All
 
|
 
 


Anthropology without Ethnography: M. Scheler’s Philosophy of War and the Search for the “Nature of Man”
 
PIIS086954150001476-3-1
DOI10.31857/S086954150001476-3
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Andrey S. Menshikov 
Affiliation: Ural Federal University
Address: Russian Federation, Ekaterinburg, 51 Lenina prospekt
Journal nameEtnograficheskoe obozrenie
Edition5
Pages43-58
Abstract

The article analyzes the epistemic aspiration of philosophical anthropology as “anthropology without ethnography”. It is shown that beginning with the Kantian project of anthropology, its methodology contains inherent normative assumptions in a supposedly descriptive venture. Specifically, the question “what man is?” presupposes the question “what man should be?”. It is further argued that M. Scheler’s glorification of World War I at its outbreak does not result from baser motives or intellectual lapse in the face of propaganda, nor Scheler’s pacifism after the war is his way of coping with Germany’s defeat. These positions are grounded in his pre-war philosophy and ethical views; they are both consistent with his fundamental philosophical doctrine. This contradiction in Scheler’s judgement on war – from ardent support to enthusiastic rejection – can be better explained by the inadequacy of the methodology of “contemplation of man’s essence” and the search for man’s nature. In the last part, it is argued that in contrast with philosophical anthropology, according to K. Hastrup, ethnography creates shared space and shared understanding through its very practice.

Keywordsphilosophical anthropology, philosophy of war, Max Scheler, Metaphysics of War, Zur Metaphysik des Krieges
AcknowledgmentThis research was supported by the following institutions and grants: Russian Science Foundation, https://doi.org/10.13039/501100006769 [grant 17-18-01165]
Received26.12.2018
Publication date26.12.2018
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

views: 1589

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Benjamin, A., and J. Malpas. 2017. Editorial: Special Issue – Rethinking Philosophical Anthropology. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 25 (3): 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2017.1321815 
2. Castoriadis, C. 1997. Anthropology, Philosophy, Politics. Thesis Eleven 49: 99–116.
3. Davis, Z. 2012. The Values of War and Peace: Max Scheler’s Political Transformations. Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy 16 (2): 128–149.
4. Harrington, A. 2012. Weimar Social Theory and the Fragmentation of European World Pictures. Thesis Eleven 111 (1): 66–80.
5. Hastrup, K. 1995. A Passage to Anthropology: Between Experience and Theory. London: Routledge.
6. Luft, H.S. 2007. Germany’s Metaphysical War. Reflections on War by Two Representatives of German Philosophy: Max Scheler and Paul Natorp. Themenportal Erster Weltkrieg. http://www.erster-weltkrieg.clio-online.de/2007/Article=208 
7. Scheler, M. 1917. Zur Metaphysik des Krieges [Metaphysics of War]. In Der Genius des Krieges und der Deutsche Krieg [The Genius of War and the German War], 117–153. Leipzig: Verlag der Weissen Buecher.
8. Wulf, K. 2008. Antropologiia. Istoriia, kul’tura, filosofiia [Anthropology. History, Culture, Philosophy]. St. Petersburg: SPbGU.
9. Elfimov, A. 2012. Antropologiia v raznykh izmereniiakh: predislovie sostavitelia [Anthropology in Many Dimensions: Foreword]. In Antropologicheskie traditsii: stili, stereotipy, paradigmy [Anthropological Traditions: Styles, Stereotypes, Paradigms], edited by A. Elfimov, 5–18. Moscow: NLO.
10. Platt, K.M.F. 2010. Zachem izuchat’ antropologiiu? Vzgliad gumanitariia: vmesto manifesta [Why Should One Study Anthropology? A View of a Scholar of Humanities: In lieu of a Manifesto]. Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 106: 13–26.
11. Scheler, M. 1994. Izbrannye proizvedeniia [Selected Works]. Moscow: Gnozis.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up