APPROACHMENTS PRISTOPANJA
PHAINOMENA
Revija za fenomenologijo in hermenevtiko Journal of Phenomenology and Hermeneutics
30 | 118-119 | November 2021
APPROACHMENTS PRISTOPANJA
Inštitut Nove revije, zavod za humanistiko
*
Fenomenološko društvo v Ljubljani
Ljubljana 2021
UDC: 1
p-ISSN: 1318-3362 e-ISSN: 2232-6650
PHAINOMENA
Revija za fenomenologijo in hermenevtiko Journal of Phenomenology and Hermeneutics
Glavna urednica: | Editor-in-Chief: Uredniški odbor: | Editorial Board:
Andrina Tonkli Komel
Jan Bednarik, Andrej Božič, Tine Hribar, Valentin Kalan, Branko Klun, Dean Komel, Ivan Urbančič +, Franci Zore. Andrej Božič
Tajnik uredništva: | Secretary:
Mednarodni znanstveni svet: | International Advisory Board:
Pedro M. S. Alves (University of Lisbon, Portugal), Babette Babich (Fordham University, USA), Damir Barbaric (University of Zagreb, Croatia), Renaud Barbaras (University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France), Miguel de Beistegui (The University of Warwick, United Kingdom), Azelarabe Lahkim Bennani (Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Morocco), Rudolf Bernet (KU Leuven, Belgium), Petar Bojanic (University of Belgrade, Serbia), Philip Buckley (McGill University, Canada), Umesh C. Chattopadhyay (University of Allahabad, India), Gabriel Cercel (University of Bucharest, Romania), Cristian Ciocan (University of Bucharest, Romania), Ion Copoeru (Babes-Bolyai University, Romania), Jean François Courtine (Paris-Sorbonne University, France), Renato Cristin (University of Trieste, Italy), Massimo De Carolis (University of Salerno, Italy), Alfred Denker (College of Philosophy and Theology Vallendar, Germany), Mädälina Diaconu (University of Vienna, Austria), Donatella Di Cesare (Sapienza University of Rome, Italy), Lester Embree +, Adriano Fabris (University of Pisa, Italy), Cheung Chan Fai (Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong), Günter Figal (University of Freiburg, Germany), \Dimitri Ginev +L Andrzej Gniazdowski (Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland), Jean Grondin (University of Montreal, Canada), Klaus Held (University of Wuppertal, Germany), Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann (University of Freiburg, Germany), Heinrich Hüni +, Ilya Inishev (National Research University Higher School of Economics, Russia), Tomas Kačerauskas (Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Lithuania), Richard Kearney (Boston College, USA), Guy van Kerckhoven (KU Leuven, Belgium), Pavel Kouba (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic), loanna Kuçuradi (Maltepe University, Turkey), Susanna Lindberg (University of Helsinki, Finland), Thomas Luckmann +, Jeff Malpas (University of Tasmania, Australia), Michael Marder (University of the Basque Country, Spain), Viktor Molchanov (Russian State University for the Humanities, Russia), Liangkang Ni (Sun Yat-Sen University, China), Cathrin Nielsen (Frankfurt a. M., Germany), Karel Novotny (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic), Tadashi Ogawa (Kyoto University, Japan), Žarko Paic (University ofZagreb, Croatia), Željko Pavic (Leksikografski zavod Miroslav Krleža, Croatia), Christophe Perrin (University of Louvain, Belgium), Dragan Prole (University of Novi Sad, Serbia), Antonio Zirión Quijano (National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico), Ramsey Eric Ramsey (Arizona State University, USA), Rosemary Rizo-Patrón Boylan de Lerner (Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Peru), Alfredo Rocha de la Torre (Pedagogical and Technological University of Colombia, Colombia), Hans Ruin (Södertörn University, Sweden), Javier San Martín (National Distance Education University, Spain), Gunter Scholtz (Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany), Hans Rainer Sepp (Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic), Tatiana Shchyttsova (European Humanities University, Lithuania), Önay Sözer (Bogaziçi University, Turkey), Michael Staudigl (University of Vienna, Austria), Silvia Stoller (University of Vienna, Austria), Toru Tani (Ritsumeikan University, Japan), Rainer Thurnher (University of Innsbruck, Austria), Peter Trawny (University of Wuppertal, Germany), Lubica Učnik (Murdoch University, Australia), Helmuth Vetter (University of Vienna, Austria), Ugo Vlaisavljevic (University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), Bernhard Waldenfels (Ruhr-University Bochum, Germany), Andrzej Wiercinski (University of Warsaw, Poland), Ichiro Yamaguchi (Toyo University, Japan), Chung-Chi Yu (National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan), Holger Zaborowski (University of Erfurt, Germany), Dan Zahavi (University of Copenhagen, Denmark), Wei Zhang (Sun Yat-sen University, China).
Lektoriranje: | Proof Reading:	Andrej Božič
Oblikovna zasnova: | Design Outline:	Gašper Demšar
Prelom: | Layout:	Žiga Stopar
Tisk: | Printed by:	Primitus, d. o. o.
Uredništvo in založništvo: | Editorial Offices and
Inštitut Nove revije, zavod za humanistiko Institute Nova Revija for the Humanities
Vodovodna cesta 101 1000 Ljubljana Slovenija
Tel.: (386 1) 24 44 560 Email:
institut@nova-revij a.si andrej.bozic@institut-nr.si
lishers' Addresses:
Fenomenološko društvo v Ljubljani Phenomenological Society of Ljubljana
Filozofska fakulteta | Oddelek za filozofijo (kab. 432b)
Aškerčeva 2 1000 Ljubljana Slovenija
Tel.: (386 1) 2411106 Email:
dean.komel@ff.uni-lj.si
Revija Phainomena objavlja članke s področja fenomenologije, hermenevtike, zgodovine filozofije, filozofije kulture, filozofije umetnosti in teorije znanosti. Recenzentske izvode knjig pošiljajte na naslov uredništva. Revija izhaja
štirikrat letno. Za informacije glede naročil in avtorskih pravic skrbi Inštitut Nove revije, zavod za humanistiko.
