NietzscheanLebensphilosophie from the radical aesthetics of theStefan George Circle toNazi or "biopolitical" rhetoric and politics.[8]
Frederick C. Beiser, in his bookPhilosophy of Life: German Lebensphilosophie 1870-1920 found that Nazis had appropriated some of its themes to their ideology. However, Beiser notes that "there is really very little in common" between national socialism andLebensphilosophie thought.[69]
Klages was a leader in the German vitalist movement (1895–1915),
Klages was the principal representative in psychology of the vitalist movement that swept Germany from 1895 to 1915.
In Germany the corresponding school [tovitalism], known asLebensphilosophie ("philosophy of life"), began to take on aspects of a political ideology in the years immediately preceding World War I. The work ofHans Driesch andLudwig Klages, for example, openly condemned the superficial intellectualism of Western civilization. In associating "reason" with the shortcomings of "civilization" and "the West", Lebensphilosophie spurred many German thinkers to reject intellection in favour of the irrational forces of blood and life. In the words of Herbert Schnädelbach, at this point "philosophy of life tendentiously abolished the traditional difference between nature and culture and thus facilitated the success of the general biologism in the theory of culture, which culminated in National Socialist racism."
A further influence on Horkheimer's thought wasLebenshilosophie. The "philosophy of life" tradition, rooted in the thought of Nietzche, Dilthey and Bergson and later developed (for Horkheimer, degenerated) into various forms ofirrationalism andexistentialism.
Lebensphilosophie became a fashionable and quickly worn-out term after the end of the First World War, when it was given a vitalistic and even racist direction. It was employed by thinkers such as Oswald Spengler who developed neo-conservative and culturally pessimistic critiques of the decline of the vitality of the West in its growing modernity, rationality and technology. This popularised and vulgarised Lebensphilosophie is part of the context for the emergence of European fascism.
The voice that had most prominently brought elements of Lebensphilosophie to the broader public was not, however, Heidegger's. It came from outside academia, in the work of Oswald Spengler. With the publication of his Untergang des Abendlandes in 1918, Spengler became a kind of minor extra-academic celebrity in the Germanophone world. Spengler's mainly historical work develops an account of the rise and fall of cultures and the phenomena that emerge within them. Its overgeneralisations about the downfall of Western civilisation are based on dubious historical accounts of the emergence and decline of human cultures. Its broad span ranges from the history of art to the history of science and mathematics.
[In regards of Max Horkheimer discussing several different representatives of Lebensphilosophie.] As was the case with Husserl andphenomenology, Horkheimer was ultimately more concerned about the popularizations of Bergson and Lebensphilosophie and the fateful social dynamic that they obscured and thereby reinforced, than with the philosophical doctrines themselves, which contained moments of truth.
As an example of the worst sort of popularizations of Lebensphilosophie, Horkheimer discusses Oswald Spengler's Decline of the West. Horkheimer dismisses Spengler's study which enjoyed wide popularity in Germany in the 1920s, especially among culturally conservative circles -- as superficial synthesis of poorly understood material from a wide variety of fields. He is particularly vehement in his rejection of Spengler's facile comparison of the development of human culture with that of plants. For Horkheimer, there is no comparison between genuine Lebensphilosophie and popularizers like Spengler.
Henri Bergson, Letter to H. Massis [fin décembre 1937), Correspondences, 1585 Bergson compares his view of the "durêe" to the "flights" and "perchings" in James's conception of the stream of consciousness in a letter toFloris Delattre [fr] (24 août 1923)
Correspondences, 1053-1054. Bergson wrote regarding Delattre's book,William James, bergsonien (Paris: Universitaires de France). The only information available regarding date of publication indicates that it was sometime in the 1920s.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
