آغاز و انجام تاریخ

by Karl Jaspers, محمدحسن لطفی (Translator)

First published in English in 1953, this important book from eminent philosopher Karl Jaspers deals with the philsophy of the history of mankind. More specifically, its avowed aim is to assist in heightening our awareness of the present by placing it within the framework of the long obscurity of prehistory and the boundless realm of possibilities which lie within the undecided future.This analysis is split into 3 parts:

World history
The present and the future
The meaning of history

Genres: Philosophy, History, Nonfiction, World History, Sociology, Politics, Technology

371 pages, Unknown Binding

First published August 1, 1953

About the author

Jaspers 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

Reviews

[AiK · Rating 4 out of 5]

Карл Ясперс начинает свой труд с довольно важного замечания, а именно, что источники появляются примерно с 16 века. Первая часть книги посвящена предшествовавшей истории, во второй части - о настоящем и будущем. Цель третьей части пояснить смысл истории. Мне импонирует его критика идеи, что всемирная история была историей Запада, все остальное относили к этнографии. Между тем, мировая история охватывает весь земной шар. История была повсюду. Ясперс рассматривает концепции всемирно-исторического процесса Шпенглера, Вебера. При создании схемы всемирного исторического процесса он исходит от единого истока.
Он признает, что христианская вера – лишь одна вера среди многих верований и считает, что мировая история – это светская история. Ось мировой истории следует искать там, где созданы предпосылки, чтобы стать человеком тем, кем он стал, общие рамки понимания их исторической роли.

Ясперс вводит понятие «осевого времени» - это промежуто времени от 500 года до нашей эры – в Китае в это время жили Конфуций и Лао Цзы, Мо Цзи, Цжуан Цзи, Ле Юикоу, в Индии создаются Упанишады, жил Будда. В Иране Заратустра, в Палестине – пророки Илья, Исайя, Иеремия, в Греции – Гомер, Парменид, Гераклит, Платон, Фукитид, Архимед. Они возникли независимо друг от друга. Этот период характеризуется тем, что человек осознает границы мира, познает абсолютность и трансцендентность мира, заложены основы мировых религий, переход к универсальности, заложены современные понятия. Мифологической эпохе пришел конец.
Возникшее в осевое время духовное напряжение являлось движущей силой развития. Осевое время проливает свет на всю мировую историю. То, что существовало до осевого времени (Вавилон, Египет)– дремлющее, неосуществившееся.

По Ясперсу, объектом исторического исследования является человек в целом, он поглощен тайной возникновения осевого времени. По одной, и кажется, единственной гипотезе, имея лошадей, кочевые народ первыми познали даль мира, то может косвенно объяснить параллелизм развития. К сожалению, этот тезис никак в работе не развит, просто упомянут, а именно он был бы интересен, хотя бы в качестве дальнейшего развития гипотезы.
История означает движение, изменение. Мне нравится, что Ясперс отказывается от превосходства европейской культуры. Со времен Геродота существовали противоречия между западным и восточным миром в разных образах. Греки заложили основу западного мира и сделали это так, что мир этот существует постольку, поскольку он обращает свой взор на восток, находится в размежевании с миром, понимая его и отстраняясь от него, перенимая у него определенные черты и перерабатывая их, борясь с ним, и в этой борьбе, власть попеременно переходит от одной стороны к другой. Эта противоположность аналогично ощущается китайцами, индийцами, египтянами по отношению к другим народам. Восток остается равнозначной силой с политической и духовной мощью. Эту противоположность можно понимать как расщепление духовной жизни вообще.
Самоуверенность европейцев по отношению к Востоку проявляется в том, что они воспринимают только близкое к ним. В Азии есть то, чего нет на Западе.
Вся история делится на три фазы – доисторию, история, мировая история (начинается с начала 20 века).
Ясперс уделяет большое внимание технике, но он против ее абсолютизации. Техника создает возможности для бюрократии, и она может стать тоталитарной. Технократия – управление техникой с помощью техники.
С первой мировой войны началась мировая история. Земной шар стал единым.

Смысл истории в том, чтобы открыть, чем может быть человек в самых различных условиях, определяемых структурой власти. Воля к власти и насилие всегда готовы вступить в действие. Они претендуют на то, чтобы облегчить тяжкие условия существования, затем на равенство в правах и на свободу, затем на всю полноту власти, гарантии господства и, наконец, на произвол единовластия.
Ясперс обращает внимание: где нет свободы, нет и справедливости. Однажды введенная диктатура не может быть устранена изнутри. Все, кто не желает быть причастными к террору, становятся терроризированными террористами, убивают, чтобы не быть убитыми самим. Если народы неожиданно окажутся под такой диктатурой, то спасения ждать неоткуда.
"Все те ужасы, которые происходили в разные периоды истории, достигли теперь такой концентрированной силы, что сдерживающих тенденций в войне вообще больше не существует. Гитлеровская Германия впервые в век техники сознательно вступила на тот путь, по которому затем вынуждены были пойти и другие народы. Теперь возникла угроза войны, которая в условиях века техники разорвет все связи и примет такой характер, что уничтожение целых народов и депортации, отчасти существовавшие уже раньше у ассирийцев и монголов, недостаточны для исчерпывающей характеристики этого бедствия.
Спасение только в создании правового устройства, обладающего достаточной силой, чтобы сохранить мир и, низведя перед лицом своего всевластия каждый акт насилия до уровня преступления, лишить его всяких шансов на успех.
Атомная бомба стала доводом - правда, еще слабым - в пользу сохранения мира, так как война несет в себе неизмеримую опасность для всех."

