Guido Cusinato

In this paper, I show that, although Husserl explicitly explains a kinetic theory of Leib already in § 83 of Raum und Ding, a real phenomenology of the distinction between Leib (living body) and Körper (corporeal object) is not conceivable without Scheler's contribution. It’s quite common to search for the origin of this distinction in Ideen II, in a work composed of texts written in different moments from 1912 on. Before 1912 Husserl dedicated himself to the theme of corporeality in the first part of Göttinger Vorlesungen 1904/1905 as well as in the lectures in the Sommersemester of 1907 titled Ding und Raum [Hua XVI]. Both lectures, however, lack an explicit analysis on the distinction between Leib and Körper. Scheler instead mentions it already in an unpublished text from 1908/1909 and fully develops it in the years 1911 and 1912, where the issue is explored in a more organic and radical way than in the writings of Husserl. In diesem Beitrag möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass, obwohl Husserl bereits in § 83 von Raum und Ding eine kinetische Theorie von Leib erklärt, eine reale Phänomenologie der Unterscheidung zwischen Leib und Körper ohne Schelers Beitrag nicht denkbar wäre. Im Allgemeinen wird ihr Ursprung in den Ideen II festgestellt, einer Schrift, die aus den Texten verschiedener Zeiten nach 1912 besteht. Vor 1912 widmet sich Husserl dem Thema der Körperlichkeit in dem ersten Teil der Göttinger Vorlesungen 1904/1905 sowie in den Vorlesungen aus dem Sommersemester 1907 über Ding und Raum [Hua XVI]. In beiden Vorlesungen fehlt jedoch eine explizite Untersuchung zum Unterschied zwischen Leib und Körper. Bei Scheler hingegen ist sie bereits in einem Nachlasstext aus 1908/1909 auffindbar und wird in den Jahren 1911 und 1912 sehr ausführlich entfaltet. Die Auseinandersetzung mit dieser Thematik erfolgt bei ihm viel organischer und eingehender als bei Husserl. In questo scritto dimostro che, sebbene Husserl espliciti una teoria cinetica del Leib già nel § 83 di Raum und Ding, una vera e propria fenomenologia della distinzione fra Leib (corpo vivente) e Körper (oggetto corporeo) è inconcepibile senza il contributo di Scheler. Generalmente tale distinzione viene ricondotta a Idee II, un testo che è il risultato di diverse versioni composte a partire dal 1912. Prima del 1912 Husserl si dedica al tema della corporeità nella prima parte delle Göttinger Vorlesungen del 1904/5, e nelle lezioni del Sommersemester del 1907 dedicate a Ding und Raum [Hua XVI]. In entrambi questi testi manca però un’analisi esplicita sulla differenza fra Leib e Körper. In Scheler invece tale distinzione è già rintracciabile in un inedito del 1908/09 per poi essere pienamente esplicitata nel biennio 1911-1912, dove è presente un’elaborazione di questa tematica ben più organica e radicale rispetto a quella presente negli scritti di Husserl.

"Siamo come lucciole che hanno disimparato a illuminare e che prima si sono messe a girare attorno alla lanterna magica dell'ideale ascetico e ora attorno alle insegne pubblicitarie al neon. Lucciole che hanno scordato d’avere una potenzialità di orientatività preziosa nel proprio sistema affettivo" (G. Cusinato, La totalità incompiuta, Milano 2008, 314). Che cos'è una persona? Come si costituisce concretamente l'identità personale? Che rapporto c'è fra identità personale e identità psichica? C'è coincidenza fra persona e homo sapiens? La persona è ancora oggi, nonostante tutto, al centro del dibattito filosofico, sociologico, giuridico e bioetico, eppure la sua dimensione sembra sfuggire continuamente alle reti concettuali e alle categorie epistemologiche della scienza. In questo lavoro si propone una fenomenologia della persona a partire dal confronto con la teoria dei sistemi autopoietici di Maturana e Varela e dei sistemi sociali di Luhmann, mettendo in luce che la persona non può essere considerata un sistema autopoietico. La persona si delinea piuttosto come un sistema excentrico che si costituisce mediante l'esecuzione dell'atto. Questa prospettiva viene esplorata attraverso un dialogo serrato con l'antropologia filosofica tedesca, la stessa che all'inizio del Novecento mette in luce che l'uomo non ha un'essenza precostituita e proprio per questo necessita di un processo di Bildung. L'antropologia filosofica di Scheler e Plessner nasce nella Germania degli anni Venti in un periodo ancora fluido in cui l'eclissi delle tradizionali concezioni dell'uomo non aveva ancora lasciato il posto alla cristallizzazione totalitaria dell'uomo di massa che si sarebbe imposta negli anni Trenta.

