Anybody Remember This Guy?

Nobody reads Karl Jaspers any more. Certainly I don’t, and so I was surprised, cleaning out some old books, that I actually own—in particular, two slim Harvest/HBJ paperbacks—selections from Jaspers’ (surely forgotten) masterwork, Die Grossen Philosophers. Well, maybe not forgotten: an Amazon author search churns up 168 Jaspers titles. One of my two--Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus (1966) comes in 44,442 in the Amazon readings; the other—Plato and Augustine (1966) lags at 159,454 (though each has one decent non-lunatic Amazon review).

And you know what? They’re pretty good. Inevitably they date in style. And they bespeak a set of tastes and enthusiasms that nobody in particular would embrace today. But they are straightforward, fair-minded, non-technical and a pleasure to read. Here’s a sample (from Socrates etc., p. 94):

Let us compare Jesus and Buddha: Jesus’ message is part of a history wrought by God. Those who go with Jesus are caught up in a passion that has its source in the moment of the most critical decision. Buddha proclaims his doctrine in aimless wanderings, in aristocratic serenity, without insistence, indifferent to a world that is forever the same. Jesus builds on the Old Testament, Buddha on Hindu philosophy. Jesus demands faith, Buddha demands insight.

Lety us compare Jesus with Socrates: Jesus teaches by proclaiming the glad tidings, Socrates by compelling men to think. Jesus demands faith, Socrates an exchange of thought. Jesus speaks with direct earnestness, Socrates indirectly, even by irony. Jesus knows of the kingdom of heaven and eternal life, Socrates has no definite knowledge of these matters and leaves the question open. But neither will let men rest. Jesus proclaims the only way; Socrates leaves men free, but keeps reminding him of his responsibility rooted in freedom. Both raise supreme claims. Jesus confers salvation. Socrates provokes men to look for it.

Interestingly, Jaspers addresses and rejects the possibility that any or all of these four was imaginary. At least I think he does. The passage is a bit elliptical, as if he doesn’t want to face the question head on. But he concludes:

Our sense of reality rejects such a thesis. Can accident make something enduring out of nothing? In political affairs, perhaps, a man insignificant in himself may be enabled by fortuitous circumstances to produce an important effect asnd thus gain for a time a considerable outward power. But such a man cannot move the depths of men’s souls. His power over men cannot endure.

No, these two do not get thrown away.