Guido Cusinato

Questo saggio mette in discussione l'interpretazione predominante sull'ultimo Scheler e basata sulla tesi di un dualismo sostanziale fra Geist e Leben riconducibile a quello cartesiano. Questa interpretazione non tiene conto che Scheler in Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos critica espressamente il dualismo cartesiano. In secondo luogo, attraverso una precisa analisi dei testi, si mette in luce come dopo il 1924, il termine Geist assuma nel testo scheleriano un significato molto diverso da quello del periodo intermedio, e venga caratterizzato come un attributo completamente impotente. Il problema delle interpretazioni dualistiche è quello di sovrapporre questi due concetti di Geist e in particolare di continuare ad applicare al concetto di Geist sviluppato dopo il 1924 le stesse caratteristiche che Scheler attribuiva al Geist nel periodo intermedio, quando lo identificava ancora con la persona, cioè con un centro dotato di forza. A causa di questa indistinzione le interpretazioni dualistiche non riescono a rispondere alla domanda fondamentale: con quali forze uno spirito originariamente impotente e senza forze potrebbe contrapporsi dualisticamente alla vita? Scheler stesso anticipa possibili obiezioni in questo senso e afferma che «non lo spirito, ma solo l'intelletto ipersublimato, che Klages confonde con lo spirito, è in un certo senso ostile alla vita» (Max Scheler, GW IX, 150). In realtà il vero punto debole della relazione fra Geist e Drang non è il dualismo, tanto che Scheler stesso interpreta il rapporto nel senso di una compenetrazione (Durchdringung), un termine ripreso da Schelling, ma piuttosto il fatto che questa compenetrazione sfocia in una metafisica astratta che non ha più il suo fulcro nel concetto di persona ma in quello di Geist.

Im Blick des Eros wird die Energie der Libido für die ganze Wahrnehmungstätigkeit verfügbar gemacht. Die Wende des Interesses von der unmittelbaren Befriedigung zur Schau des Bildes bedeutet eine Änderung des Relevanzfeldes, denn der Eros versucht, in der Schau des Bildes selbst eine höhere Art von Befriedigung zu finden. Die menschliche revolutio findet statt, indem der Eros die Befriedigung im „blossen ‚Genusse‘ der Welt als Bild“ sucht, d. h. indem er begehrt, die Bilder eines Objekts wahrzunehmen. Der Eros ersetzt die unmittelbare Befriedigung des instinktiven Verfahrens durch die distanzierte Schau des Bildes, so dass die organische Befriedigung zu einer visuellen Befriedigung wird, d. h. zu einer Befriedigung im Schönen. Während der Instinkt nur das eigene Bedürfnis sieht, sieht der Eros den Gegenstand der Sehnsucht. Während der erstere nach der unmittelbaren Befriedigung sucht, möchte der letztere das sehen, was ihn befriedigt. Auf diese Weise bestimmt der Eros einen zeitlichen Abstand zwischen Reiz und Reaktion. Er verschiebt das Moment der Befriedigung nach vorne und zeugt somit eine Zeitspanne, in die sich die erleuchtende und leitende Logik der Agape hineindrängen kann.

The main theory at the core of this monograph is that the person is an entity ontologically new, since she is able to perform an act of self-transcendence, which is meant as her critical distancing from her own “self”, understood as subject of social recognition (Anerkennung), in order to open to the encounter with the world (Weltoffenheit). This allows us to consider a person in a new way, different both from confessional interpretations that see her only as a center of the spirit and from reductivistic views. Schelling examines the act of self-transcendence through the concept of ecstasy, whereas Scheler associates it with the phenomenological reduction. The act of self-transcendence, that Schelling sees as originated by the “hunger of being”, is at the roots of the formation process of a person (Bildung): the person takes her shape by exiting from her own self-referential dimension and encountering otherness. If considered from this viewpoint, Plato’s “epimeleia heautou” exceeds an intimistic perspective: the “care” is no more a solipsistic self-care, but rather becomes the care through which the person transcends her own self to open to the relationships with otherness. It turns, therefore, into a care for world-openness (care for Weltoffenheit). The transformation of the individual and of society so becomes the double-faced aspect of the same process. The development of this set of problems occurs through a dialogue with Schelling’s and Scheler’s positions, but it is also supported by a historical-philosophical investigation, that for instance provides evidence of the influences of Schelling’s Berlin period on Scheler’s last theories and on the philosophical anthropology of the 20th century. Schelling was the first to conceive the concept of “eccentricity” in an anthropological sense, since until then the term had been confined to Kepler’s astronomy. Consequently, the planets’ elliptic (eccentric) movement heightens to an emblematic metaphor of human nature and freedom. The monograph also examines a possible convergence between Plato’s epimeleia heautou and Scheler’s phenomenological reduction. The book ends with a chapter on the topic of Vorbild. The exemplary testimony, that is Vorbild, becomes witnessing evidence immune from any pedagogical-moralistic intent: in fact, if it should relapse into the rhetoric of the “wish to give a good example”, it would immediately conform to the opposite logic of the model. A model is universal in so far as it makes everyone more like the others, nullifying the diversity, whereas exemplariness is universal in so far as it makes everyone more unique and motivates each one to follow her own characteristic path of existential trans-formation. Exemplarity doesn’t convey any contents, but rather encourages a kind of solidaristic involvement. Yet there are also negative exemplarities (Gegenbild) that place obstacles in the formation and block the existence of the personal center.

The feeling of shame discussed by Socrates differs from the one considered in the classic distinction between shame culture and guilt culture [Dodds 1951; Williams 1993]. Dodds refers to 9th-century Homeric society and focuses on αἴδομαι understood as fear towards public opinion. What Socrates talks about, instead, is aischýne (αἰσχύνη), such as the feeling of shame Alcibiades only has towards Socrates, for which not public opinion but one’s own conscience matters (Smp. 216 b-c). Socrates’ standpoint does not coincide at all with the dominant dòxa, nor does it intend to undermine Alcibiades’ moral autonomy by inducing his sense of shame. On the contrary, it performs a cathartic function that is essential for the care of the soul, which is an indispensable premise for Alcibiades to learn to govern himself.

The paper discusses issues raised by Scheler's The Nature of Sympathy, investigating its phenomenology and social ontology: the individual's genesis from the social and parental background in which it is immersed as an historical-cultural invariant; the idea of pri- mary objectification and the child's progressive stepping back from «environmental lived experiences»; «sympathy» as a way of «being together»; «community of life» and «pa- rental accompaniment» as the ground for the constitution of persons and relationships; the life-world and the idea of estrangement in philosophy and in psychopathology ; the «sense of one's self», living oneself as a subject, which requires the experience of - one's ability to «feel oneself» through - actions and emotions. Lived subjectivity, sensitivity, power and primary socialization concur tothe emergence of «primary individuation» - a form of subjectivation through which the human creature enters the sphere of its own life definable as «reason»