The thesis of this paper is that – in order to avoid trivializations – a Philosophy of Birth needs to elaborate a precise concept of transformation and distinguish it carefully from that of adaptation. While transformation goes beyond the limited self-referential perspective of an individual and, on the social level, of the gregarious identity, adaptation aims at strengthening or preserving the old self-referential equilibrium. Transformation is driven by what Zambrano has called, with an exceptionally happy expression, the “hunger to be born completely”. Such a hunger pushes one to continue one’s own birth through the encounter with the Other. Transformation has a creative feature that is made possible by two factors: the surplus of the effect over the cause, and the priority of the real over the possible. These premises lead to a radical questioning of the primacy of the possible on the real, at least as it has been conceived so far in mainstream Western philosophy, with few exceptions, such as Schelling, Bergson and Scheler. In the first part of this text, I shall consider a new Philosophy of Birth in the light of the concept of transformation and in this regard deal with several core themes such as the hunger to be born completely, the new beginning, creative time, the priority of the real over the possible, the limits of finalism, the surplus of effect over cause, and the creative force that expresses itself in the act of ideation. In the second part, I shall analyze the relation between birth and death and focus especially on their intimate and reciprocal connection by referring to the image of the seed that, after falling on the ground, germinates and breaks its own integument.

Searching for the origins of 20th century Philosophical Anthropology, it is quite common to follow the suggestions of A. Gehlen who points to Herder as such an origin. In this study, however, I propose a rather different, until now scarcely considered hypothesis: the origin of Philosophical Anthropology can be brought back to Schelling’s reflections concerning Kant’s Critique of Judgement and the problem of self-organization of nature. Starting from his critical observations on Kant, Schelling works out the concept of a succession of levels in the organic, and that of the ex-centricity that defines human beings. Exactly these two concepts will be discussed by Scheler in The Human Place in the Cosmos and by Plessner in The Stages of the Organic and Man. It is commonly assumed that Schelling did not exert any direct influence upon Philosophical Anthropology; one usually allows only for an indirect influence on Scheler, intermediated by Eduard von Hartmann. This paper shows, however, that a documentable, direct influence of Schelling on Scheler can be demonstrated, and that it was decisive for the birth of Philosophical Anthropology

So far, the value dimension underlying affectivity disorders has remained out of focus in phenomenological psychopathology. As early as at the beginning of the 20th century, however, German phenomenologist Max Scheler examined in depth the relationship between affectivity and value dimension through the concept of valueception (Wertnehmung). In this sense, a recent noteworthy contribution has been provided by John Cutting, who has drawn attention to the importance of Scheler’s analyses for psychiatry. In this work I take into consideration only two aspects of Cutting’s proposal: 1) the relationship between the impairments of valueception and the perception of certain value classes; and 2) the interpretation of Scheler’s phenomenological reduction and its juxtaposition with the modus vivendi of schizophrenia. According to Cutting, in the modus vivendi of schizophrenia the valueception impairment entails putting vital values in brackets and focusing on personal values, with a process that recalls Scheler’s phenomenological reduction. Regarding the first aspect, I share Cutting’s starting point, but then shift the focus on how important the valueception is for the intersubjective dimension. In particular, I maintain that rather than compromising the perception of vital values, valueception impairments in the modus vivendi of schizophrenia interfere with the intersubjective dimension and are interwoven with a process of disembodiment. My thesis is that the modus vivendi of schizophrenia involves a disturbance of the intersubjective dimension that arises from the level of valueception and that determines the person’s self-referential closure. With regard to the second point, by analyzing Scheler’s phenomenological reduction, I sustain that its main objective is to increase both the interaction with otherness and the openness to the world (Weltoffenheit). As a consequence, the modus vivendi of schizophrenia, in my opinion, is not comparable, as Cutting claims, with Scheler’s phenomenological reduction, but goes in a different direction