Итак, можем ли мы справиться с труднейшей задачей: полностью осознать всю глубину этой опасности, отнестись к ней действительно серьезно и содействовать самовоспитанию человечества, которое при всей реальности стоящей перед ним угрозы предотвратит подобный конец? А предотвратить эту опасность можно только в том случае, если она будет осознана, если угроза будет отведена с полной осознанностью и станет нереальной. Это может произойти только в том случае, если этос людей достигнет определенного уровня. Здесь дело не в технике - человек, как таковой, должен стать надежной гарантией сохранения и действия созданных им институтов.

Ясперс ставит вопрос: «Почему вообще существует история?» Его ответ - потому, что человек незавершен и не может быть завершен, он должен в своем преобразовании во времени познать вечное.

Из-за того, что в истории постоянно действует незавершенность, все должно беспрерывно меняться. История сама по себе не может быть завершена. Она может кончиться лишь в результате внутренней несостоятельности или космической катастрофы.

"Единство человечества находит свое отчетливое выражение в том несомненном факте, что повсеместно на Земле обнаруживается близость религиозных представлений, форм мышления, орудий и форм общественной жизни. Сходство людей при всем их различии очень велико. Психологические и социологические данные таковы, что позволяют повсюду проводить сравнение и установить множество закономерностей, свидетельствующих о характере основных структур человеческой природы в ее психологическом и социологическом аспекте.
Однако это универсальное не составляет действительного единства человечества. Напротив. Если же обратить взор на глубину открывающейся истины, тогда то, что составляет величие истории, обнаружится именно в особенном, а универсальное предстанет как всеобщее, остающееся внеисторическим и неизменным, как поток, который несет в своих водах действительное и правильное. "

"Все дело в том, чтобы воспринимать настоящее как вечность во времени. История ограничена далеким горизонтом, в котором настоящее значимо как прибежище, некое утверждение себя, решение, выполнение. Вечное являет себя как решение во времени. Для трансцендирующего сознания экзистенции история растворяется в вечности настоящего)."

[withdrawn · Rating 3 out of 5]

In The Origin and Goal of History, Karl Jaspers, having survived World War II with his Jewish wife, in Germany, seems to have set out a program for bringing about a world of peace, order, tolerance and human connectedness. In laying out this program he lays out concepts of the Axial Period, the effects on humanity of science and technology, world history, communication and philosophical faith. He also, for me, confounds the whole discussion with terminology such as ‘spirit’, Being, being, the One and the Comprehensive.

It would have been useful for the translator to have added some notes giving the English reader a sense of a) the German original and b) why the translation chosen was used. Also, some of the sentences never did make sense to me. I wonder if the translator always understood what he was translating.

I started the book because it is often cited as one of the sources of the current discussion on the concept of the Axial Age among historians, philosophers, anthropologists and sociologists. I soon realized that the book was not written to explain the concept but rather it introduced the concept as a tool within the larger task of establishing a philosophically based project to move humanity towards an ordered society.

As much as I tried to maintain a neutral position with regard to the writing, I never did come to terms with the use of some of the above cited terminology. In particular, I do not know what Jaspers meant in citing concepts of spirit and Being/being. Are these remnants of Hegel, who Jaspers tends to reject throughout the book? As an existentialist, is he using being like Heidegger or more like Sartre? I have never grasped the existentialists using ‘Being’ as if referencing a substance. It appears to give a transcendent sense to the discussion. Of course, Jaspers wants to discuss transcendence. Generally, that which is transcendent cannot be known, at least until we encounter it…and then we cannot put it into words. At the same time, humanity must encounter transcendence in order to move towards the universal ordered society. ‘The One’ and ‘the Comprehensive’ seem to fall into this category.

I chased ‘history’ through the book, finally coming to the discussion of it in Part Three. “History��� has several definitions here. I am certain that I have not grasped them all. As with Hegel, there are the common usages of the word as being the flow of events in the documented past, as well as the study of those events. Beyond that, like Hegel, Jaspers appears to have suggested that there is a certain substance to history beyond that. History seems to exist as an entity unto itself with a goal of its own. But, of course, it only exists because of man. I am not sure as to what this is. Is it transcendent?