*
The journal Phainomena covers the fields of phenomenology, hermeneutics, history of philosophy, philosophy of culture, philosophy of art, and phenomenological theory of science. Books for review should be addressed to the Editorial Office. It is published quarterly. For information regarding subscriptions and copyrights please contact the Institute Nova Revija for the Humanities.
Finančna podpora: | Financially Supported by:
Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije | Slovenian Research Agency
Članki v reviji so objavljeni v okviru: | Papers in the journal are published within the framework of:
•	Raziskovalni program P6-0341 | Research program P6-0341;
•	Infrastrukturni program I0-0036 | Infrastructure program I0-0036.
Revija Phainomena je vključena v naslednje podatkovne baze: | The journal Phainomena is indexed in:
Digitalna knjižnica Slovenije; DOAJ; EBSCO; Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science); ERIH PLUS; Humanities International Index; Internationale Bibliographie der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Zeitschriftenliteratur; Internationale Bibliographie der Rezensionen geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlicher Literatur; Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts; ProQuest; Revije.si (JAK); Scopus; Social Science Information Gateway; Social Services Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts; The Philosopher's Index; Ulrich's Periodicals Directory; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts.
Enojna številka: | Single Issue: 10 € Dvojna števila: | Double Issue: 16 €
Spletna stran: j Website:
phainomena.com
PHAINOMENA 30 | 118-119 | NOVEMBER 2021 APPROACHMENTS | PRISTOPANJA
TABLE OF CONTENTS | KAZALO
Sebastjan Vörös
Minding the Body. From Corporeal Mind to Minded Corporeality	5
Umljenje telesa. Od telesnega uma do umljene telesnosti
Aleš Oblak, Hanna Randall, and David J. Schwartzmann
"Becoming the Color." Synesthetic Gesture in a Case Study of Multiple
Forms of Synesthesia	35
»Postajati barva.« Sinestetična gesta v študiji primera z več oblikami sinestezije
Lech Witkowski
Transformations and Their Dominants. Between Dynamics and Processual Structure	69
Transformacije in njihove dominante. Med dinamiko in procesno strukturo
Martin Uranič
Bit, videz in gola navideznost. Od Parmenida k Platonu	93
Being, Seeming, and Mere Seemingness. From Parmenides Towards Plato
Matija Jan
Arnauld in Descartes. Narava idej in problem metode	113
Arnauld and Descartes. The Nature of Ideas and the Problem of Method
Wei Zhang
Max Scheler's Socratesism. An Introduction of a Phenomenological Normative Ethics	141
Sokratizem Maxa Schelerja. Vpeljava fenomenološke normativne etike
Dragan Jakovljevic
Nelsons Infragestellung der Erkenntnistheorie. Ein Beitrag zur systematischen Rekonstruktion und Diskussion, unter Berücksichtigung des Kommentars von Victor Kraft	161
Nelsonova postavitev spoznavne teorije pod vprašaj. Prispevek k sistematični rekonstrukciji in diskusiji, z upoštevanjem komentarja Victorja Krafta
Martín Prestía
Carlos Astrada and Tetsuro Watsuji on the Phenomenology of Landscape 181
Carlos Astrada in Tetsuro Watsuji o fenomenologiji pokrajine
Alfredo Rocha de la Torre
Pensiero calcolante e nichilismo. Il caso del linguaggio e la terra natale 207
Računajoče mišljenje in nihilizem. Primer govorice in domovine
Dean Komel
O materinščini	233
On Mother Tongue
Christophe Perrin
La vie est une réussite. Petite dialectique de l'échec	263
Življenje je uspeh. Mala dialektika poraza
REVIEWS | RECENZIJE	265
Damir Barbaric: Iz radionice duha (Mario Kopic)	265
Manuscript Submission Guidelines	269
Navodila za pripravo rokopisa
293
Original scientific paper Izvirni znanstveni članek
DOI: 10.32022/PHI30.2021.118-119.6 UDC: 165.6/.8:171
Max Scheler's Socratesism
An Introduction of a Phenomenological Normative Ethics
Wei Zhang
Sun Yat-sen University, Department of Philosophy, No. 135 Xingang Xi Road, Guangzhou 510275, China
renzhizhang@hotmail.com
Abstract
Socrates's question is the starting point of all ethics. In his phenomenological value-personalism, Scheler transformed it to the question: "How 'should' 'I' be and live?" Fundamentally, "I" refers to the person, and "should" means the "ideal ought." Ultimately, "I" as the person should engage in self-becoming towards its own ideal ordo amoris and ideal value-essence. In this sense, the end-result of Scheler's material ethics of values is precisely a phenomenological normative ethics, which is neither a
Phainomena 30 | 118-119 | 2021
normative ethics in the general sense nor an Aristotelian ethics of virtue, but a more essential ethics of person.
Keywords: person, ideal ought, phenomenology, ethics, M. Scheler.
Sokratizem Maxa Schelerja. Vpeljava fenomenološke normativne etike
Povzetek
Sokratovo vprašanje je izhodišče sleherne etike. V svojem vrednostnem personalizmu ga je Scheler transformiral v vprašanje: »Kako 'naj' bi 'jaz' bil in živel?« V temelju se »jaz« nanaša na osebo, medtem ko »naj« pomeni »idealno najstvo«. »Jaz« kot oseba naj bi se navsezadnje predal samo-postajanju na poti proti idealnemu ordo amoris in idealnemu vrednostnemu bistvu. Potemtakem je poslednji rezultat Schelerjeve materialne etike vrednot natanko fenomenološka normativna etika, ki ni niti normativna etika v splošnem smislu niti aristotelovska etika vrline, temveč bolj bistvena etika osebe.
Ključne besede: oseba, idealno najstvo, fenomenologija, etika, Scheler.