Dalla Prefazione di Manfred Frings: «Il libro di Guido Cusinato non solo riesce a mettere in evidenza la molteplice rilevanza della filosofia di Scheler […], ma illumina anche nuovi aspetti e apre nuove prospettive di indagine. Questo obiettivo viene raggiunto da Cusinato con rigore metodologico e attraverso uno sforzo teso a verificare tutta una serie di affermazioni che erano state fatte finora in modo forse un po’ troppo affrettato. Per es. dimostra che Scheler non era né un dualista né un panteista, come invece spesso si è sostenuto […] Cusinato offre al lettore elementi finalmente efficaci per rivedere parecchi luoghi comuni. In particolare Cusinato ritiene importante, mettere da parte quella categoria interpretativa del “dualismo” fra spirito e vita, che così spesso è stata invece applicata alla sua metafisica. Al suo posto Cusinato suggerisce di intendere la concezione scheleriana della relazione fra spirito e vita, o meglio, fra spirito e pulsione (Geist e Drang), facendo ricorso ad un termine che compare negli ultimi scritti: quello di interpenetrazione (Durchdringung). […] Fra le analisi che Cusinato svolge […] le più preziose e originali mi sembrano essere quelle relative all’umiltà (Demut). Invece nella maggior parte della letteratura su Scheler l’umiltà, uno dei tre atti morali fondamentali per accedere all’atteggiamento filosofico, non viene neppure menzionata. L’interpretazione che ne dà Cusinato, ponendola a fondamento di una «riduzione catartica» pensata in contrasto con la consueta riduzione husserliana, offre senz’altro spunti promettenti per le indagini future» (M. S. Frings, Prefazione, in: G. Cusinato, Katharsis, pp. 6-7).

In Max Scheler il concetto di spirito (Geist) è particolarmente instabile: come il pennino di un sismografo è capace di registrare ogni minimo mutamento del suo pensiero. L'oscillazione più spettacolare avviene nel 1923. Il problema è che invece le diverse interpretazioni su Scheler, ancora oggi, procedono come se avessero a che fare con un termine univocamente definito. Ancora nel 1922, nella seconda edizione di Vom Ewigen, Scheler esprimeva la tesi che «lo spirito è infinitamente più potente (mächtiger) di tutta la natura insieme», già nel 1924, in Probleme einer Soziologie des Wissens, scrive esattamente il contrario: «originariamente lo spirito non ha in sé una qualsiasi traccia di forza o di efficacia». Inoltre mentre nel periodo intermedio i termini "persona" e "spirito" risultano rigorosamente correlati-nel Formalismus si arriverà a sostenere che «l'idea di uno spirito impersonale è insensata» - dopo il 1923 il concetto di "spirito" viene gradualmente riferito a tutta la natura, per cui la persona diventa una delle tante espressioni dello spirito. Che cosa succede nel 1923 per spiegare un rovesciamento di posizioni di tale portata?

Botticelli and Tizian depict the Annunciation in two very different ways. Botticelli portrays a kneeling angel in an act of guiding from below, while Tizian represents an angel imposing himself from above with an authoritarian forefinger. Botticelli's painting suggests an intention of orientation that is not authoritarian yet able to bring about a transformation (Umbildung). It also suggests that an individual's transformation cannot be achieved in a closed solipsistic dimension, but requires a disclosure from otherness. My theory is that at the origin of ethics there is a non-authoritarian way of orientation that comes from otherness and arises from the emotional sphere thanks to a "care of desire". The expression cura sui has often been interpreted as a care confined to a private and solipsistic dimension with the aim of strengthening the self-referential subject. By "care of desire" I mean a care not turned upon itself but made possible by a disclosure coming from otherness and addressed to the transformation of the individual and of society. In the human existence, emotions reveal an extraordinary plasticity. They are not already regulated by instinct but develop and get to maturity even many years after biological birth. Moreover, this maturation process does not follow a universal process identical for everyone, being different for every individual. In fact it finds its realization in the unique order of feelings (ordo amoris) that characterizes every individual. Emotions guide actions and the way we interact with the others and with the world. In the human existence they become plastic and don't have only a homeostatic function of self-regulation. They give flexibility to our way of perceiving, of existing and of taking our position in the world. The care of desire is dedicated to the plasticity of emotions and makes ethics, i.e. a person's formation process (Bildung) and flourishing, possible. It also allows the transition from the “environmental closedness” (Umweltgeschlossenheit) to the world-openness (Weltoffenheit). To sum up, the care of desire implies the transition from a solipsistic self-care to a “care for world-openness”. From this point of view, emotion is no more the secondary result of a cognitive process, but at the origin of every formative, perceptive and cognitive process: In the beginning was the emotion. Yet in this process of creative transformation not every emotion has the same significance: at the core of emotions’ plasticity there are love and wonder (thaumàzein), whose peculiar feature is “lack of envy” (aphthonoi).

Was ist Wert? Des Öfteren hat man bei der Beantwortung dieser Frage den Wert als etwas einer Qualität oder einem Attribut Ähnliches konzipiert. Meines Erachtens muss die Antwort hingegen in der Verbindung des Wertes mit der Erfahrung gesucht werden. Der Wert ist nichts, was dem Phänomen von außen zugeschrieben würde, sondern etwas, was dem Phänomen die Möglichkeit gibt, sich zu offenbaren und sich zu konstituieren. In dieser Richtung behauptet Scheler, dass der Wert keine „Eigenschaft“ eines Dinges neben seinen anderen Eigenschaften sei. Der Wert gehört demnach einem Teilbereich der Erfahrung an, jedoch nicht als einfaches Phänomen, sondern vielmehr als Urphänomen. Daraus folgt, dass der Wert nicht – wie eine Wertqualität oder ein Attribut – auf die Gegebenheit eines Phänomens zurückgeführt werden kann, da er der Erscheinung des Phänomens selbst vorangeht. Als Urphänomen ist der Wert Element der Vorgegebenheit, nicht der faktischen Gegebenheit.

Scheler, like Jaspers, gives a key importance to the relations with alterity and grounds both the individual formation and social ontology on the practices of “sharing emotions”. My work attempts to interpret the impairments related to the capacities of communication – that Jaspers places at the roots of psychopathology and that the Japanese psychiatrist Bin Kimura has more recently argued to be the core of schizophrenia – as impairment of what Scheler calls ordo amoris, that is the “order of feeling” of a person: like a "Psychopathology of the Ordo Amoris".

How comes that two organisms can interact with each other or that we can comprehend what the other experiences? The theories of embodiment, intersubjectivity or empathy have repeatedly taken as their starting point an individualistic assumption (the comprehension of the other comes after the self-comprehension) or a cognitivist one (the affective dimension follows the cognitive process). The thesis of this book is that there are no two isolated entities at the origin which successively interact with each other. There is, rather, an impersonal stratum – the original affectivity (Gefühlsdrang) – which lets the living organisms be constitutively attuned with the expressive dimension of the life from the very beginning. The book aims to rethink the issue of corporality on the basis of a biosemiotics of the interaction between lived body (Leib) and environment (Umwelt). The human emotions reveals themselves as devices that experiment further attunement levels and expose the human being – because of her ex-centricity – to the alienation in various forms of the psychopathological existence. This is an unprecedented perspective that turns to psychopathology to reread against the light the watermark weaving the structure of personal singularity. What emerges is an intermediate territory confining both with philosophy and psychiatry: the psychopathology of ordo amoris. The author advances the project of a new psychopathology of ordo amoris, not only tackling with the 19th-century tradition of psychiatry and phenomenological psychopathology, but also with the contemporary disputes on intersubjectivity in phenomenology and with those on schizophrenia as disruption of aida or as disembodiment process in psychiatry. What results from his project is the first systematic study on the international level showing the relevance of Schelerian concepts of body schema (Leibschema) and order of feeling (ordo amoris) to understand the disruptions of emotional regulation on the psychopathological dimension as well as on the formation process of the singularity.

In questo lavoro si dimostra che l'opinione comune, secondo cui è Heidegger a introdurre Jacob von Uexküll nel dibattito filosofico è scorretta, in quanto è Scheler, due decenni prima, a scoprire e valorizzare la portata filosofica di Uexküll. Pure la distinzione fra mondo (Welt) e ambiente (Umwelt), come quella fra apertura al mondo e chiusura ambientale, non è introdotta da Heidegger nel 1929 (cfr. l'Introduzione di Marco Mazzeo al testo di Uexküll, Ambienti animali e ambienti umani, p.18 e seg.) ma è già presente in Scheler negli scritti del periodo 1909-1913.

In this paper I aim to re-think the question of the world of persons with schizophrenia from the perspective of the German phenomenologist Max Scheler and that of the Japanese psychiatrist Bin Kimura. So far, no comparison between these two authors has been made, even though there are several convergences and evidence of Scheler’s indirect influence on Bin Kimura through Viktor von Weizsäcker. In recent years, Dan Zahavi, Louis Sass, and Josef Parnas have interpreted the modus vivendi of schizophrenic patients in relation to a disturbance on the level of the “minimal self”. Subsequently, the discussion has highlighted the importance of disorders on the level of intercorporeality and intersubjectivity (Thomas Fuchs) and on the level of “existential feelings” (Matthew Ratcliffe). This paper argues that Max Scheler and Bin Kimura allow us to focus on an aspect which has been neglected so far: that of a “relational self” that relates to the very foundation of intersubjectivity and intercorporeality and that can thus be reborn in the encounter with the other and may position itself differently in the world. In Scheler’s perspective, the world of persons with schizophrenia is the result of an axiological disorder (valueception) that impairs contact with the primordial life impulse (Lebensdrang). As a consequence, they are incapable of attuning emotionally and socially with others: this prevents the singularity from being reborn in the encounter with the other and forces them to position themselves in their own solipsistic universe. Moving in a similar direction, Bin Kimura interprets the world of persons with schizophrenia as the result of a disorder of aida (one of the central concepts of Japanese culture that indicates the space of being in between). The disorder of aida compromises the basic relationship (Grundverhältnis in the sense of Viktor von Weizsäcker) and hinders what Bin Kimura calls festum, i.e. the birth of subjectivity, so that it is experienced by persons with schizophrenia only as ante festum. Starting from these two perspectives, I argue the existence of an axiological and anthropogenetic dimension of psychopathology. I begin with a discussion of Zahavi’s concept of minimal self and the thesis that reveals the disorders on this level of subjectivity as the origin of the world of persons with schizophrenia. I, then, analyze Max Scheler’s position and its historic importance for the emergence of phenomenological psychopathology. Thereafter, I introduce the concepts of “disorder of aida” (Bin Kimura) and “disorder of ordo amoris” (Max Scheler). Finally, I develop the concept of a “psychopathology of ordo amoris” by also comparing it with Ratcliffe’s thesis of “existential feelings”.

In this article I develop two arguments, taking Max Scheler’s phenomenology as a starting point. The first one is that emotions are not private and internal states of consciousness, but what makes us come into contact with the expressive dimension of reality, by orienting our placement in the world and our interaction with others. The second thesis is that some emotions have an “anthropogenetic” nature that is at the roots of the ontology of a person and of social ontology: it is through practices of “sharing” certain emotions that the humanity has been born and that the various forms of social realities are established. In accordance with one of María Zambrano’s phrases, I propose to trace these anthropogenetic emotions back to the «hambre de nacer del todo» («hunger for being fully born») of a being that never stops being born again.

