What do you think?
Rate this book
Philosophy is for everyman: A short course in philosophical thinking;
Revertendo às origens do pensamento e coordenando-as com a tradição histórica, este livro permite bem compreender, a partir das raízes,o sentido perene da filosofia e propícia ao homem a tomada de consciência da sua situação no mundo e a orientação da própria existência porque, como afirma: "ser homem é fazer-se homem".
125 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 1969
About the author
Karl Jaspers
421 books373 followersJaspers was born in Oldenburg in 1883 to a mother from a local farming community, and a jurist father. He showed an early interest in philosophy, but his father's experience with the legal system undoubtedly influenced his decision to study law at university. It soon became clear that Jaspers did not particularly enjoy law, and he switched to studying medicine in 1902.
Jaspers graduated from medical school in 1909 and began work at a psychiatric hospital in Heidelberg where Emil Kraepelin had worked some years earlier. Jaspers became dissatisfied with the way the medical community of the time approached the study of mental illness and set himself the task of improving the psychiatric approach. In 1913 Jaspers gained a temporary post as a psychology teacher at Heidelberg University. The post later became permanent, and Jaspers never returned to clinical practice.
At the age of 40 Jaspers turned from psychology to philosophy, expanding on themes he had developed in his psychiatric works. He became a renowned philosopher, well respected in Germany and Europe. In 1948 Jaspers moved to the University of Basel in Switzerland. He remained prominent in the philosophical community until his death in Basel in 1969.
Jaspers' dissatisfaction with the popular understanding of mental illness led him to question both the diagnostic criteria and the methods of clinical psychiatry. He published a revolutionary paper in 1910 in which he addressed the problem of whether paranoia was an aspect of personality or the result of biological changes. Whilst not broaching new ideas, this article introduced a new method of study. Jaspers studied several patients in detail, giving biographical information on the people concerned as well as providing notes on how the patients themselves felt about their symptoms. This has become known as the biographical method and now forms the mainstay of modern psychiatric practice.
Jaspers set about writing his views on mental illness in a book which he published in 1913 as General Psychopathology. The two volumes which make up this work have become a classic in the psychiatric literature and many modern diagnostic criteria stem from ideas contained within them. Of particular importance, Jaspers believed that psychiatrists should diagnose symptoms (particularly of psychosis) by their form rather than by their content. For example, in diagnosing a hallucination, the fact that a person experiences visual phenomena when no sensory stimuli account for it (form) assumes more importance than what the patient sees (content).
Jaspers felt that psychiatrists could also diagnose delusions in the same way. He argued that clinicians should not consider a belief delusional based on the content of the belief, but only based on the way in which a patient holds such a belief (see delusion for further discussion). Jaspers also distinguished between primary and secondary delusions. He defined primary delusions as autochthonous meaning arising without apparent cause, appearing incomprehensible in terms of normal mental processes. (This is a distinctly different use of the term autochthonous than its usual medical or sociological meaning of indigenous.) Secondary delusions, on the other hand, he classified as influenced by the person's background, current situation or mental state.
Jaspers considered primary delusions as ultimately 'un-understandable,' as he believed no coherent reasoning process existed behind their formation. This view has caused some controversy, and the likes of R. D. Laing and Richard Bentall have criticised it, stressing that taking this stance can lead therapists into the complacency of assuming that because they do not understand a patient, the patient is deluded and further investigation on the part of the therapist will have no effect.
Most commentators associate Jaspers with the philosophy of existentialism, in part because he draws largely upon the existentialist roots of Nietzsche and Kierk
Jaspers graduated from medical school in 1909 and began work at a psychiatric hospital in Heidelberg where Emil Kraepelin had worked some years earlier. Jaspers became dissatisfied with the way the medical community of the time approached the study of mental illness and set himself the task of improving the psychiatric approach. In 1913 Jaspers gained a temporary post as a psychology teacher at Heidelberg University. The post later became permanent, and Jaspers never returned to clinical practice.
At the age of 40 Jaspers turned from psychology to philosophy, expanding on themes he had developed in his psychiatric works. He became a renowned philosopher, well respected in Germany and Europe. In 1948 Jaspers moved to the University of Basel in Switzerland. He remained prominent in the philosophical community until his death in Basel in 1969.
Jaspers' dissatisfaction with the popular understanding of mental illness led him to question both the diagnostic criteria and the methods of clinical psychiatry. He published a revolutionary paper in 1910 in which he addressed the problem of whether paranoia was an aspect of personality or the result of biological changes. Whilst not broaching new ideas, this article introduced a new method of study. Jaspers studied several patients in detail, giving biographical information on the people concerned as well as providing notes on how the patients themselves felt about their symptoms. This has become known as the biographical method and now forms the mainstay of modern psychiatric practice.