Wei Zhang
"Socrates' question, "How should we live?" is the best start point for moral philosophy. It is better than the questions of 'What is our duty?' or 'How may we be good?' or even 'How can we be happy?'." (Williams 2006, 4) In Bernard Williams's view, each of these questions presupposes too much to be answered. This inability contributes to the confusing situation in the contemporary study of moral philosophy or ethics. In Plato's Republic, Socrates said: "All the same, we must look more closely at the matter, since what is at stake is far from insignificant: it is how one should live one's life." (Plato 1993, 352d)
In his manuscript, Scheler claimed that: "Ultimately ethics is 'a damned bloody affair', and if it can give me no directives concerning how 'I' 'should' be and live now in this social and historical context, then what is it?" (Scheler 1973a, xxxi; emphasis added by the author)1 This self-reflection could be completely taken as Scheler's response to Socrates's question. The unique change from Scheler here is to use the first person "I" in asking Socrates's question, so that the question now is asking: "how 'should' 'I' be and live?" This paper will focus on discussing Scheler's answer to this question, and, 143 on its basis, reveal the potential forms of a phenomenological normative ethics.2
1	Cf. the German original: Scheler 1980, 591.
2	Scheler's phenomenological ethics manifests itself, first, as a phenomenology of value and, second, as a phenomenology of person. When viewed in the context of the history of ethical thought, these two parts constitute a style of phenomenological meta-ethics and phenomenological normative ethics, respectively. Specifically, the phenomenological metaethics is concerned with the question "What is good?" and the "foundational question of ethics," i.e., what is the basis for our answer to the question "What is the good?" (cf. Zhang 2021). Phenomenological normative ethics, on the other hand, is concerned with the "Socrates' question," i.e., the question of "how 'I' 'should' be and live," as Scheler transformed it. Scheler's phenomenology of person is the answer to this question, or, rather, the fundamental destination of Scheler's ethics
This article is funded by the Major project of the National Social Science Fund of China (NSSFC) (Project No.: 17ZDA033).
Phainomena 30 | 118-119 | 2021
I. "Person" and "I" as the form of address
In Scheler's above-mentioned self-reflection, "I" and "should" are both put in the quotation marks, which means that he is reminding readers to pay attention to these two concepts. Let us focus on the "I" first of all and leave the "should" for the next section to discuss. That is to say, the first thing to think about is: What does the transition of "one" in "how should one live" to "I" in "how should I live" mean?
It is a simple question since Scheler's guidance has been clear enough. In the "phenomenological" work Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values, Scheler did not give up using the "linguistic" analysis. When discussing the problem of the person, Scheler clearly said:
The use of the word person in language already reveals that the form of unity meant by this term has nothing to do with the form of unity of the "consciousness"-object of inner perception or consequently the "ego 144	[Ich]" (either the "ego" in opposition to a "thou [Du]" or the "ego" in
opposition to the "outer world"). (Scheler 1973a, 389.)3
Here, Scheler clearly distinguished the person from the "ego." In his opinion, the "ego" in any case is merely the object of inner perception, but the person can never be objectified. However, we have another question here. Scheler followed up with an example:
If I say, "I perceive myself", the "I" [Ich] is the form of address, not the psychic ego of experience. "Myself [mich]", however, does not mean "my I"; it does not answer the question of whether I perceive "myself" in an outer or inner fashion. (Scheler 1973a, 390.)4
is a response to the Socrates's question. In that sense, we can propose the notion of "Scheler's Socratesism."
3	Cf. Scheler 1980, 389.
4	Cf. Scheler 1980, 389.
Wei Zhang
Only if we say "I perceive my ego," does the term ego mean the psychic ego of experiences and the object of inner perception.5
Putting the difference of these two expressions ("I perceive myself" and "I perceive my ego") aside, the "I" in them, i.e., the "I" as the subject, essentially is the same. It is a linguistic form of address, an "occasional expression," and that basically refers to the person. The same as in the expressions, such as "I act," "I go for a walk," etc., the "I" is only a form of address. Only the person could be the executor of acts. We would never say that an "ego" acts or goes for a walk, for only the person can execute acts and unify the execution of acts. Only the person can perceive the ego or my ego.
Scheler's discussion here easily reminds us of related themes in contemporary theory of self-consciousness (Selbstbewußtsein). The study of contemporary theory of self-consciousness starts from examining the traditional "reflection-model" of self-consciousness. The so-called "reflection-model" of self-consciousness means the ego as subject presents itselfas an object. However, such the reflection-model is stuck with a "circular 145 dilemma." According to D. Henrich, this circular dilemma is embodied in two fundamental difficulties. Firstly, the theory of reflection discusses self-consciousness via the presenting or knowing of the ego as object by the ego of subject, but the presenting "ego-subject" has been presupposed here. If the "ego-subject" has not been conscious of itself, then how could it be possible for the "ego-subject" to turn back upon itself? Therefore, a typical "circle" appears here: the problem to be solved (i.e., self-consciousness) has been actually presupposed at the beginning of the discussion. Secondly, the theory of reflection presupposes that the ego's cognition of itself is possible only in the way of turning back to itself, and thus it has to presuppose that the "ego-subject," which knows and turns backward, is identical with the known object-ego, or, rather, presupposes the identity of the act of knowing and what is known. Only in this way can one speak of self-consciousness (or one's own consciousness). But, in order to be aware of this identity, the "I" must have known in advance how to ascribe (zuschreiben) to himself
5 Cf. Scheler 1980, 95; 389. Cf. also Scheler 1973a, 76-77; 390.
Phainomena 30 | 118-119 | 2021
what happens to him. Therefore, this self-consciousness of self-ascription cannot be the result of reflection, but rather the premise of it. Actually, the reflection model of the traditional theory of self-consciousness, and even any theory of self-consciousness, has presupposed this self-ascription from the very beginning, so that it is stuck in the dilemma of "circle" once again.6 The above example of "linguistic analysis" in Scheler shows that he actually "delayed' or "restated" the circular dilemma in the traditional theory of self-consciousness in his own way. For him, traditional self-consciousness does not mean a grasp of an "object I" by a "subject I," but a grasp of "ego," the object of inner perception, by "person." However, he used the expression "my ego" (mein Ich) to indicate the object of inner perception, and yet the problem returns: how could this "ego" (Ich) be "my" (mein)? It is exactly the problem of "self-ascription" in the traditional theory of self-consciousness. Therefore, in this sense, we can say that Scheler merely "delayed" the arising of self-consciousness. From another point of view, however, we can also say that Scheler stated 146 the problem of self-consciousness more clearly. The perception or grasp of "my ego" by the person is actually the grasping of the "object I" by a "subject I" in the traditional sense of self-consciousness. Scheler took it as inner perception, whereby he defined it as the level of "self-cognition" (Selbsterkenntnis) as Manfred Frank said. On the other side, in Scheler's view, the stream of personal lived-experience is originally "I-you indifferent," and this differentiation or "self-ascription" takes place in the "vortexes" of the stream of lived-experiences.7 In other words, the "self-ascription" in itself, or the "self-consciousness" (Selbstbewußtsein) in the narrower sense, as Manfred Frank said, is completed right in the stream of personal lived-experiences, a non-objective completion.8 Simply, the expression, "I perceive my ego" in Scheler includes two
6	Cf.: Henrich 1966, 193 ff.; Henrich 1982, 62 ff.; Henrich, 1970, 266 ff. For a related discussion, cf. also Zhang 2016.
