Eternity in Time by Karl Jaspers

Czesława Piecuch (Pedagogical University of Cracow)

1. Paradox of eternity in time

Jaspers’s assertion that “eternity exists in time” (Ewigkeit ist in der Zeit)[1] may appear to resemble certain traditional views, as such inherent in Buddhism, for instance, or present in Christian tradition, claiming that the manner of living impacts eternal peace, that God-fearing mortal life ensures eternal salvation, while death is the path to immortality. They find their famous expression in Plato’s concept of the immortality of the soul. Although the latter is connected with the body during one’s lifetime, it should not give in to the body, but it should endeavor to break the bond, and as a result gain everlasting happiness. Conversely, should the soul “give in to the body’s charms”, says Plato in Phaedon, then it shall eternally return, impure, back to the world. All these views see eternity as something available to man after time, and as something essentially opposite to time. Jaspers’s concept of “eternity in time” is different: for him, eternity is by no means a kind of afterlife, but it occurs in the present, and – which should be stressed – it is man who introduces eternity into time by the force of his own unique decision.

Jaspers founds his concept of eternity in time upon paradoxes. These arise as a result of linking opposite categories: eternity and time; that which is unchangingly timeless with the changeable actuality of time.[2] These links are expressed in the following assertion of his: that which is eternal and which occurs in time consists of three elements – potentiality of the future, truthfulness to the past, and an existential decision made in the present. Realizing these three elements which occur in time is the path to overcoming time. Here we stumble upon another paradox: overcoming time, in Jaspers’s concept, is not equated with annihilating time, but only signifies that in time, one remains uniquely above time, not beyond (outside) time.

The common and prevailing concept of eternity as human immortality has to do with the will to live and to last forever. Therefore the question how to achieve that eternity accompanies man from the very beginning, that is from the moment he realized his own mortality, finality, and passing. In attempt to overcome the abovementioned, and the passing of time, he created various visions of a second life in another world, or an eternal life following the mortal life. Originality of Jaspers’s approach is expressed in the fact that he sees man as both a mortal and an immortal being. In his view, man is mortal, which does not preclude his immortality. The latter, however, may be reached only in the present, that is, in mortal life lived in the face of death. The paradox inherent in this view consists in the fact that man can achieve immortality only as a mortal being.

In Jaspers’s philosophy, concepts of eternity and time do not only not exclude one another, but they meet in a particular coincidence. In his thinking, time becomes a condition of eternity, and therefore – quite the opposite to the view of Plato, for instance, or to certain religions – the rejection of temporal life is linked to man losing eternity.

2. Within time, “across time” (guer der Zeit)

Jaspers’s understanding of time varies according to the perspective in which it is discussed. In the context of his discussion of eternity, we distinguish at least three kinds of time, in accordance with three modes of the encompassing, namely: the empirical being Dasein, existence Existenz, and transcendence Transzendenz.[3] From the perspective of the empirical being, time signifies passing, which is accompanied by destruction – not only of different forms of life, but also the creations of nature and of man, both material and spiritual. This is empirical time, which is objective in character, and as such, in itself, it is of little significance to personal life. In Jaspers’s concept, time gains significance only when it is linked to the category of limit situations. In this case, however, it is already a different time, existential time, therefore the lifetime of Existenz, actualizing itself in the experience of limit situations, particularly in the experience of the limit situation of death. As a result of that experience, incomprehensibly, the link is achieved between existential time and yet another kind of time, namely, metaphysical time, in which the actuality of Transzendenz occurs. We should note, however, that in Jaspers’s thought this actuality of Transzendenz does not mean that we are dealing with Transzendenz itself, but instead, we are dealing with the language of its ciphers. Metaphysical time, unlike empirical time and existential time, refers to the transcendental being. Jaspers refers to it also as the “eternity of metaphysical time”. “This is as if time froze in itself, because it was not overcome by moment.”[4] Human Existenz, in its transcendental reference, points to the “inexplicable unity of time and timelessness”.

In the experience of death, a reciprocal relationship between the two aforementioned forms of time is revealed, namely, empirical time and existential time, which springs from the threat to man’s empirical being. We recall that – according to Jaspers – the experience of such a threat triggers existential life. Let us observe the relationship between the two forms of time. First, we should note that as a result of the experience, empirical time acquires a new significance. This happens thanks to the existential component, and more precisely, thanks to the fact that objective time becomes relativized as subjective time. Simultaneously, however, existential time reveals itself only in, and through, empirical time. One kind of time conditions the other: empirical time is validated through existential time, and on the other hand, the course of empirical time conditions the revelation of that which is not subjected to passing, but is eternal.