Jaspers set about writing his views on mental illness in a book which he published in 1913 as General Psychopathology. The two volumes which make up this work have become a classic in the psychiatric literature and many modern diagnostic criteria stem from ideas contained within them. Of particular importance, Jaspers believed that psychiatrists should diagnose symptoms (particularly of psychosis) by their form rather than by their content. For example, in diagnosing a hallucination, the fact that a person experiences visual phenomena when no sensory stimuli account for it (form) assumes more importance than what the patient sees (content).
Jaspers felt that psychiatrists could also diagnose delusions in the same way. He argued that clinicians should not consider a belief delusional based on the content of the belief, but only based on the way in which a patient holds such a belief (see delusion for further discussion). Jaspers also distinguished between primary and secondary delusions. He defined primary delusions as autochthonous meaning arising without apparent cause, appearing incomprehensible in terms of normal mental processes. (This is a distinctly different use of the term autochthonous than its usual medical or sociological meaning of indigenous.) Secondary delusions, on the other hand, he classified as influenced by the person's background, current situation or mental state.
Jaspers considered primary delusions as ultimately 'un-understandable,' as he believed no coherent reasoning process existed behind their formation. This view has caused some controversy, and the likes of R. D. Laing and Richard Bentall have criticised it, stressing that taking this stance can lead therapists into the complacency of assuming that because they do not understand a patient, the patient is deluded and further investigation on the part of the therapist will have no effect.
Most commentators associate Jaspers with the philosophy of existentialism, in part because he draws largely upon the existentialist roots of Nietzsche and Kierk
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
November 30, 2022
You can read this book for free here:
https://archive.org/details/philosoph...
Counterintuitively, in this book Karl Jaspers does not actually try to teach a person how to think philosophically. Rather, he tries to provide the readers with things to philosophically think about. A wide range of topics are covered in this book, including existence, love, ciphers, science, history, politics, and philosophy's place in this world. The author does not try to assert any specific philosophical belief on a person but tries to objectively make some points that can generate philosophical thinking. Some interesting points made in this book include:
-Science can reveal information that can generate philosophical thought, but it itself is not equivalent to philosophy; it serves as a library of technical information to be interpreted.
-With the tremendous truths science has revealed, the study of science can inadvertently lead to superstition; since science has accomplished so much, people naturally believe it can accomplish more. Although perfectly normal to believe, these beliefs can therefore cause superstitions to rise about how the world works and what can be done with science.
-Existence, or "being," is neither subject nor object, but is instead something that encompasses the subject-object dichotomy.
-Publicity can provide a gateway to truth.
-Dying can be perceived with the five senses, but death cannot; this makes the fear of dying and fear of death different.
-Ciphers can contain objectivities that are written in a way that can be subjectively interpreted.
-Assuming humans are the only rational beings, the planet would just be an unconscious, unperceived world without human occupation. Human history is important to the observation of the history of the world itself.
-While a totalitarian environment does pose many restrictions, political freedom still has limitations; to have the freedom to rule over one's own life and question one's own existence can help a human realize their identity and existence as a human, but the need to rule one's life prudently and ask the right questions about one's own existence cannot be perfectly attained by a human being. While freedom can define a human being, it can also lead to self-destruction, which, paradoxically, can restrict a person. The need for authority rises from this paradox.
I have checked on both Goodreads and Amazon, and strangely, this book does not seem widely read or known.
The book was interesting from a pedagogical standpoint. The fact that the author was trying to immerse the reader in things to philosophically think about instead of actually teaching them how to philosophically think was very intriguing. As the author himself said about the book, "Philosophical thinking... means carrying empirical and rational thinking to the extreme limit, where origins are discovered. It does not mean exercises in formal logic or linguistic analysis..." In a book intended to be "a short course in philosophical thinking," you would think that you would actually be able to literally learn about how to philosophically think. Such lessons in philosophical thinking would most likely contain content introducing you to prerequisite formal logic and linguistic analysis. However, this was not the case. Free-flowing insights and observations about several different topics were inserted to immerse the reader into things he/she can philosophically think about. There, in fact, wasn't a thing about how to think philosophically.
The approach was very intriguing and immersive, especially accompanied by Jasper's writing. The writing was clear, direct, and comprehensible. To be lured into the realm of philosophy with direct and fascinating observations about the world itself is a wonderful privilege. Reading this book was like being carried along by a river. It wasn't super boring or didactic.