7	Cf. Scheler 1973c, 240 (English translation: Scheler 1970, 246). For a related discussion, cf. also Zhang 2017.
8	As for the distinction between "self-cognition" (Selbsterkenntnis) and "self-consciousness" (Selbstbewußtsein), cf. Frank 1991, 6 f.; Frank 2001, 217-242.
Wei Zhang
levels: non-objective "self-consciousness" and objective "self-cognition," while according to him the "subject" here belongs to the "person."
Now we see that the question of "how should I be and live?" is actually asking: "how should the person be and live?" In other words, the possible answer Scheler would give to Socrates's question is: one should live as a person. What does it mean to live as person? To resolve this problem, we have to make clear what is the person in a moral sense. F. Hammer expressed this question very appropriately as the "individual person's self-ingathering (Sammlung)."9 "Ingathering" refers to "a concentrated being-in-oneself, or 'living deeply in oneself'. In such a state our total psychic life, including our past, is grasped as one and is effective as one" (Scheler 1973a, 420)10 Through such ingathering, each experienced life is "present" and "effective" in some way, so we are not empty, but entirely "full" and "abundant" here. Such a "self-ingathering" refers to the expansion of a phenomenology of "having oneself" (Sichselbsthaben) (Scheler 1973a, 420),11 or "self-identification" (Selbstidentifizierung) as Scheler talked about elsewhere: in the execution of acts, a "self-identification" is taking place at 147 the same time, that is, one attributes or "self-ascribes" this execution of acts to an "executor of acts" (person). It is this "executor of acts" living in each of his acts who permeates every act with his peculiar character. In each present execution of acts, there remains "lived life" made possible by retention. Although the person is not the "lived life," he lies in each of his present execution of acts and ascribes this "lived life" to himself. Therefore, "self-ingathering" or "self-identification" basically means that, with present acting, the person himself "partakes of" or "participates in" the "halo" (including retention and protention)12 of this execution of acts, in and through which he lives.13 Of course, in Formalism in Ethics and
9	Cf. Hammer, 1972, 226-248. Undoubtedly, "ingatheredness" is an extremely important concept in Scheler's person theory. Other researchers have noticed that as well (for instance, M. Gabel, H. Leonardy, etc.).
10	Cf. Scheler 1980, 417.
11	Cf. Scheler 1973a, 420; Scheler 1980, 417.
12	Here, the author uses Husserl's concepts of his phenomenological analysis of inner consciousness of time.
13	Cf. Scheler 1973c. 219 f.; Scheler 1970, 224-225. Cf. also Scheler 1980, 384 f.;
Phainomena 30 | 118-119 | 2021
Non-Formal Ethics of Value, this "ingathering" is discussed more in the context of the "self," but later, in The Human Place in the Cosmos, "self-ingathering" is used to discuss the person.
Generally, "self," "self-consciousness," or "self-feeling" (Selbstgefühl) is in Scheler applied in two ways: on the one hand, they are tied closely to "egoness";14 on the other hand, the concept of person itself must be discussed more fundamentally. It is in the latter sense that Scheler said: "let us call this act 'ingathering' and let us call, collectively, its goal, 'concentration on one's own self', or the consciousness of the spiritual act-center of itself, 'self-consciousness'" (Scheler 2009, 29).15 Since the so-called "spiritual act-center" refers to the person, it is clear that what Scheler talked about here is the self-ingathering or self-consciousness of person.
In this sense, the person in a moral sense has the same basic character and function as the self-preserving and self-becoming dynamic subjectivity in D. Henrich. The living process of the so-called "conscious life" in Henrich is presented as a continuous act of self-preservation.16 Subjectivity would by 148 no means be a static entity that is in opposition to the object, but is present as the activity of "conscious life."17 "Person" essentially means a non-objectifying subjectivity, which does not stay in the traditional subject-object model, an uncircumventable (unhintergehbar) subjectivity as the unity of the execution of specific acts. Thus, the person as person in itself is a "self-ingathering" "halo," but not a single and static point. "Man" or "I" as the "person" "should" be and live in the form of a "halo," but not a "point."
Scheler 1973a, 385-386.
14	In this sense, Scheler said: "The word person cannot be applied to every case wherein we assume something like animation, egoness, or even consciousness of the existence and value of ego (self-consciousness or consciousness of self-value)." (Scheler 1973a, 476; cf. Scheler 1980, 469) What Scheler refused here, is the "self-consciousness," which is tied to "egoness," or, more specifically, he was against founding the person itself on the ego. For a more detailed discussion about this problem, cf. Zhang 2011, 265-284.
15	Cf. the German original: Scheler 1976, 34.
16	Cf. Henrich 1996, 121-126.
17	Cf. Henrich 1999; Henrich 2006, 183-210; Henrich 2007, 49-81.
Wei Zhang
II. "Ought" as "ideal ought"
What does "should" or "ought" (soil) mean? How can "ought" be "ought"? Why should "I" as the "person" follow the "ought" to live? In Socrates's question, the term "should" does not mean the "ought" (sollen) of duty or the imperatives of the later moral philosophy.18 Socrates's question only concerns the "good life" or the so-called "life worth living," so that it eventually refers to one's own essential life attitude, not the questions of "what to do" or "how to evaluate," etc., in the context of some specific time or location.
The "ought" is intentionally placed in quotation marks in Scheler's self-reflection, by which he wanted to show that "ought" should not be understood as the "ought" in the sense of the norms of acts, which is the normal understanding in modern moral philosophy. Actually, Scheler clearly distinguished two types of "ought" (or "should" in ordinary writing), i.e., the ideal ought (ideales Sollen) and the normative ought (normatives Sollen). At the very beginning of Formalism—chapter 4, section 2: "Value and the Ought"—, Scheler confirmed the founding relation between these two types of "ought": "this second type of 149 ought is dependent on the former," (Scheler 1973a, 203)19 i.e., the normative ought is founded on the ideal ought. Next, Scheler claimed the relation between the ideal ought as the foundation of normative ought and values. This is a unilateral relation of foundation: "every ought has its foundation in values, but values are not founded in the ideal ought" (Scheler 1973a, 206).20 Thus, the relation of "values," "ideal ought," and "normative ought" is very clear: every "ought" (including "ideal ought" and "normative ought") has its foundation in values, and "normative ought" is founded on "ideal ought." But how can such a founding relation be possible?
Every "ought" has its foundation in values, because only values ought or ought not to be.21 In other words, ought refers to ought-to-be (Seinsollen) of something, and only values can be the "subjects" of ought-to-be, which in Scheler's point of view is a law that can be grasped by phenomenological
18	Cf. Williams 2006, 5 f.; Wolf 1996, 11.
19	Cf. Scheler 1980, 211.
20	Cf. Scheler 1980, 214.
21	Cf. Scheler 1980, 100; Scheler 1973a, 82.
Phainomena 30 | 118-119 | 2021
insight. Even if we say "you ought to do so," it means this "do so" ought to be. The "do so" ought to be done, just because it may have a "value of the act." No matter who gives the order that "you ought to do so," it can be given meaningfully right because of a "value of the act" in itself.
According to Scheler's two formal axioms, i.e., "anything of positive value ought to be, and anything of negative value ought not to be" (Scheler 1973a, 206),22 only if "do so" has a positive value, can it be a real "ought-to-be," otherwise it is a "deception" (Täuschung), no matter what causes this "deception," such as wrong desire or external power, etc.
Ideal "ought" means the ought-to-be of something that ideally ought to be. Ideal "ought" is founded on values and only values ought or ought not to be. Then, eventually, the so-called ideal "ought" is nothing more than the ought-to-be of something of values that ideally ought to be. More specifically, something of positive values that ideally ought to be ought to be, and something of negative values that ought not to be ought not to be. Moreover, there is an essential prescription that is already clearly present in the expression of "ought," 150 i.e., something that ought to be is factually not existent (real), so it "ought" to be. Then, the above positive proposition can be transformed further into: something of positive values that does not exist, but ideally ought to be ought to be. This proposition actually expresses another meaning, i.e., what presently exists is the opposite of something of positive value that ideally ought to be. It is called a "negatively critical" character of an ought proposition by Scheler.23 That is to say, although an ought proposition can be expressed as a positive statement, it actually refers to the "exclusion" of negative values, the opposite of positive values. In other words, "ought" initially means an "exclusion" of negative values.
The "formal" analysis, here, gives us three theoretical results. (1) Scheler's "normative" ethics starting with the ideal "ought" is not directed to any existing values at hand, but only to the values that ought to be, but are not yet. (2) The "directed" as such means an "exclusion" of the opposite of the values that ought to be, but are not yet, which by no means implies the pursuit of the positive
22	Cf. Scheler 1980, 214.
23	Cf. Scheler 1980, 217; Scheler 1973a, 210.
Wei Zhang
value itself, as Scheler always thought that: "the necessary condition of realization of these values is precisely their being non-intended in willing" (Scheler 1973a, 508).24 (3) The "ought" is essentially the ought-to-be of values; in other words, an ideal "ought" can be an "ought," can be a "measure," or make us feel a certain "binding force" or "normativeness," just because all these are "given" by values: positive values ought to be, and negative values ought not to be.
The so-called normative "ought" refers to the "normative" binding force given by a "command," "prohibition," or "duty," which ought to be such and such, and which generally indicates a willing, pursuit, or an act. It is distinguished from the ideal "ought" first of all, for the latter primarily means an "ought" of "being," while the former is an "ought" of "willing, pursuit, or act of such and such." As in the above example "you ought to do so," in fact, the "ought" of "do-so" eventually depends on the ought-to-be of the ideal "value of act," which exactly shows the founding relation between the "normative" "ought" and the ideal "ought." It is in this sense that Scheler criticized any ethics starting from the "normative" "ought" for having the "tendency of pragmatism" or the "prejudice of pragmatism" (Scheler 1973a, 214; 582).25 Scheler talked about 151 "pragmatism" in the most general literal meaning, i.e., about the actual use or actual act, etc. Obviously, if "normative ethics" refers to an ethics starting from the "normative" "ought," then undoubtedly Scheler would refuse "normative ethics" in any form.
However, there is another possibility, which is also the reason why we add quotation marks on "normative" in "normative" ethics earlier: it refers to a "normative" or "binding" ethics based upon an "ought" (ideal ought, for sure). "Ideal" in "ideal ought" indicates it cannot only be "completely independent of existing natural laws," and thus effective by itself, but "can also be considered valid for men of a nature quite different from ours" (Scheler 1973a, 217).26 In a word, only by virtue of its self-given essence or essential relation to phenomenological insight, the ideal "ought" is effective in itself, so that the ideal "ought" basically means that it is independent of any real constructs of
24	Cf. Scheler 1980, 499.
25	Cf. Scheler 1980, 221; 567.
26	Cf. Scheler 1980, 224.
Phainomena 30 | 118-119 | 2021
social history, but only based on the "ought-to-be" of the self-given essence or essential relation (value-a priori) given in the phenomenological insight. Its "ought force" comes from value-a priori itself.
Simply put, in Scheler, the "ought" in the question of "how 'ought' I be and live?" means an ideal "ought." It is the foundation of the normative "ought," but at the same time it looks for its own foundation in values. In this regard, Scheler's material ethics of values not only includes phenomenological "meta-ethics" whose main thesis is the phenomenological-existential essence of values, but also includes a phenomenological "normative ethics" whose task is to answer Socrates's question. "Meta-ethics" constitutes the foundation of Scheler's material ethics of values, and "normative ethics" represents the end-result of material ethics of values.