For me, the greatest value in the book lay in the fact that it forced me to think and to challenge my own assumptions. Jaspers’ goals, while not realistic, as even he admits, are laudable and I questioned my own goals in studying philosophy, history, language and literature. What am I looking for? My project, to understand what I am, what we are…to grasp what my/our underlying values are and where they come from in our historical background in Western society, apparently lies at the heart of Jaspers’ project. While a confirmed skeptic, I understand Jaspers’ concept of philosophical faith. Jaspers’ supposition that faith must work hand and hand with the “religion of the Bible” is completely foreign to me as is his vaguely Christian/Hegelian idea of history working towards an end (either Heaven for all or Hell for all), even though he is clear that such an end will never be reached.

This last point was important for Jaspers as he wanted to make it clear that his project would not be confused with that of Hegel, Marx, Stalin on the one side or Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco on the other. He did not want to see his ideas slide into dogma.

There is much more to this book than I have summarized. A perfect review would take me many months to complete and a great deal of effort. I have neither to spare. Finally, the effort of reading the book pays off in that, as with reading Martin Buber, the brain is engaged and the art of reading is reinforced. That is enough for me. As for the Axial Age, I shall seek it elsewhere.

[J.D. Steens · Rating 2 out of 5]

I’ve seen frequent references to the “axial period” of world history, 800-200 BCE (with 500 BCE the specific axial point) and was curious. This term comes from Karl Jaspers and this book. During this period, Jaspers argues that a mythical age was replaced with reflective consciousness and sophisticated ethical thought. “In this age,” he writes, “were born the fundamental categories within which we still think today, and the beginnings of the world religions, by which human beings still live, were created. The step into universality was taken in every sense.” Jaspers states that this development occurred independently of each other among the religious and philosophical leaders (Zoroaster, the Jewish prophets, the Greek philosophers, Buddha, Lao-Tse) from China, India, Persia, Judea and Greece, all of which became centers “of spiritual radiation.” “Everything implied by these names,” Jaspers writes, “developed during these few centuries almost simultaneously in China, India, and the West, without any one of these regions knowing of the others.”

This “Axis Age” notion deserves a re-examination – not that it did not happen, but why it happened. Jaspers has a grand view, a “philosophical view of history” in his words, that is in scope and ambition akin to Hegel’s historical progression toward the Absolute. Jaspers argues that humankind’s development is toward Being itself, whatever that might mean, and that the Axial Age was the point at which human history pivoted from spiritual privation to enlightenment. The key point for Jaspers is not the simultaneity of occurrence, but that each of these enlightened centers developed independently. It is this point that gets repeated, like a virus, by various historians, philosophers and commentators about the Axial Age, suggesting that something special happened here.

For Jaspers, this development was special because it revealed the manifestation of Being in history, a message to the world and an inspiration to transcend creed and historicity (liberation?). It is a message that an “exclusive possession of truth, that tool of fanaticism, of human arrogance, and self-deception through the will to power…can be vanquished by the very fact that God has manifested himself historically in several fashions and has opened up many ways toward Himself. It is as though the deity were issuing a warning, through the language of universal history, against the claim to exclusiveness in the obsession of truth.” This, for Jaspers, is the meaning of the Axial Period.

Jaspers examines and rebuts other possibilities to explain how this independent development of this thinking occurred, but his argument is perfunctory and not convincing. In reference to migration, trade and such, Jaspers in the end concludes that “Real communications and stimuli [between and among these regions] must be ruled out.” Really? There are some strong similarities in that narrow belt that extends from China to southern Europe, and perhaps that’s a clue. Plato’s dialogues can be read in many respects as if they are right out of the Vedas, which, interestingly, reputedly, means “knowledge” in Sanskrit. Transmigration, karma, and judgments in an afterlife; caste divisions and Brahmin priests as holders of knowledge and wisdom; perfection, liberation, the inanimate soul, and union with the one; Maya and this world of illusion; itinerant teachers of opinion and yogis, etc. all suggest cross-fertilization of thought and practice.

Will Durant, for one (Volume I, Our Oriental Heritage, The Story of Civilization), sees a significance to the term “Indo-European” that goes beyond language. He says that the Persian people are closely akin to Vedic India and, specifically, that Aryan invaders of India were branches of a stock from “the Caspian sea.” He states that the Mohenjo-daro people, whose origin dates to around 2,600 BCE “had commercial, religious and artistic connections with Sumeria and Babylonia; and that it survived over three thousand years, until the third century before Christ.” In a footnote, Durant also writes that Vedic deities such as Indra, Mitra and Varuna “are mentioned in a treaty concluded by the Aryan Hittites and Mitannians at the beginning of the fourteenth century, BC.” He notes that in 860 BCE, there was trade with Mesopotamia, Arabia and Egypt involving Indian products such as perfumes, spices, cotton and silk, and that it is likely that the “Brahma script” was brought to India by Hindu merchants in the 8th or 9th centuries BCE from the West. Regarding religious thoughts, Durant writes that “Some Upanishads are older than any extant form of Greek philosophy, and Pyhthagoras, Parmenides and Plato seem to have been influenced by Indian metaphysics.” Durant does not delve into the connections between India and China during this period, but there is web-based information that lists important connections. These include numerous Mahabharata references to China in the 5th Century BCE, evidence of maritime intercourse between India and China as early as 680 BCE, and references to Indian “rishis” in China in the 3rd Century BCE.

