The Other’s Place in the Space of the Relation: Karl Löwith and Martin Buber as Theorists of Duheit

Chapter
Part of the Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics book series (SAPERE, volume 39)

Abstract

This paper addresses the issue of human spatiality as existential givenness, taking as its fundamental orientation relationality, namely the natural tendency towards the other as my co-man (Mitmensch) for the purposes of instituting, together with him, the first place for such a spatiality: the being-with-one-another (Miteinandersein). If the being-with-one-another embodies the first place of this spatiality, then the encounter between an I and a you—that is to say, otherness declined in the second person, as Duheit—represents the culmination of such a place. On this basis the τόπος of the Miteinandersein emerges as an οἶκος and the achievement of such an ‘oikological’ rank makes the space of the relation a real Lebensraum, a living space. Given these assumptions, a comparison will be offered between two paradigmatic modes of interpreting Duheit, the outcomes of a short season in which continental philosophy questioned itself on this issue with unusual urgency and depth. On the one hand, the Zwischenontologie (“Between-ontology”) of Martin Buber, on the other, the Mitanthropologie (“With-anthropology”) of Karl Löwith. The comparison here proposed will reveal that the philosophical question of otherness is essentially a matter of measure, namely that the promotion of the space of the relation established by I and you to the rank of οἶκος and Lebensraum depends on its ability to stay within the limit of an anthropic perimeter.