When a new, spiritual dimension enters the empirical process and when it permeates that process, what occurs is the “deepening” of time, as Jaspers would have it. We can try to describe that occurrence as a break in time, or a parting of time, to make room for that which is timeless – Jaspers uses the term “across time” (quer der Zeit). The Existenz, which reveals itself “across time”, by its decision introduces eternity into time, and thus grounds the empirical time in metaphysical time. Thus all three kinds of time are superimposed onto each other – man decides upon eternity within time.

3. Historic reality

Following the aforementioned existential decision, a new reality comes to being, which Jaspers called the “historic reality” (geschichtliche Wirklichkeit), and which is the empirical being (Dasein) permeated with the eternal dimension. As a result, the world which up to that moment had been empty (blosse Welt), the empirical world, is transformed through filling it with the existential decision. Let us note that Existenz, with its decision, gains itself, simultaneously includes eternity in time, and yet – and that should be stressed – while existentially realizing itself in temporal revelation, Jaspers’s man does not create himself in eternity.

This new reality reveals a particular nature of human Existenz, namely that it is realized only within the world, and yet it is not of this world. This raises a dialectical tension between man’s Existenz and his world, as while realizing itself in the world, Existenz retains its otherness, pointing to its transcendental, outworldly anchor. This otherness is further reinforced by the fact that the realization of being occurs in a moment, which then disappears, while the world continues to exist. This is where historic reality expresses itself, namely “that which lasts, turns out to be nothing, and that which fades, becomes the manifestation of Being.”[5] Here we arrive at yet another of many paradoxes of Jaspers’s vision of eternity: that which is absolute, Existenz and Transzendenz, depends upon that which is relative; that which is timeless depends on that which is temporal; the depth of being depends on what is superficial; true Being depends on the world of phenomena.

Let us note that thus formulated by Jaspers, “historic reality” pairs and interweaves such oppositions as mortality and immortality, empirical time and existential time, that which is conditioned and that which is unconditional. Interweaving of time and eternity in the human decision confirms the multifaceted nature of human being, namely the fact that man is an empirical being placed within the world, but also he is Existenz which realizes itself in the world while transcending it. What happens is the interweaving of the empirical, the existential, and the transcendental dimensions: being which is subjected to time (Dasein) and time-independent Existenz which realizes itself in the face of Transzendenz – that which “in the expression of I am is conceived un-objectively as eternal being.”[6]

Expressed in the concept of “historicity” is the belief characteristic of Jaspers’s philosophy, namely that everything is decided in the present world and the present time, Here and Now, in a particular situation to which man is tied through his birth and his fate. “My unity with my Dasein as a phenomenon is my historicity, and to be conscious of this is historic consciousness.”[7] Let us reiterate that this unity is guaranteed by Existenz, when in its freedom it refers to its Transzendenz. Thus, for man, historicity of Existenz is the only way to reveal its being in time, and in this revelation, to experience the actuality of Transzendenz. In Jaspers’s concept, there is no other way to absolute Being as the timeless Being, Transzendenz is available to man only in time, and thanks to man’s freedom.

4. Historic consciousness

With “historic reality”, new awareness is born, which Jaspers calls the historic consciousness (geschichtliches Bewusstsein). It is the awareness of eternity. Let us perceive the paradox inherent here: the awareness of death, deeply experienced in the limit situation, becomes the source, filling eternity. This again reasserts Jaspers’s thought that the experience of eternity happens not though the rejection of time, but only in time, in the present. It is further reinforced by Jaspers’s notion of “historic temporality” of Existenz. The “temporality” in this notion does not signify that Existenz as such is temporal, but that it realizes itself in time, while being timeless.[8]

We note that in order to underline the singularity of this occurrence, in which a certain “transformation” of time takes place, Jaspers uses the term “historic” (geschichtlich), distinguishing it from a mere historical (historisch) fact. Consistently, Jaspers denotes the resulting realization of Existence in the world as “historicity of Existenz” (Geschichtlichkeit der Existenz), while he names the awareness that accompanies it “the historic consciousness”, as mentioned previously. In his view, this signifies a particular kind of knowledge, which is not objective, but which “must be personally sourced.”[9] Its lack of objectivity results from the uniqueness of the existential actualization of human beings in a given situation. This means that it cannot be separated from the one who possesses it. “Here, in the source, being and knowledge are indivisibly linked.”[10] Only this “historic (geschichtlich) origin” gives meaning to historical (historisch) knowledge, that is to say, the history of objective facts.