It is also interesting to note that in some discussions of the five main human migration prongs (out of Africa), three - Europe, India and China – are thought to have had strong interconnections, whereas the other two – Pacific Islands and the Americas – were isolated from the rest of humankind and were, as it were, on their own. This might be additional evidence to counter Jaspers’ thesis regarding the isolation of these cultures from each other, and may help to explain how the cultures of the Pacific Islands and the Americas failed to manifest Jaspers’ Being in history thesis. In short, given all of this counter evidence, there’s enough here to suggest that the Jaspers’ theme regarding the independent appearance of Being in history needs a reassessment.

As used by Jaspers, the Axial Period has a loaded meaning. It’s not so much the blossoming of humans as it is a manifestation of Being in the world. “Axial” also suggests a central point in world history. Clearly, it was for Jaspers and his spiritual theme, but others can equally argue that it’s just an extension of a mythical age, or that it has no greater standing then, say, the development of agriculture or the industrial era or, now, the communication revolution. And while Jaspers is right to caution against exclusive claims to truth (creeds and cultures), he seems to be saying that the only real truth is Being and that type of claim always raises red flags.

The main part of the Jaspers book is a full treatment of his philosophical history, part of Being’s plan for us, despite our contemporary nihilistic tendencies (hence, Jaspers’ ties to the existentialists). Jaspers’ writing style is challenging. In many instances with his lofty jargon, I had no idea what he was saying.

[N · Rating 4 out of 5]

The fact that a book with this level of rigor, lucidity and ambition could not be written today is proof that man’s reach exceeding his grasp is a function of whether he’s going uphill or down.

Clippings
To be sure, they were not bound by the common possession of a single, objective truth (such a truth is only to be found in science which, methodologically conscious and compelling general assent to its propositions, is capable of spreading over the entire globe without undergoing any metamorphosis as a result and has a claim on the collaboration of all); but the authentically and absolutely true, which is lived by mankind historically from diverse origins, was seen and heard reciprocally in this encounter.

For this reason the whole man is the organon of historical research. ‘Every man sees that which he bears within his own heart.’ The source of understanding is our own present, the here and now, our sole reality. Thus the higher we ourselves ascend, the more clearly do we see the Axial Period.

The men of these equestrian peoples came to experience, thanks to the horse, the limitless vastness of the world. They took over the ancient civilisations by conquest. In hazards and disasters they experienced the problematic character of existence, as master-peoples they developed an heroico-tragic consciousness that found expression in the epic.

Anyone studying philosophy is likely to find that after months with the Greek philosophers, St. Augustine affects him like a liberation from coldness and impersonality into questions of conscience, which have remained with us ever since the time of St. Augustine but were alien to the Greeks. Conversely, however, after spending some time on St. Augustine, he will experience an increasing desire to return to the Greeks and cleanse himself of the feeling of impurity

For the Axial Period and for the ensuing millennia of the West, however, the cultures founded by the Indo-Germanic peoples were of paramount importance. These peoples—Indians, Greeks, Teutons, as well as Celts, Slavs and the later Persians—have one thing in common: They gave birth to the heroic saga and the epic, they discovered, shaped and evolved the tragic spirit.

The machine leads to the production not only of luxury goods, but also of the mass-goods of everyday need to all; this results in the majority of men being drawn into the production process, into this method of work by machine, as component parts in the machinery. If almost everyone becomes a link in the technological work process, the organisation of labour becomes a question addressed to humanity. Because the ultimate consideration for man is man and not technology,

The definition of work is threefold: Work is physical labour. Work is planned activity. Work is the basic feature of man’s nature in contradistinction to the animal:

Work becomes mere effort in exertion and haste, expenditure of energy is followed by fatigue, both of them devoid of reflection. In fatigue nothing is left but the instincts, the need for pleasure and sensation. Man lives on the cinema and the newspaper, in listening to the news and looking at pictures, everywhere within the range of the mechanically conventional.

Goethe’s attacks upon Newton are only intelligible in terms of the upheaval produced in him by the exact sciences through his unconscious knowledge of the catastrophe which was even then beginning to threaten the world of man.

Today there is passing through the world the evil spell of a philosophy that finds truth in nihilism, that summons man to a strangely heroic existence without consolation and without hope, in affirmation of all harshness and mercilessness, in what is alleged to be a purely worldly humanism. This is mere repetition of the ideas of Nietzsche without his poignant tension in the will to overcome it.

Simplification.—Simplicity is the shape of that which is true. Simplification is the violence that takes the place of lost simplicity. Simplicity is infinite in its capacity for interpretation, a world in parvo, replete and mobile. Simplification is finite in nature, the string by which one is guided like a puppet, incapable of development, empty and rigid.

a dialectic of spiritual evolution, impelled by Christian motives, led from Christianity to such a radical illumination of truth that this religion brought about the reversal against itself, out of its own forces. But again this road need not have led to loss of faith.

‘The universist system represents the highest point to which the spiritual culture of China has been able to evolve. The only power capable of undermining it and bringing about its downfall is sound science. If ever the time should come when science is seriously cultivated in China, there can be no doubt that a complete revolution will take place in the whole of its spiritual life, which will either put China utterly out of joint or cause it to undergo a rebirth after which China will no longer be China and the Chinese no longer the Chinese. China herself possesses no second system

It is of crucial significance for the course of events whether the individual can endure to remain in suspense, or whether he flees into certainties. The dignity of man in his thinking about the future consists both in the projection of the possible and in a nescience that is founded on knowledge; our principle must be that we do not know what may happen. The most compelling element in our lives is the fact that we do not know the future, but contribute toward its realisation and see it loom before us incalculable in its entirety. To know the future would be the death of our souls. When we are erroneously convinced that a particular course of events is going to take place, this paralyses us if it is unwanted—or, if it is wanted, it aids our actions in situations of failure, through the certainty of ultimate success; but here too at the price of an untruth, of a narrowness of heart, of a treacherous arrogance, which deprives any such success—in so far as it does, for a while, occur—of all nobility.

Anyone who regards an impending war as certain is helping on its occurrence, precisely through his certainty. Anyone who regards peace as certain grows carefree and unintentionally impels us into war. Only he who sees the peril and does not for one instant forget it, is able to behave in a rational fashion and to do what is possible to exorcise it. It is of crucial significance for the course of events whether the individual can endure to remain in suspense, or whether he flees into certainties. The dignity of man in his thinking about the future consists both in the projection of the possible and in a nescience that is founded on knowledge; our principle must be that we do not know what may happen. The most compelling element in our lives is the fact that we do not know the future, but contribute toward its realisation and see it loom before us incalculable in its entirety. To know the future would be the death of our souls.

scientific Marxism, was an exceptionally fruitful method of cognition; as an absolutised historico-philosophical and sociological total conception it has become a scientifically demonstrable fallacy and a fanaticising ideology.

Humility is necessary to us and in humility the demand to do all that lies in our power. The almost total powerlessness of the vote of the individual is combined with the desire that the decisions of these individuals in their totality shall determine everything.

The concern of all for freedom is necessary. For it is the costliest possession, that never falls to our lot of its own accord, and is not maintained automatically. It can only be preserved where it has risen into consciousness and been accepted into responsibility. For freedom is always on the defensive, and therefore in danger.

Communism may be characterised in contradistinction to socialism as the absolutisation of tendencies which are true in the first place. They then become fanatical through this absoluteness, and in practice cease to operate as a recasting of historical reality,

Socialism sets itself against capitalism. It desires to substitute common ownership of the means of production for their private ownership. Absolutised, this has as its result: Instead of the question being confined to the private ownership of the means of production of machine technology—large-scale undertakings—the abolition of private property in general is demanded.

As long as socialist demands are concretely visualised and thought out they remain within bounds. It is only when concrete reality is lost sight of and a fantastic paradise of man is presupposed as possible, that its demands become abstract and absolute. Socialism ceases to be an idea and becomes an ideology. The demand for complete implementation in fact leads away from its fulfilment. Along the path of coercion it leads to servitude.

To the superstitious belief in science it seems as though good might be obtained from a superior knowledge, which it supposes to be already in existence somewhere. The yearning for this helping knowledge in the shape of a leader, a superman, whom one can simply obey and who promises to accomplish everything, leads to the self-incurred illusion of the man who gives up enlightenment and ceases to think for himself. All salvation is expected from an impossible source.

The organisation of force, however, conquest and empire-building by conquest, lead to dictatorship, even if the starting-point was free democracy. So it happened in Rome in the transition from the Republic to Caesarism. So the French Revolution changed into the dictatorship of Napoleon. Democracy that conquers abandons itself.

Faith is not a particular content, not a dogma—dogma may be the expression of an historical shape assumed by faith; but it may also be a delusion. Faith is the fulfilling and moving element in the depths of man, in which man is linked, above and beyond himself, with the origin of his being. The self-evidence of faith is achieved only in historical patterns—no truth may regard itself as the sole and exclusive truth for all men, without becoming intolerant and at the same time untrue—but between all believers there exists a hidden common element. The only antagonist, the antagonist that lurks in readiness in every one of us, is nihilism.

When Rome drew the whole of the ancient world into its empire, it completed the levelling which had been going forward since the time of Alexander. Links of national custom were weakened, the local historical heritage ceased to sustain the proud life of autonomous energies. The world was levelled off spiritually into two languages (Greek and Latin), into a shallow ethical system

Without faith in God, faith in man degenerates into contempt for man, into loss of respect for man as man, with the final consequence that the alien human life is treated with indifference, as something to be used and destroyed.

Faith in the world does not mean faith in it as a self-sufficient entity, but holding fast to the fundamental enigma of selfdiscovery in the world with its tasks and possibilities. The world is a place of tasks, is itself derived from transcendence; in it befalls the language to which we listen when we understand what we really want.