References

  1. Böckenhoff, J. (1970). Die Begegnungsphilosophie. Ihre Geschichte. Ihre Aspekte. Freiburg/München: Alber.Google Scholar
  2. Buber, M. (1919). Worte an die Zeit. Eine Schriftenreihe, Heft 1: Grundsätze. Munich/Zürich/Vienna: Dreiländer.Google Scholar
  3. Buber, M. (1923). Ich und Du. Leipzig: Insel.Google Scholar
  4. Buber, M. (1929). Dialogue. In Buber 2002 (pp. 1–45).Google Scholar
  5. Buber, M. (1936). The question to the single one. In Buber 2002 (pp. 46–97).Google Scholar
  6. Buber, M. (1943). What is man? In Buber 2002 (pp. 140–244).Google Scholar
  7. Buber, M. (1954). The history of the dialogical principle. In Buber 2002 (pp. 249–264).Google Scholar
  8. Buber, M. (2002). Between man and man (M. Friedman, Trans.). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Buber, M. [1923] (1970). I and thou (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  10. Buber, M. [1950] (1965). Distance and relation (Urdistanz und Beziehung). In M. Buber (Ed.), The knowledge of man (M. Friedman, Trans.) (pp. 59–71). London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Casper, B. (1967). Das dialogische Denken. Eine Untersuchung der religionsphilosophischen Bedeutung Franz Rosenzweigs, Ferdinand Ebners und Martin Bubers. Freiburg/Basel/Wien: Herder.Google Scholar
  12. Cera, A. (2007). Introduzione. In Lowith 2007 (pp. 5–50).Google Scholar
  13. Cera, A. (2010). Io con tu. Karl Löwith e la possibilità di una Mitanthropologie. Napoli: Guida.Google Scholar
  14. Cera, A. (2011). Esistenza teorica e virtù della scepsi. L’ethos filosofico di Karl Löwith. In P. Amato, M. T. Catena & N. Russo (Eds.), L’ethos teoretico. Scritti per Eugenio Mazzarella (pp. 213–231). Napoli: Guida.Google Scholar
  15. Cera, A. (2013). Mitanthropologie, Zwischenontologie. L’antropologia löwithiana a confronto con il dialogismo di Martin Buber. La Cultura, 51, 251–281.Google Scholar
  16. Choi, S.-S. (1993). Der Mensch als Mitmensch. Eine Untersuchung über die Strukturanalyse des Miteinanderseins von Karl Löwith im Vergleich mit dem dialogischen Denken von Martin Buber (Dissertation). Köln.Google Scholar
  17. Cullberg, J. (1933). Das Du und die Wirklichkeit. Zum ontologischen Hintergrund der Gemeinschaftskategorie. Uppsala: Lundequistska.Google Scholar
  18. Feuerbach, L. [1843] (1986). Principles of the philosophy of the future (M. H. Vogel, Trans.). Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett.Google Scholar
  19. Gordon, H. (2001). The Heidegger-Buber controversy: The status of the I-thou. Westport/London: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  20. Heidegger, M. [1927] (2001). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  21. Heinze, E.-M. (2011). Einführung in das dialogische Denken. Freiburg/München: Alber.Google Scholar
  22. Koltan, J. (2011). Der Mitmensch. Zur Identitätsproblem des sozialen Selbst ausgehend von der Frühphilosophie Martin Heideggers und Karl Löwiths. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  23. Lévinas, E. [1963] (1967). Martin Buber and the theory of knowledge. In P. Arthur Schilpp & M. Friedman (Eds.), The philosophy of Martin Buber (pp. 133–150). La Salle (Illinois): Open Court Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Löwith, K. (1928). Das Individuum in der Rolle des Mitmenschen. Ein Beitrag zur anthropologischen Grundlegung der ethischen Probleme. München: Drei-Masken Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Löwith, K. (1962). Das Individuum in der Rolle des Mitmenschen. Ein Beitrag zur anthropologischen Grundlegung der ethischen Probleme. Freiburg/München: Alber.Google Scholar
  26. Löwith, K. [1928 & 1962] (2007). L’individuo nel ruolo del co-uomo (A. Cera, Trans.). Napoli: Guida.Google Scholar
  27. Löwith, K. [1949] (1957). Meaning in history. The theological implications of the philosophy of history. Chicago/London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Löwith, K. [1962] (1981). Das Individuum in der Rolle des Mitmenschen. In K. Löwith, Sämtliche Schriften Band 1. Beiträge zur Anthropologie, hrsg. von K. Stichweh (pp. 9–197). Stuttgart: Metzler (original edition: Das Individuum in der Rolle des Mitmenschen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft 1962).Google Scholar
  29. Löwith, K. [1967] (1988). Vermittlung und Unmittelbarkeit bei Hegel, Marx und Feuerbach. In K. Löwith, Sämtliche Schriften Band 5: Hegel und die Aufhebung der Philosophie im 19. Jahrhundert – Max Weber, hrsg. von B. Lutz (pp. 186–220). Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
  30. Plessner, H. [1928] (1981). Die Stufen des Organischen und der Mensch. Einleitung in die philosophische Anthropologie. In H. Plessner, Gesammelte Schriften IV, hrsg. von G. Dux et al. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  31. Rosenzweig, F. [1921] (1971). The star of redemption (W. V. Hallo, Trans.). New York/Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  32. Rosenzweig, F. [1925] (1999). “The new thinking”: A few supplementary remarks to the star of redemption. In A. Udoff & B. Galli (Eds.), Franz Rosenzweig’s “the new thinking” (pp. 67–102). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Scheler, M. [1912] (1973). The idols of self-knowledge. In M. Scheler (Ed.), Selected philosophical essays (D. Lachterman, Trans.) (pp. 3–97). Northwestern University Press: Evanston.Google Scholar
  34. Scheler, M. [1923] (2008). The nature of sympathy (P. Heath, Trans.). New Brunswick/London: Transaction.Google Scholar
  35. Scheler, M. [1928] (2009). The human place in the cosmos (M. Frings, Trans.). Evanston (Illinois): Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Theunissen, M. (1964). Bubers negative Ontologie des Zwischen. Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 71, 319–330.Google Scholar
  37. Theunissen, M. (1977). Der Andere. Studien zur Sozialontologie der Gegenwart (zweite Auflage). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Theunissen, M. [1977] (1984). The other. Studies in the social ontology of Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and Buber (Ch. Macann, Trans.). Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Tidona, G. (2013). Einführung. Über die Grenzen der Phänomenologie und unterwegs zur Dialogik. “Das Individuum in der Rolle des Mitmenschen”. In K. Löwith, Das Individuum in der Rolle des Mitmenschen. Ein Beitrag zur anthropologischen Grundlegung der ethischen Probleme (pp. 11–79). Freiburg/München: Alber.Google Scholar
  40. von Balthasar, H. U. [1973] (1988). Theo-drama. Theological dramatic theory I: Prolegomena (G. Harrison, Trans.). San Francisco: Ignatius.Google Scholar
  41. von Humboldt, W. [1827] (1997). On the dual form. In W. von Humboldt, Essays on language (T. Harden & D. Farrelly, Trans.) (pp. 111–136). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
  42. Wojcieszuk, M. A. (2010). Der Mensch wird am Du zum Ich. Eine Auseindersetzung mit der Dialogphilosophie des XX. Jahrhunderts. Freiburg: Centaurus.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human SciencesUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations