Karl Löwith on the I–thou relation and interpersonal proximity

IF 1.2 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY REVIEW Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1007/s11007-024-09632-8
Felipe León
{"title":"Karl Löwith on the I–thou relation and interpersonal proximity","authors":"Felipe León","doi":"10.1007/s11007-024-09632-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Current research on second-person relations has often overlooked that this is not a new topic. Addressed mostly under the heading of the “I–thou relation,” second-person relations were discussed by central figures of the phenomenological tradition, including Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, but also quite extensively by much lesser-known authors, such as Karl Löwith, Ludwig Binswanger, and Semyon L. Frank, whose work has been undeservedly neglected in current research. This paper starts off by arguing that, in spite of the rightly acknowledged differences between the Husserlian and the Heideggerian approaches to the investigation of the social world, both approaches converge in the claim that the I–thou relation is founded on more basic forms of sociality. In a second step, against the background of Frank’s and Binswanger’s challenges to that claim, I argue that Löwith’s proposal that the I–thou relation is a primordial form of sociality can be vindicated by conceptualizing I–thou relations as close personal relationships (paradigmatically exemplified by companion friendships and romantic partnerships). After assessing how Löwith’s approach to the I–thou relation stands vis-à-vis Heidegger’s and Husserl’s views, I conclude by suggesting how Löwith’s approach can contribute to current research on second-person relations.</p>","PeriodicalId":45310,"journal":{"name":"CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY REVIEW","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11007-024-09632-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Current research on second-person relations has often overlooked that this is not a new topic. Addressed mostly under the heading of the “I–thou relation,” second-person relations were discussed by central figures of the phenomenological tradition, including Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, but also quite extensively by much lesser-known authors, such as Karl Löwith, Ludwig Binswanger, and Semyon L. Frank, whose work has been undeservedly neglected in current research. This paper starts off by arguing that, in spite of the rightly acknowledged differences between the Husserlian and the Heideggerian approaches to the investigation of the social world, both approaches converge in the claim that the I–thou relation is founded on more basic forms of sociality. In a second step, against the background of Frank’s and Binswanger’s challenges to that claim, I argue that Löwith’s proposal that the I–thou relation is a primordial form of sociality can be vindicated by conceptualizing I–thou relations as close personal relationships (paradigmatically exemplified by companion friendships and romantic partnerships). After assessing how Löwith’s approach to the I–thou relation stands vis-à-vis Heidegger’s and Husserl’s views, I conclude by suggesting how Löwith’s approach can contribute to current research on second-person relations.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
卡尔-洛维茨(Karl Löwith)谈 "我-你 "关系和人际亲近感
当前关于第二人称关系的研究往往忽视了这并不是一个新话题。第二人称关系主要是在 "我-你关系 "的标题下讨论的,现象学传统的核心人物,包括埃德蒙-胡塞尔(Edmund Husserl)和马丁-海德格尔(Martin Heidegger)都讨论过第二人称关系,但一些鲜为人知的作者,如卡尔-洛维茨(Karl Löwith)、路德维希-宾斯旺格(Ludwig Binswanger)和谢苗-弗兰克(Semyon L. Frank)也对第二人称关系进行了广泛的讨论。本文首先论证,尽管胡塞尔和海德格尔在研究社会世界的方法上存在公认的差异,但这两种方法在 "我-你 "关系建立在更基本的社会性形式之上这一主张上是一致的。第二步,在弗兰克和宾斯旺格对这一主张提出质疑的背景下,我论证了洛维茨关于 "我-你 "关系是社会性的原始形式的主张,并将 "我-你 "关系概念化为亲密的个人关系(以同伴友谊和浪漫伴侣关系为例)。在评估了洛维茨的 "我-你 "关系方法与海德格尔和胡塞尔的观点之间的差异之后,我最后提出了洛维茨的方法如何有助于当前关于第二人称关系的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The central purpose of Continental Philosophy Review is to foster a living dialogue within the international community on philosophical issues of mutual interest. It seeks to elicit, discussions of fundamental philosophical problems and original approaches to them. Broadly encompassing in its focus, the journal invites essays on both expressly theoretical topics and topics dealing with practical problems that extend to the wider domain of socio-political life. It encourages explorations in the domains of art, morality, science and religion as they relate to specific philosophical concerns. Although not an advocate of any one trend or school in philosophy, the journal is especially committed to keeping abreast of developments within phenomenology and contemporary continental philosophy and is interested in investigations that probe possible points of intersection between the continental European and the Anglo-American traditions. Continental Philosophy Review contains review articles of recent, original works in philosophy. It provides considerable space for such reviews, allowing critics to develop their comments and assessments at some length.
期刊最新文献
Cassirer’s functionalist account of physical truth: object, measurement and technology Natural sciences, technology and foresight: an approach based on Ernst Cassirer’s symbol theory Mathematical sciences as symbolic form: the objects and objectivity of science in Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of science and culture Gerontological difference: Tracing the ontological generativity of aging after Heidegger From care to solidarity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1