The approach is not completely perfect, though. Philosophy is perfect for open-ended and subjective discussion, which can be pretty powerful, but because of how subjective philosophical discussions can be, you can tell that some of Jasper's personal and political beliefs were incorporated into this book, sometimes making it appear less like a roadmap and course to philosophy and more like an immersion into somebody else's beliefs. For instance, I can tell he condemned certain ways of psychoanalysis, especially those influenced by Marx. I do not know much about Marx, so I neither agree nor disagree about his ideas, but I think it is worth observing that some parts of the book did not immerse me into the realm of philosophy as well as others.
Overall, this is a pretty good book. While it isn't entirely flawless, I do believe that it should be more widely read.
https://archive.org/details/philosoph...
Counterintuitively, in this book Karl Jaspers does not actually try to teach a person how to think philosophically. Rather, he tries to provide the readers with things to philosophically think about. A wide range of topics are covered in this book, including existence, love, ciphers, science, history, politics, and philosophy's place in this world. The author does not try to assert any specific philosophical belief on a person but tries to objectively make some points that can generate philosophical thinking. Some interesting points made in this book include:
-Science can reveal information that can generate philosophical thought, but it itself is not equivalent to philosophy; it serves as a library of technical information to be interpreted.
-With the tremendous truths science has revealed, the study of science can inadvertently lead to superstition; since science has accomplished so much, people naturally believe it can accomplish more. Although perfectly normal to believe, these beliefs can therefore cause superstitions to rise about how the world works and what can be done with science.
-Existence, or "being," is neither subject nor object, but is instead something that encompasses the subject-object dichotomy.
-Publicity can provide a gateway to truth.
-Dying can be perceived with the five senses, but death cannot; this makes the fear of dying and fear of death different.
-Ciphers can contain objectivities that are written in a way that can be subjectively interpreted.
-Assuming humans are the only rational beings, the planet would just be an unconscious, unperceived world without human occupation. Human history is important to the observation of the history of the world itself.
-While a totalitarian environment does pose many restrictions, political freedom still has limitations; to have the freedom to rule over one's own life and question one's own existence can help a human realize their identity and existence as a human, but the need to rule one's life prudently and ask the right questions about one's own existence cannot be perfectly attained by a human being. While freedom can define a human being, it can also lead to self-destruction, which, paradoxically, can restrict a person. The need for authority rises from this paradox.
I have checked on both Goodreads and Amazon, and strangely, this book does not seem widely read or known.
The book was interesting from a pedagogical standpoint. The fact that the author was trying to immerse the reader in things to philosophically think about instead of actually teaching them how to philosophically think was very intriguing. As the author himself said about the book, "Philosophical thinking... means carrying empirical and rational thinking to the extreme limit, where origins are discovered. It does not mean exercises in formal logic or linguistic analysis..." In a book intended to be "a short course in philosophical thinking," you would think that you would actually be able to literally learn about how to philosophically think. Such lessons in philosophical thinking would most likely contain content introducing you to prerequisite formal logic and linguistic analysis. However, this was not the case. Free-flowing insights and observations about several different topics were inserted to immerse the reader into things he/she can philosophically think about. There, in fact, wasn't a thing about how to think philosophically.
The approach was very intriguing and immersive, especially accompanied by Jasper's writing. The writing was clear, direct, and comprehensible. To be lured into the realm of philosophy with direct and fascinating observations about the world itself is a wonderful privilege. Reading this book was like being carried along by a river. It wasn't super boring or didactic.
The approach is not completely perfect, though. Philosophy is perfect for open-ended and subjective discussion, which can be pretty powerful, but because of how subjective philosophical discussions can be, you can tell that some of Jasper's personal and political beliefs were incorporated into this book, sometimes making it appear less like a roadmap and course to philosophy and more like an immersion into somebody else's beliefs. For instance, I can tell he condemned certain ways of psychoanalysis, especially those influenced by Marx. I do not know much about Marx, so I neither agree nor disagree about his ideas, but I think it is worth observing that some parts of the book did not immerse me into the realm of philosophy as well as others.
Overall, this is a pretty good book. While it isn't entirely flawless, I do believe that it should be more widely read.
July 8, 2024
Short but abstruse. Some passages I did not understand at all. I was surprised, though, at how relevant this book published in the 1960s seems to our situation today regarding the growth of strongman movements, not just abroad but here in the U.S. with Trump's MAGA cult. I even found something to laugh at in Prof. Jaspers' debate with a psychotherapist.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews