[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.In our philosophizing, then—how can we avoid it?—we are functionaries of mankind.The quite personal responsibility of our own true being as philosophers, our inner personal vocation, bears within itself at the same time the responsibility for the true being of mankind; the latter is, necessarily, being toward a telos and can only come to realization, if at all, through philosophy—through us, if we are philosophers in all seriousness.Is there, in this existential “if,” a way out? If not, what should we, who believe, do in order to be able to believe? We cannot seriously continue our previous philosophizing; it lets us hope only for philosophies, never for philosophy.Our first historical reflection has not only made clear to us the actual situation of the present and its distress as a sober fact; it has also reminded us that we as philosophers are heirs of the past in respect to the goals which the word “philosophy” indicates, in terms of concepts, problems, and methods.What is clearly necessary (what else could be of help here?) is that we reflect back, in a thorough historical and critical fashion, in order to provide, before all decisions, for a radical self-understanding: we must inquire back into what was originally and always sought in philosophy, what was continually sought by all the philosophers and philosophies that have communicated with one another historically; but this must include a critical consideration of what, in respect to the goals and methods [of philosophy], is ultimate, original, and genuine and which, once seen, apodictically conquers the will.How this is really to be carried out, and what this apodicticity could ultimately be which would be decisive for our existential being as philosophers, is at first unclear.In the following I shall attempt to show the paths that I myself have taken, the practicability and soundness of which I have tested for decades.From now on we proceed together, then, armed with the most skeptical, though of course not prematurely negativistic, frame of mind.We shall attempt to strike through the crust of the externalized “historical facts” of philosophical history, interrogating, exhibiting, and testing their inner meaning and hidden teleology.Gradually, at first unnoticed but growing more and more pressing, possibilities for a complete reorientation of view will make themselves felt, pointing to new dimensions.Questions never before asked will arise; fields of endeavor never before entered, correlations never before grasped or radically understood, will show themselves.In the end they will require that the total sense of philosophy, accepted as “obvious” throughout all its historical forms, be basically and essentially transformed.Together with the new task and its universal apodictic ground,1 the practical possibility of a new philosophy will prove itself: through its execution.But it will also become apparent that all the philosophy of the past, though unbeknown to itself, was inwardly oriented toward this new sense of philosophy.In this regard, the tragic failure of modern psychology in particular, its contradictory historical existence, will be clarified and made understandable: that is, the fact that it had to claim (through its historically accumulated meaning) to be the basic philosophical science, while this produced the obviously paradoxical consequences of the so-called “psychologism.”I seek not to instruct but only to lead, to point out and describe what I see.I claim no other right than that of speaking according to my best lights, principally before myself but in the same manner also before others, as one who has lived in all its seriousness the fate of a philosophical existence.PART IIClarification of the Origin of the Modern Opposition between Physicalistic Objectivism and Transcendental Subjectivism§ 8.The origin of the new idea of the universality of science in the reshaping of mathematics.THE FIRST THING we must do is understand the fundamental transformation of the idea, the task of universal philosophy which took place at the beginning of the modern age when the ancient idea was taken over.From Descartes on, the new idea governs the total development of philosophical movements and becomes the inner motive behind all their tensions.The reshaping begins with prominent special sciences inherited from the ancients: Euclidean geometry and the rest of Greek mathematics, and then Greek natural science.In our eyes these are fragments, beginnings of our developed sciences.But one must not overlook here the immense change of meaning whereby universal tasks were set, primarily for mathematics (as geometry and as formal-abstract theory of numbers and magnitudes)—tasks of a style which was new in principle, unknown to the ancients.Of course the ancients, guided by the Platonic doctrine of ideas, had already idealized empirical numbers, units of measurement, empirical figures in space, points, lines, surfaces, bodies; and they had transformed the propositions and proofs of geometry into ideal-geometrical propositions and proofs.What is more, with Euclidean geometry had grown up the highly impressive idea of a systematically coherent deductive theory, aimed at a most broadly and highly conceived ideal goal, resting on “axiomatic” fundamental concepts and principles, proceeding according to apodictic arguments—a totality formed of pure rationality, a totality whose unconditioned truth is available to insight and which consists exclusively of unconditioned truths recognized through immediate and mediate insight.But Euclidean geometry, and ancient mathematics in general, knows only finite tasks, a finitely closed a priori.Aristotelian syllogistics belongs here also, as an a priori which takes precedence over all others.Antiquity goes this far, but never far enough to grasp the possibility of the infinite task which, for us, is linked as a matter of course with the concept of geometrical space and with the concept of geometry as the science belonging to it.To ideal space belongs, for us, a universal, systematically coherent a priori, an infinite, and yet—in spite of its infinity—self-enclosed, coherent systematic theory which, proceeding from axiomatic concepts and propositions, permits the deductively univocal construction of any conceivable shape which can be drawn in space.What “exists” ideally in geometric space is univocally decided, in all its determinations, in advance.Our apodictic thinking, proceeding stepwise to infinity through concepts, propositions, inferences, proofs, only “discovers” what is already there, what in itself already exists in truth.What is new, unprecedented, is the conceiving of this idea of a rational infinite totality of being with a rational science systematically mastering it [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]