Indifference is born rather of the arrogance of one’s own truth and is the mildest form of intolerance: secret contempt—let others believe what they like, it doesn’t concern me. Tolerance, by contrast, is open-minded; it knows its own limitations and seeks to integrate them humanly into diversity, without reducing the notions and ideas of faith to an absolute common denominator.

We can do nothing to plan the future realities of faith. We can only be ready to receive it, and live in such a manner that this readiness increases. We cannot make our own transformation the goal of our wills; it must, rather, be bestowed upon us, if we live in such a fashion that we can experience the gift.

The independence from both Church and State of the deepest inner being of the man related to transcendence, his liberty of soul, that draws courage from discourse with the great cultural heritage, this remains the last refuge, as it has been so often before in evil periods of transition.

The historical is that which comes to naught, but is everlasting in time. It is the hallmark of this Being that it is history, and thereby not permanence through all time. For in contradistinction to mere happening, in which, as matter, the universal forms and laws simply repeat themselves, history is the happening which in itself, cutting across time, annulling time, lays hold of the eternal.

That which is given in the basic make-up as permanent and unchanging appears at different times, through the agency of varying selection, in quite different directions. At any given time those men become visible, successful, and then numerically preponderant whose personal qualities satisfy the particular conditions of the current society and its situation.

In history, that which is unrepeatable and irreplaceable comes to light in unique creations, break-throughs and realisations. Because these creative steps cannot be in any way conceived causally, nor deduced as necessary, they are like revelations from some other source than the mere course of happening. But once they have come into existence, they lay the foundations of the humanity that comes after. From them man acquires his knowledge and volition, his prototypes and antitypes, his criteria, his thought-patterns and his symbols, his inner world. They are steps toward unity, because they appertain to the one selfunderstanding spirit and address themselves to all.

There is more in the past than what has so far been objectively and rationally extracted from it. The thinker himself is still standing in the evolution that is history; he is not at the end, and hence—from his position on a hill with a restricted view, not on the world-mountain from which everything is visible—he knows the directions of possible ways, and yet does not know the origin and goal of the whole.

In every conscious step of our lives, especially in every creative act of the spirit, we are aided by an unconscious within us. Pure consciousness is incapable of doing anything. Consciousness is like the crest of a wave, a peak above a broad and deep subsoil.

[Dean Summers · Rating 3 out of 5]

First published in 1949, The Origin and Goal of History is best remembered as the book in which Karl Jaspers coined the term “the Axial Age,” a term that designates a few hundred years in the middle of the first millennium BC, an era that gave us the likes of Pythagoras in Greece, Jeremiah in Israel, Zarathustra in Persia, Siddhartha in India, and Lao Tsu in China. It was a turning point in history. Here and there, little by little, people began turning away from myth toward philosophy, away from attempts to appease the gods through blood sacrifice toward ethics, away from tribalism toward a more inclusive embrace of humanity.

I wanted to learn more about the Axial Age, so I picked up a copy of The Origin and Goal of History. Therein, most of what Jaspers says of the Axial Age is in the first of sixteen chapters, a chapter titled “The Axial Period.” I was hoping for a comparison of the various expressions of the Axial breakthrough and a discussion of the factors that might account for the contemporaneous occurrence of that breakthrough in five cultures that appear to have been isolated one from the other. Instead, Jaspers mainly discusses the significance of the Axial Age for a philosophy of history.

The Origin and Goal of History is not an easy book to read. It is a German philosophical treatise translated into academic British English, written for an audience with a funded experience I do not share. Even so, I did read the book cover to cover, and maybe I caught the gist of it. Maybe. Maybe not. In what follows, anything I attribute to Jaspers is really only a reflection of my own thinking as I struggled to make sense of what I was reading. Anyway, here’s some of what I think Karl Jaspers may have been saying.

History is an account, always partial, always in need of revision, of the development of consciousness and community as experienced by the human species—a development often resisted by humans out of fear and rivalry. The origin of history lies in the long-forgotten past, but can be imagined, though never perfectly reconstructed. The goal of history lies in the unforeseeable future, but can be imagined, though never fully anticipated.

To imagine a future is to help create a future. So let’s imagine a good future. To do so, we have to begin where we find ourselves. We find ourselves well into the Age of Technology. The entire human species has become inter-connected and inter-dependent worldwide, and we have become fully dependent on technology, and fully transformed by it. Our transformation has included a transformation in the nature of our work, in the nature of our economy, and in the nature of our social and political systems. (Jaspers credits Nordic ingenuity as the driving force that ushered in the Age of Technology. Curiously, while he mentions war from time to time, he does not discuss war as an outcome of human rivalry, nor does he mention war as a factor in technological development. Consider the advances in technology spurred on by the American Civil War, by World War I, by World War II, by the American War in Vietnam.)

In the Age of Technology, work is no longer the production of food, clothing, and housing, but is now the operation and maintenance of machines that produce food, clothing, and housing. Humans are in danger of becoming cogs in the machine (components of the Internet).

In the Age of Technology, our economy is no longer a network of local economies, but is now a global economy—a global economy that can only function properly as a free-market economy, and not as a government-controlled economy. (Here, Jaspers acknowledges his concurrence with F. A. Hayek, one of the “three fathers of neoliberalism,” proponents of an economic theory later popularized as “Reaganomics,” a theory critiqued by Thom Hartman in The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America and How to Restore Its Greatness.)

In the Age of Technology, society is no longer a free association of persons but a labor force, one that is productive only if organized under one of three forms of government: fascist, communist, or democratic. Both fascism and communism are rigidly ideological. Both presume to have a fully-comprehensive understanding of human nature and the human condition that would supposedly warrant a policy of total planning. No such understanding is humanly possible. And, in practice, total planning has always led to fear and oppression. In contrast, democracy does not claim omniscience, promotes conversation, seeks consensus, and restricts state control over personal lives. Democracy leads to freedom from oppression, but also to uncertainty. Democracy is messy. The process of finding consensus can be nerve-racking. And political defeat can become a temptation to seize power through violence.

For a future in which humankind comes together as a global community of free persons in a “new world order,” faith is required: faith in the One in whom we live and move and have our being; faith in human potential; faith in a world of possibilities. (By “faith,” Jaspers seems to mean choosing to set aside fear and rivalry in favor of consciousness and community while hoping for the best.)

Jaspers does not agree with the Christian assessment that, historically, a BC/AD divide marks a true axial age, let alone one greater than the age that included Jeremiah and Siddhartha. He seems to say: 1) Jesus Christ, as the patron god of Western Civilization, is a personification of a Western idea of nobility, not an historical person whose influence shaped Western Civilization. He seems to say: 2) the Galilean prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, is historically irrelevant; his message is a mere reiteration of the message of the Judean prophets of the Axial Age; he made no unique contribution to the development of human consciousness or human community. I share the first point of view, but not the second. The message of Jesus of Nazareth is not a message that everyone can fully appreciate. The message of Jesus is good news to the poor. It is not always good news to the privileged. It can be nonsense to the privileged, or it can be perceived as a threat. Then again, it can be perceived as a call to set aside fear and rivalry for consciousness and community. To appreciate Jesus’ contribution to the development of human consciousness and human community, read René Griard’s I See Satan Fall Like Lightning.

As a seminal work, The Origin and Goal of History rates five stars. For readability, I give it one star. That comes to three stars.

[Peter Fox · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have waited a long time to read this book. In 2014, my first year of university study, i was introduced Karl Jasper's term, "the axial age", and i have been fascinated with it ever since. My first year was not a one off, for my lecturers mentioned the subject on a number of different occasions in history, politics, international relations and globalisation.

Having read some of the extracts, i knew that this was going to be one of those books in which i would need to mature as a student of history and step away from my studies before i tackled the book. I had also placed Hannah Arendt at the front of the cue so that i could ease myself into the subject matter.
Jasper's writing is typical of the German academics of his period. Concise, thorough, deep, probing and gracious in its ability to take on big subjects in a delicate and clinical manner. I did mention Arendt laying the ground work. This helps make the subject matter of the origins of history and the concept of the axial age, not only digestable, but ornate in the way Jasper interlocks the varied subject matters of history, religion, philosophy, science and culture into a very interesting book.
He does give credit where credit is due to other scholars who have toyed with the idea of the axial age, but he has been able to kneed the subject matters into a loaf of digestable material that would not require a hard core academic to read, but is open to any student of history and global perspective.
The Origin and Goal of History will give you a depth of thought and a broadness of interest that can be compared to few others. Voltaire, Kant, and Arnendt have the same depth and breadth of knowledge and style, while Jared Diamond, Vaclav Smil and Steven Pinker would be his modern world equals.
This book and Jaspers reputation lived up to expectation, and i highly recommend this to any reader who wants to step out of the micro life and wants to journey through the history of a more complex macro world.

[فؤاد · Rating 3 out of 5]

فصل های مربوط به «عصر محوری» رو خوندم. با این مفهوم قبلاً به واسطۀ کارن آرمسترانگ آشنا شده بودم. کارن آرمسترانگ در دو کتاب خودش به این مفهوم اشاره کرده و در کتاب دگرگونی بزرگ در موردش به تفصیل صحبت کرده.
اصل ایده اما از آنِ کارل یاسپرسه که معتقد بود ظهور حکیمان مختلف تمدن های گوناگون (یونان، هند، چین) در یک برهه از تاریخ، نمی تونه اتفاقی باشه و محصول یه اتفاقیه که باعث شده انسان ها خودشون و جهان رو بدون فیلتر اساطیر باستانی و به صورت شخصی لمس و درک کنن.

[Nurlan Mustafayev · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why did the 'culture' start in the 'Axial Age' rather than other periods of human history? After reading the book one realizes that 'culture' has not been a sort of progress of mankind over time but may rather be an accident as well. If the Axial age culture did not happen, we would have lost a critical possibility for where we are today. It is a slightly boring book, though.