The main claim of this article is that the plasticity of the human formation process does not consist in receiving passively an already-given shape, like hot wax stamped by a seal. Rather, it creates ever new shapes and makes a person overcome her own self-referential horizon. Furthermore, I argue that this formation process is directed by desire, meant as “hunger for being born completely” (Zambrano). The human being comes into the world without being born completely, and it is precisely such hunger that directs human positioning into the world.

In this paper I focus on a passage of Plato’s Laws that so far has been the object of little study (V 731d-732b). In the Laws, the origin of all evil is neither an ontological principle, as in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, nor a simple lack of knowledge (àghnoia) or a lack of knowledge combined with the false presumption of knowledge (amathìa). Rather, in this passage amathìa itself is traced back to “excessive self-love” (sphòdra heautoû philìa). I show that this “excess” has a specific “anthropological” relevance, because it is not limited to the intellectual sphere or to the will, but directly concerns the human way of loving. The thesis that I argue for in this paper is that this “excess” is a possibility implicit in the human being qua àplestos, and should therefore be interpreted in an “anthropological” sense: it does not indicate a simple “lack” of balance, but rather a possibility and a risk to which humans expose themselves when they exceed the homeostatic balance of needs typical of non-human animals. Finally, I trace the various steps of this “anthropology of excess” back to its origin: the image of the leaky jar found in the Gorgias.

il verbo latino «desiderare» deriva dal composto latino della particella "de-" con il termine "-sideris", plurale di "sidera", che significa pertanto "stelle". Quindi il desiderio non ha a che fare con una singola stella, ma con un insieme di stelle. Perché? Gli antichi collegavano idealmente nel cielo le stelle fino a formare le costellazioni, e queste erano necessarie non solo per orientarsi (ad es. nel mare), ma anche a livello esistenziale (l’astrologia). Il problema è che finora la parola de-Sidera è stata interpretata come il sentimento di una «mancanza» di costellazioni, cioè di punti di orientamento, magari con stravaganti riferimenti al De bello gallico di Giulio Cesare. In queste pagine del 2017 dimostro che è possibile una interpretazione alternativa partendo dall'interpretazione della particella "de-" in quanto finora essa è stata interpretata unicamente come un prefisso privativo. Eppure "de-" oltre a un significato privativo nel senso di sentire la mancanza di stelle, può indicare anche una negazione. In pratica interpretare de-siderare nel senso di nostalgia delle stelle sarebbe come interpretare de-costruire come "nostalgia delle costruzioni"! In realtà de-Sidera non significa affatto nostalgia delle stelle, bensì, molto più radicalmente «de-Costellare» nel senso di negare la costellazione che imprigiona e abbruttisce la mia esistenza attuale negli affanni della routine quotidiana, per cercare, oltre tale costellazione fatalistica, cioè il DESTINO, quella che corrisponde meglio alla mia vera DESTINAZIONE, nel senso di vocazione. Il de-siderio non è quindi nostalgia delle stelle, ma ricerca della costellazione che corrisponde alla propria vocazione.

In questo contributo del 2008 si dimostra, attraverso un confronto con le posizioni di Max Scheler, che Alsberg con il disimpegno corporeo (Körperausschaltung) non mira a esonerare l’organismo (nel senso della Entlastung di Gehlen). Per Alsberg l’evoluzione sociale avviene attraverso utensili, ma l’utensile non si limita a essere un’appendice del corpo, bensì rappresenta una logica estranea a quella del corpo. La Körperausschaltung è il killer del corpo. L’errore di Spencer è quello di non comprendere che un’evoluzione basata su utensili non è semplicemente “sovra-organica”, ma piuttosto “extraorganica”. Extra-organico per Alsberg significa che l’utensile è al di fuori della logica del corpo. Ed è proprio l’autonomia dell’utensile dalla biologia a permettere di risolvere il paradosso della duplicità costitutiva dell’uomo: l’essere il motore di un’evoluzione extra-organica che produce contemporaneamente involuzione organica. Il “disimpegno organico” che libera l’uomo dal bisogno è possibile solo perché il problema dell’adattamento e dell’evoluzione viene spostato sul piano extra-organico: tale spostamento è ciò che contraddistingue l’uomo da tutti gli altri esseri viventi, quindi il principio costitutivo dell’esser umano. L' Ausschaltung, come disattivazione del corpo (dal verbo tedesco auschalten, nel senso di spegnere, ad es. una macchina, la luce ecc.) diventa pertanto il principio ultimo per comprendere l'umano nella sua interezza e non solo l'uomo della modernità (l'homo faber). L'eccezionale testo di Alsberg rimarrà praticamente sconosciuto, tuttavia con eccezioni di rilievo: già negli anni '20 ha un impatto decisivo su Max Scheler e sul progetto di fondazione dell'antropologia filosofica. Successivamente, ma con esiti opposti, su Gehlen. Il concetto di Körperausschaltung viene ripreso anche da Dieter Claessens, da Hans Blumenberg e infine da Sloterdijk.

Wie bekannt hat Scheler den Begriff der "phänomenologischen Reduktion" ausdrücklich von Husserl übernommen1, dennoch behauptet in der letzten Schaffensperiode ebenso deutlich, den Terminus "Phänomenologie" vermeiden zu wollen, und tatsächlich verwendet er entweder den Ausdruck "phänomenologische Reduktion" in Anführungszeichen oder den Begriff "Techne der Reduktion". Die These, die ich zu entwickeln versuchen werde, ist, daß es bei Scheler nicht nur eine einzige Theorie der Reduktion gibt und daß, ebenso wie verschiedene Realitätstheorien zu unterscheiden sind, ebenso viele Versuche zu erkennen sind, die das Thema der Reduktion behandeln. Diese Versuche sind in großen Zügen auf zwei "Varianten" zurückzuführen: Die erste Variante ist jene, die wir alle kennen und die Scheler selbst in seiner mittleren Schaffensperiode als "phänomenologische Reduktion" bezeichnet. Die zweite Variante der Reduktion wird von ihm nicht eindeutig bestimmt, und es ist auch schwierig, dafür eine Bezeichnung zu finden. Auf jeden Fall verbindet sie Scheler mit Begriffen wie Sublimierung, Ekstase, Askese, "moralischer Aufschwung", etc.. Um sie von der ersten Variante zu unterscheiden werde ich sie "kathartische Reduktion" nennen, wobei das Wort "Katharsis" im Sinne von Platon gemeint ist.

There have been innumerable attempts to characterize personal identity either in terms of psychological continuity or in terms of the linear and self-referential process of reproduction of one's self. I will defend the thesis according to which personal identity emerges mainly as a process of transcendence of one's own "minimal self". It is precisely by means of this critical distancing from his self, I contend, that the individual learns to see himself under a new perspective as far as to experience his self as a surprise. Amazed at his own self, he lives a reawakening which leads him to a transformation of his way of living. This transcendence of the self cannot take place self-referentially but only through the force of an example provided by another person. Such act neither aims at the annihilation of the individual, nor does it contrast with self-love. It is in conlict merely with what Harry Frankfurt calls "selfindulgence". The idea of a transcendence of the self is already to be found in Plato, who fostered the overcoming of and puriication from amathia (in the sense of a "not knowing but pretending to know") and from an excessive love of oneself. Indeed, these latter would be the two grave diseases which render formless the soul of a human being, for they stand in the way of the cura sui. The same theme will reappear in Max Scheler's phenomenological reduction, which endeavours to bracket egocentrism (construed as excessive love of oneself) in order to give a form to the personal identity.