III. Phenomenological normative ethics: value-personalism
What does such a "normative" ethics of the "ideal ought" finally mean? Scheler also designated it as "value-personalism." Its central points can be briefly outlined as follows.
Firstly, with regard to the bearers, moral values as good or evil must be defined as values of the person.27 The question "what is (morally) good?" does not mean "what is a 'good' act?", but "what is a 'good' person?" Thus, for Scheler, the central question of normative ethics is not "how can one do 'good'?", but "how can one become a 'good' person?" or "how does the person self-become?" In other words, the main task of normative ethics is to answer Socrates's question.
Secondly, what value-personalism advocates, is the autonomy of the person, but not Kantian logonomy (Logonomie). Although Scheler absolutely agreed with Kant's criticism on "substance ontology" of the theory of person, wherein the person refers to a substance or a thing with certain faculties or powers (such as reason, etc.), he refused the Kantian way of tightly interconnecting the person with reason, and refused the so-called "rational person" (Vernunftperson), for "the being of the person is never exhausted in being a subject of rational acts of
27 Cf. Scheler 1980, 49; Scheler 1973a, 28.
Wei Zhang
a certain lawfulness" (Scheler 1973a, 372).28 Such a "rational person" is nothing more than a logical subject of rational acts following ideal laws, or "the X of rational activity." Such concretizing of the ideal of the person in a concrete person fundamentally implies a "depersonalization" (Entpersonalisierung), thus "logonomy" eventually is not an "autonomy," but an extreme "heteronomy" of the person. The autonomy of the person basically indicates the independence of the person himself, not the obedience to regulations and laws. In the meantime, autonomy is nothing but the presupposition of the moral significance of the person, and the autonomous person is by no means already a good person. Therefore, the individual person is not already completed, but should self-become continuously, or continuously come-to-be towards the good ideal personal value-essence or the ideal ordo amoris. Such autonomy of the person at least does not preclude "the principle of the moral 'solidarity (Solidarität,) of all persons" (Scheler 1973a, 496).29
Thirdly, the authentic mode of the personal being is personal becoming (Personwerden) or personal salvation (Heil). Each "ought" of "to-be" (Zusein) or "personal self-becoming" (personales Selbstwerden) as such is based 153 on insight into objective values, such as insight into a moral good "whose objective essence and value-content contain a reference to an individual person, and whose ought therefore comes to this person and to him alone as a 'call' (Ruf), no matter if this 'call' is addressed to others or not" (Scheler 1973a, 490).30 The "ought" here surely is not the "normative ought" or the "imperative ought" in Kant, but the "ideal ought." And the so-called "normative meaning of the ordo amoris" should be understood in the sense of this "ideal ought" as well.31 "Normative meaning" does not indicate that the ordo amoris itself is a sum of all norms or imperatives, but rather refers to an "ideal ought" of the ideal ordo amoris, i.e., the ideal ordo amoris with positive values' ought-to-be, and the overthrown ordo amoris with negative values' ought-not-to-be. "The objectively correct ordo amoris becomes a norm only when it is seen as related to the will (Wollen) of man and as commanded to him by a will." (Scheler
28	Cf. Scheler 1980, 371.
29	Cf. Scheler 1980, 488.
30	Cf. Scheler 1980, 482.
31	Cf. Scheler 1973c, 111; Scheler 1970, 103.
Phainomena 30 | 118-119 | 2021
1973b, 98-99)32 In this sense, the normative meaning of the ideal ordo amoris just constitutes the phenomenological "normative" ethics in Scheler.
Fourthly, the personal salvation or personal becoming refers to an authentic "alteration in moral tenor" (Gesinnungswandel). "Moral tenor" (Gesinnung) as one of the central categories in Scheler's phenomenological ethics is an important component in most ethical systems of German ethicists as well (including Kant). In Scheler, the moral tenor of the person is the foundation of human reason and will, and is the "orientation" of all personal acts (including acts of will), which affects the beginning of each act. "An alteration in the basic moral tenor is a moral process; commands (including self-commands, if there were such), educational directives (which do not reach the moral tenor), and advice and counsel cannot determine such an alteration." (Scheler 1973a, 580-581)33 This alteration basically arises from the "demand of the moment" (Forderung der Stunde, Goethe) or "moment" (Kairos),34 which is precisely the essential category of ethics.35
Finally, there are two possible elements of alteration in moral tenor: (1) following 154 (Gefolgschaft) the personality of a model (Vorbild) in love, which involves taking some foreign person as model;36 (2) the personal self-feeling or self-value-feeling (Selbstwertfuhlen), which is related to one's own person.37 In this sense, a person can reveal his ideal ordo amoris or individual determination (Bestimmung) both through himself and through other persons. Just as Scheler said, the claim that
32	Cf. the German original: Scheler 1957, 347.
33	Cf. Scheler 1980, 566.
34	Cf. Deeken 1974, 113-129.
35	Cf. Scheler 1980, 485; Scheler 1973a, 493.
36	Cf. Scheler 1980 560 ff.; Scheler 1973a, 574 ff. In Formalism, Scheler mentions that the alteration of moral tenor is determined by the fidelity of a model "alone" (nur) (cf. Scheler 1980, 566; Scheler 1973a, 581). That is to say, in reference to the external aspects (such as commands, educational directives, advices, or counsels), the fidelity of a model alone can achieve the alteration of moral tenor. But this, according to Scheler, by no means refers to the impossibility of existing internal aspects (i.e., personal self-feelings).
37	In Frings' outstanding study of Scheler's problem of the person, he actually emphasized not only the importance of the fidelity of a model, but also the importance of the acts of feelings such as regretting (Reue), but he did not distinguish clearly these two different possible moments. Cf. Frings 1969, 81 ff.
Wei Zhang
"each is necessarily the best judge of his salvation" is absolutely groundless (Scheler 1973a, 491).38 In the phenomenological sense, these two possible moments of alteration in moral tenors are equally original and equally effective.