[Alexey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting, though sometimes the historical data he used are outdated nowadays. It's interestingly how people in every period look on their time as the biggest crises or the end of history, and Jaspers, though slightly indulged in such view himself, analysed it, too.

[Gennady Polonetsky · Rating 1 out of 5]

Outdated view on history research.

[AttackGirl · Rating 2 out of 5]

I seriously must have missed something…

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Karl Jaspers' magnum opus, "The Origin and Goal of History," offers a profound exploration of the nature, purpose, and meaning of historical understanding. Jaspers delves into the existential dimensions of history, contemplating the relationship between human existence and the course of historical development. This review aims to provide an academic evaluation of Jaspers' arguments, discussing the book's strengths, weaknesses, and its significance within the fields of philosophy, historiography, and existential thought.


"The Origin and Goal of History" by Karl Jaspers delves into the philosophical underpinnings of historical inquiry, examining the profound connection between human existence and the unfolding of history. Jaspers explores the existential dimensions of historical consciousness, contemplating the human quest for meaning, freedom, and transcendence within the context of historical development. He reflects on the nature of historical interpretation, the challenges of historical understanding, and the ethical responsibilities of the historian.

Jaspers' work stands out for its philosophical depth and its ability to intertwine existential thought with historical analysis. He engages with a range of philosophical traditions, drawing upon insights from Kant, Nietzsche, and Heidegger, among others, to construct a comprehensive understanding of the nature and purpose of historical investigation. Jaspers' analysis fosters critical reflections on the complexities of historical understanding, challenging conventional approaches and inspiring readers to engage with history in a more profound and existential manner.


One of the notable strengths of "The Origin and Goal of History" lies in Jaspers' philosophical rigor and his ability to provoke deep existential reflection. He explores the intertwining relationship between human existence and historical development, emphasizing the ethical and spiritual dimensions of historical inquiry. Jaspers' insights on the inherent limitations and interpretive challenges in historical understanding offer profound reflections on the nature of human knowledge and the quest for truth.

Moreover, Jaspers' integration of philosophical thought and historical analysis enriches the book's intellectual scope. He engages with diverse historical examples, drawing upon the works of various historians and philosophers to illustrate his arguments. Jaspers' interdisciplinary approach broadens the book's appeal, allowing readers from both philosophical and historical backgrounds to engage with his ideas and appreciate the existential implications of historical inquiry.


While "The Origin and Goal of History" offers a thought-provoking analysis, it is not without its limitations. Some critics argue that Jaspers' existential approach to history may overlook or downplay the socio-political and economic factors that shape historical development. A more nuanced engagement with structural and materialist perspectives could enhance the book's analytical breadth, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between individual agency and systemic forces in history.

Additionally, Jaspers' writing style can be dense and intricate, making it challenging for some readers to fully grasp his arguments. A more accessible presentation of ideas, clearer connections between concepts, and concise explanations of key philosophical terms would enhance the book's readability and facilitate a broader readership's engagement with the content.


"The Origin and Goal of History" holds significant importance within the fields of philosophy, historiography, and existential thought as a profound exploration of the existential dimensions of historical understanding. Jaspers' analysis prompts critical reflections on the complexities of human existence, the ethical responsibilities of historians, and the intertwining relationship between history and individual and collective self-awareness. The book's contribution lies in its ability to foster discussions on the intersections between philosophy and history, expanding our understanding of the existential challenges and possibilities inherent in historical inquiry.

GPT

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is famous now for its opening discussion of the "Axial Age" which gave rise, Jaspers contends, to our kind of humanity, of which in modern times we have become acutely and critically aware. Not exactly a systematic philosophy of history, so that at times it can seem that Jaspers is simply long-winded and/or running off down rabbit-holes. Nonetheless, I am increasingly drawn into this book. Much in Jaspers' characterization of his present remains applicable - although in interestingly different ways; all in all, I suspect he would be dismayed at how little we have succeeded in meeting the challenges he saw and foresaw for a world society which, he believed, was naturally striving toward liberty through socialism and political unity. His comments on "eternal faith" and "the faith of the future" deserve rumination. We shall not likely transcend the Axial paradigm, he suggests, and yet we must find some way to rejuvenate it....

[Ali · Rating 3 out of 5]

تصور می کنم همین کتاب یاسپرس باشد که توسط محمدحسن لطفی به عنوان "آغاز و انجام تاریخ" به فارسی برگردانده شده و توسط انتشارات خوارزمی چاپ و منتشر شده است. یاسپرس اگرچه فیلسوف بوده، اما در تاریخ مطالعه ی وافری داشته و نظریه هایش در مورد فلسفه ی تاریخ، مورد توجه بسیاری از اندیشمندان قرن گذشته قرار گرفته. نگاه به تاریخ از فلسفه ی یاسپرس، جهان را به گونه ای دیگر جلوه می دهد، کاملن متفاوت با آنچه بصورت معمول در تصور داریم

[Galih Muji A. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mind blowing 🛸