Phenomenological reduction as a philosophical conversion (periagoge) Während Husserl in den Ideen I die Reduktion als eine neue „Methode“ des Denkens, d. h. als eine „epistemologische“ Reduktion versteht, schlägt Scheler eine Reduktion als eine „Tèchne“ der Umbildung vor, durch die der Mensch seiner exzentrischen Stellung in der Welt Gestalt zu geben sucht. Mich interessiert an diesem Zitat vor allem der Gebrauch des griechischen Terminus „Tèchne“. Was Scheler damit bezeichnet, hat offensichtlich nichts mit dem zu tun, was wir heute unter dem Begriff der Technik verstehen. Er spricht eben von einer Kunst „des inneren Handelns“. Meines Erachtens verweist Scheler durch diesen griechischen Begriff auf Platons Gedanken. Für diese These kann man sich bereits auf eine Stelle aus der mittleren Phase im Denken Schelers stützen, in der er nämlich die phänomenologische Reduktion als den moralischen Akt darstellt, dem der „platonische Aufschwung“ (Vom Wesen der Philosophie, GW V, 67) zugrunde liegt. Es ist nun geradezu dieser „platonische Aufschwung“, der im Nachlass ausdrücklich als eine „Tèchne“ (Nachlass, GW XI, 118) beschrieben wird. Was heißt nun in diesem Kontext tèchne bei Platon? Schelers Gebrauch des griechischen Terminus tèchne für die Bezeichnung der phänomenologischen Reduktion erinnert sehr an die tèchne tês periagogês im Höhlengleichnis Platons, durch die die Gefangenen aus der Höhle hinausgehen können. Diese tèchne versteht Platon als einen Bildungsprozess des Menschen; er lernt dadurch, seinen Blick auf das Gute hin zu lenken, damit seine Seinsweise in der Welt zurechtgerückt werden könne. Es geht also um eine conversio oder Umkehrung der eigenen Positionalität in der Welt, die den Übergang vom Leben zum guten Leben zustande bringen kann. Diese tèchne ist grundlegend für das Verständnis der paideía bei Platon, die sich nicht mit einer bloßen Übertragung von Informationen begnügt, sondern vielmehr nach einer periagogé (Umkehrung) der ganzen Seele strebt. Es muss also – wie Sokrates sagt – eine besondere „Kunst der Umkehrung [tèchne tês periagogês]“ geben, die lehrt, auf welche Weise am leichtesten und wirksamsten die Seele umgewendet werden kann, und zwar unter Berücksichtigung dessen, dass sie bereits sehen kann, aber es alleine nicht schafft, das Gesicht zu wenden, „wohin es solle“ (Politeia, VII, 518 d).

In the Greek mythology the concept of annunciation has been often associated with the figure of “winged messenger”, in Greek “anghelos”, while in the Christian tradition it usually recalls the archangel Gabriel in his announcing to Mary the generative act per excellence: the birth. In this paper I take into consideration Botticelli’s Cestello Annunciation: the image represented in this painting suggests the interpretation of the annunciation from the viewpoint of transformation, i. e., of the crisis and the birth of something that was not there before. What is special in the annunciation that transforms? In Botticelli’s masterpiece, Mary doesn’t only comprehend something that she didn’t know before, but she also feels the an-nouncement directly in her own flesh: the annunciation that transforms doesn’t exclusively let her understand something, but also allows her to feel it directly. If this is true, every transformation has its annunciation.

The German phenomenologist Max Scheler, commonly considered one of the most important exponents of value objectivism, does not claim an “absolute” value objectivism, as often asserted. The values are objecttive towards the will of the subject, not towards the creative act of loving. This presupposes a radical new conception of the value. According to Scheler, in fact, the values are no qualities to be attributed to the perceived object but the very first thing grasped on a phenomenon, i.e. the “first messenger” (erste Bote) of the phenomenon: the value is what orients the formation and development of the experience. This paper proposes to deal with the problem of the value objectivism in relation to the self-transcendence and to the self-realization of the person. The value objectivism should be measured by its faculty to orient the act through which a person detaches himself from the proper factual self. The “Good” isn‟t therefore related to an ideal transcendent object, but to the act to transcend the proper self in a creative way. The fundamental thesis is that the personal identity constitutes itself only in a critical distancing from the self. This concrete act of self-transcending cannot be understood merely in the sense of the self-interpretation – of the “strong evaluations” of Charles Taylor – but requires also the presence of the exemplarity of the other.

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.