Thus, within this framework of Scheler's phenomenological value-personalism, the question "how should I be and live"? can be answered. First of all, the "I" should become the "person" through "self-ingathering," and then be and live as a "person." To be and live as a person means to be or to become oneself by achieving one's personal ideal value-essence (including not only individual personal value-essence, but also the value-essence of the member of a collective person [Gesamtperson]), i.e., the "I" as the person should undertake self-responsibility as well as co-responsibility (Mitverantwortlichkeit). And the moment of the becoming of this person lies in feeling the values of one's self and in following one's model. Both of these "moments" are correlated with values, or, in other words, both are a call to the "I" from value itself, an "ought force" to the "I"; and the ideal ordo amoris itself refers to the ideal personal center or ideal personal value-essence. When we say "I" "should" be and should self-become towards my own ideal ordo amoris and ideal value-essence, this 155 denotes an ideal because it is not composed by any fact of social history; it is the "ideal ought" and therefore indicates that its own ideal ordo amoris and the ideal value-essence itself "ought to be," but actually are not yet; in the meantime, this implies that, as a matter of fact, this "ideal ought" is directed to the "exclusion" of its opposite. Based on this, we now can understand why Scheler called this becoming the person one ideally is as "personal salvation," which indicates the "exclusion" of the disordering (Unordnung) or confusion (Verwirrung) of the ordo amoris.39 It is in this "exclusion" that self-salvation becomes possible. It may be realized just when we do not will the "ego's ideal ordo amoris or ideal value-essence" in itself. What the "normative" ethics of the "ideal ought" presents, is nothing but that: "the idea of the person of the highest non-formal value is also the highest norm for moral being and comportment" (Scheler 1973a, 572).40
38	Cf. Scheler 1980, 483.
39	Cf. Scheler 1957, 350; Scheler 1973b, 103.
40	Cf. Scheler 1980, 558.
Phainomena 30 | ii8-ii9 | 2021
The "normative" ethics of the "ideal ought" eventually speaks of the question of how the "man" or the "person" himself should "be and live." He cannot depart from values, but is concerned more centrally about the self-becoming of person as the "bearer" of values. Based on this, different from Kant's normative ethics, Scheler's phenomenological "normative" ethics concerns the question of how "person" himself should "be and live," not the question of how to do, how to act, or how to will. It is this essential character that generally leads Scheler's ethics closer to Aristotle rather than Kant. Or, in the terms of modern moral philosophy: Scheler's basic position tends to the ethics of the "actor" rather than the ethics of "acts." This by no means implies that Scheler's phenomenological material ethics of values is identical with the Aristotelian ethics of virtue. As a matter of fact, the end-result of Scheler's ethics is neither the Kantian "ethics of duty" nor the Aristotelian "ethics of virtue," but a more fundamental "third road": "the ethics of the person." For Scheler, "that which can be called originally 'good' and 'evil', i.e., that which bears non-formal values of 'good' and 'evil' prior to and independent of all 156 individual acts, is the 'person, the being of the person himself" (Scheler 1973a, 28).41 In this regard, Scheler's phenomenological value-personalism is basically asking how one can become a good person. "Only persons can (originally) be morally good or evil; everything else can be good or evil only by reference to persons, no matter how indirect this 'reference' may be." (Scheler 1973a, 85)42 In each "reference" (Hinsehen), the first thing worth mentioning are the properties of the person, i.e., his virtues and vices. The so-called "virtue" or "vice" basically indicates the direction of a moral "to-be-able-to" (Können), and this "to-be-able-to" refers to "being able to realize the areas of the ideal ought which are differentiated by basic value-qualities" (Scheler 1973a, 28).43 Virtue is fundamentally the immediately experienced "power" (Mächtigkeit) to do something that ought to be done. Thus, the concept of virtue springs from the factual situation, in which something that ideally ought to be given is directly given as something that "can" be.44 But the "virtue" is essentially different
41	Cf. Scheler 1980, 49.
42	Cf. Scheler 1980, 103.
43	Cf. Scheler 1980, 50.
44	Cf. Scheler 1980, 213; Scheler 1973a, 205.
Wei Zhang
from "proficiency" (Tüchtigkeit) or the ability or instinct to do something or accomplish something. The phenomenological essence of virtue must contain two equally original and immediately given experiences or essential facts: the experience of the ideal "ought" of a content and the experience of the ability to do such a content.45 In a word, as a property of the person, "virtue" itself is correlated with values, which is an ability to realize the ideal "ought." For example, the virtue of "obedience" contains two equally original and immediate experiences: I am moving towards my ideal value-essence (the experience of the ideal "ought"), and I am able to be such in personal feeling or in the self-value-feeling of "obedience" (the experience of ability).
In these "references," the acts of the person would be in the second place, including the acts of willing and action. The kind of acts as forgiving, commanding, obeying, and promising are often regarded as "good" by us essentially, because they are "personal" acts.46 Duty or norm is exactly correlated with the acts of the person.
Based on the essential relation of three possible bearers of moral values (the person is immediate, while virtues and acts are mediate), Scheler emphasized 157 specifically the essential relation of the ethics of person, the ethics of virtue, and the ethics of duty: "the theory of virtue precedes the theory of duty" (Scheler 1973a, 28),47 and the ethics of person precedes the former two. Finally, Scheler's phenomenological "normative" ethics is founded upon the most fundamental ethics of the person.
IV. A brief conclusion
Socrates's question is the starting point of all ethics. In his phenomenological value-personalism, Scheler transformed it to the question: "How 'should' 'I' be and live?" Fundamentally, "I" refers to the person, and "should" means the "ideal ought." Ultimately, "I" as the person should come to be and engage in self-becoming towards its own ideal ordo amoris and ideal value-essence. The ethics of the person is an ethics of the person's to-be or self-becoming
45	Cf. Scheler 1980, 244 f.; Scheler 1973a, 237 f.
46	Cf. Scheler 1980, 50; Scheler 1973a, 29.
47	Cf. Scheler 1980, 50.
Phainomena 30 | 118-119 | 2021
towards its own ideal value-essence or ideal ordo amoris. In this sense, the end-result of Scheler's material ethics of values is precisely a phenomenological normative ethics, which is neither a normative ethics in general sense nor an Aristotelian ethics of virtue, but a more essential ethics of person. And such a phenomenological "normative" ethics precisely shows Scheler's essential asking and answering of Socrates's question.
Acknowledgment
I would like to thank Prof. Eugene Kelly (New York) for modifying the English version of this essay.
Bibliography | Bibliografija
Deeken, Alfons. 1974. Process and Permanence in Ethics: Max Scheler's Moral Philosophy. New York: Paulist Press.
Frank, Manfred. 1991. Selbstbewußtsein und Selbsterkenntnis. Essays zur analytischen Philosophie der Subjektivität. Stuttgart: Reclam.
---. 2001. "Selbstbewusstsein und Selbsterkenntnis. Über einige Schwierigkeiten bei der Reduktion von Subjektivität." In: Die Öffentlichkeit der Vernunft und die Vernunft der Öffentlichkeit. Festschrift für Habermas, ed. by K. Günter and L. Wingert. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Frings, Manfred S. 1969. Person und Dasein. Zur Frage der Ontologie des Wertseins. Phaenomenologica 32. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
Hammer, Felix. 1972. Theonome Anthropologie? Max Schelers Menschenbild und seine Grenzen. Phaenomenologica 45. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
Henrich, Dieter. 1966. "Fichtes ursprüngliche Einsicht." In Subjektivität und Metaphysik. Festschrift für Wolfgang Cramer, ed. by D. Henrich. Frankfurt am Main.
---. 1970. "Selbstbewußtsein: Kritische Einleitung in eine Theorie." In Hermeneutik und Dialektik. Festschrift für H.-G. Gadamer, ed. by R. Bubner, K. Cramer, and R. Wiehl. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.
---. 1982. "Fichtes ,Ich'." In Henrich, Selbstverhältnisse. Gedanken und Auslegungen zu den Grundlagen der klassischen deutschen Philosophie. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Wei Zhang
---. 1996. "Über Selbstbewußtsein und Selbsterhaltung." In Subjektivität und Selbsterhaltung. Beiträge zur Diagnose der Moderne, ed. by H. Ebeling. Frankfurt am Main.
---. 1999. Bewußtes Leben. Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Subjektivität und Metaphysik. Stuttgart: Reclam.
---. 2006. Die Philosophie im Prozeß der Kultur. Frankfurt am Main. ---. 2007. Denken und Selbstsein. Vorlesungen über Subjektivität. Frankfurt am Main.
Plato. 1993. Republic. Trans. by Robin Waterfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scheler, Max. "Ordo Amoris." 1957. In Scheler, Schriften aus dem Nachlaß. Bd. 1: Zur Ethik und Erkenntnislehre. Gesammelte Werke. Vol. X, ed. by Maria Scheler. Bern: Francke.
---. 1970. The Nature of Sympathy. Trans. by Peter Heath. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
---. 1973a. Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Value. Trans. by Manfred S. Frings and Roger L. Funk. Evanston: Northwestern University 159 Press.
---. 1973b. "Ordo Amoris." In Scheler, Selected Philosophical Essays, trans. by David R. Lachterman. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
---. 1973c. Wesen und Formen der Sympathie. Gesammelte Werke. Vol. VII. Ed. by Manfred Frings. Bern: Francke.
---. 1976. "Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos." In Scheler, Späte Schriften. Gesammelte Werke. Vol. IX, ed. by Manfred Frings. Bern: Francke.
---. 1980. Formalismus in der Ethik und die Materiale Wertethik. Gesammelte Werke. Vol. II. Ed. by Maria Scheler. Bern: Francke.
---. 2009. The Human Place in the Cosmos. Trans. by Manfred Frings. Evanston: Northwesten University Press.
Williams, Bernard. 2006. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London / New York: Routledge.
Wolf, Ursula 1996. Die Suche nach dem guten Leben. Platons Frühdialoge. Hamburg.
Zhang, Wei. 2011. "Person und Selbstgefühl im phänomenologischen Personalismus Max Schelers." Studia Phaenomenologica XI: 265-284.
Phainomena 30 | 118-119 | 2021
---. 2016. "How is a Phenomenological Reflection-Model of Self-consciousness Possible? A Husserlian Response to E. Tugendhat's Semantic Approach to Self-consciousness." Husserl Studies 32 (1): 47-66.
---. 2017. "An Introduction to Scheler's Phenomenology of Intersubjectivity. From 'Self-Deception' to 'Inner Perception of the Other'." Phänomenologische Forschungen 2017 (1): 117-134. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
---. 2021. "Scheler's Reflections on 'What is Good?': The Foundation of a Phenomenological Meta-Ethics." Studia Phaenomenologica XXI: 349-365.
160
phainomena
REVIJA ZA FENOMENOLOGIJO IN HERMENEVTIKO JOURNAL OF PHENOMENOLOGY AND HERMENEUTICS
Phainomena | 30 | 116-117 | April 2021
Andrej Božič (Ed.)
"The COVID-19 Crisis"
Andrej Božič | Daniel R. Sobota | Svetlana Sabeva | Jaroslaw Gara | Victor Molchanov | Silvia Pierosara | Veronica Neri | Uroš Milic | Zmago Švajncer Vrečko | Paulina Sosnowska | Lea-Marija Colarič-Jakše | Holger Zaborowski | Hans-Georg Gadamer | Polona Tratnik
Phainomena | 29 | 114-115 | November 2020 »Transfiguracije | Transfigurations"
Petar Šegedin | Maxim Miroshnichenko | Dino Manzoni | Andraž Dolinšek | Manca Erzetič | Michal Wieczorek | Joaquim Braga | René Dentz | Tea Golob | Tina Bilban
Phainomena | 29 | 112-113 | June 2020 »Eo ipso«
Bence Peter Marosan | Christian Ivanoff-Sabogal | Virgilio Cesarone | Daniel Ross | Rok Svetlič | Fabio Polidori | Patrick M. Whitehead | Zmago Švajncer Vrečko | Mirt Komel | Marijan Krivak | Jonas Miklavčič | Polona Tratnik | Timotej Prosen | Tonči Valentic | Andrej Božič | Malgorzata Holda | Mario Kopic
INSTITUTE nova revija for the HUMANITIES
NR
ct> phainomena
PHENOMENOLOGICAL 50CIEIY Of LJUBLJANA
977131833620411819