We might add that “historic consciousness” is always more than existential consciousness, more than consciousness of the unity of man and his world, in which he realizes himself as a unique being; it is the consciousness of its transcendental reference as well. It is also, therefore, the consciousness of Transzendenz, as “Historicity for me, as a temporal Dasein, is the only way in which I can access absolute being.”[11]

5. Unconditional action

We can suppose that the human deed which results in this new, particular kind of reality – the “historic reality” – must be unique in character. Jaspers calls it the “unconditional action” (unbedingte Handlung). It expresses itself in a conscious decision of Existenz, taken in time, in which that Existenz refers to Transzendenz. Jaspers expresses this reference as a “flight” (Aufschwung) of Existenz, in which the latter accesses eternity. This is how we should understand Jaspers’s statement that it is action that decides on what is eternal, because: “Unconditional action is the expression of self-aware Existenz, which by referring to Transzendenz – within the phenomenon of Dasein – does what it considers important for eternity.”[12]

As is well known, Jaspers equates human Existenz with the proper (eigentlich) freedom. Therefore the essence of this action is that it flows from the inside of man, from what is unconditional within him (das Unbedingte). Unconditionality of the action means that it is free, unlike those actions which are conditioned by external, finite ends, linked to the individual’s life goals and interests, on which the individual becomes dependent. “By knowing the causes and ends of my actions, I move within the circle of what is finite and conditioned. Only by living on something that cannot be objectively explained, do I live on the Unconditioned.”[13]

In the context of the present discussion, it is significant that Jaspers equates this unconditional action with human “participation in eternity, in Being.” This action answers an internal imperative (Forderung), which, as it should be noted, comes from the inside, lies within man, but it is something more than him. Here Jaspers refers us again to Being which exceeds man, to Transcendenz. “Unconditionality lies, therefore, in the decision taken by Existenz, and preceded with a reflection. This means that unconditionality does not derive from the empirical being, but from freedom. However, it is a kind of freedom which does not allow other action, not due to the laws of nature, but due to its transcendental foundations.”[14] That is also linked to the impossibility of demonstrating, or proving it – as there are no mathematical proofs, nor an empirical proof, for the action springing from existential freedom; instead, it refers to belief. “Unconditionality is timelessness existing in time.”[15] Therefore it is not only temporal; “wherever it is found, it is also against time”[16].

Jaspers quotes examples of such unconditional actions: when man fulfills noble tasks, which are expressions of his love, faithfulness, reliability, then the decisions he makes in time do not pass with his own passing. It is as if by realizing his existential possibilities in the present, man fixed them in an area which is not subjected to the passing of time. However, as we have already noted above, in Jaspers’s view man does not create himself in eternity, as the very possibility of existential realization was previously given to him, he already finds it in himself, and it is thanks to this “gift” that he reveals what he is in the world of phenomena.[17]

This is a reiteration of Jaspers’s view that, for man, eternity is inexorably linked to time, and it is not accessible to him outside time, as eternity after time. “Eternity is neither timelessness, nor is it lasting forever, instead, it is the depth of time, as a historic revelation of Existenz.”[18] Eternity emerges within time with man’s unconditional action and marks time with its depth. Man does not enter another, second time after death, but already “in the present depth of existing he is as eternity”[19]. Thus marked with unconditional decisions, although in itself it passes, time leaves an indelible mark in the individual life of man who – by the force of his existential action – stops that time (in a manner of speaking) for a moment of existential flight.

6. Eternal present

Let us ponder again the paradox: existential realization can only occur in time, but in such a manner that in itself it is not temporal; time is the condition of eternity but the latter, in itself, is outside time. Jaspers believes that “time cannot transform itself into eternity”[20], but that it can be deepened by another dimension of being, a transcendental one, which by the force of an existential decision enters time. Then, as already noted, such “meeting” of temporality and eternity – in Jaspers’s thought – not only does not erase time, does not devaluate it, but it equips it with a new significance.

Firstly, objective time gains personal significance, as man subordinates it and turns it into “time of his own Existenz”, and secondly, by binding time with Transzendenz through an existential action, it enriches it with a dimension of eternity, which encompasses all time and leaves a mark upon objective time. Therefore, the contradiction created by Jaspers’s linking eternity and time loses its sharpness, when we see that eternity – as understood by Jaspers – is not the opposite of time, but it occurs with time in a special, reciprocal relationship. Simultaneously, this “eternal time” is not an empty moment, an “atom”, as it possesses content, which is the “existential actuality” derived from a decision freely made.

We should add that this one – just as other Jaspers’s paradoxes – is paradoxical only in human thinking, but is not paradoxical in existential consciousness. Its source seems to be, similar to the work of Kierkegaard, in the meeting of that which is finite with that which is infinite, that which is temporal with that which is eternal, that which is determined with that which is free, therefore, completely opposed kinds of reality. In Kierkegaard’s view, this leads to synthesis through religious faith; in Jaspers’s, in the act of existential realization, they become united as a result of a freely made decision. Then, in a way which is rationally inconceivable, in an existential flight, “time and timelessness become eternity”[21]. For existential consciousness, the distinction between time and eternity becomes pointless,“I see eternity in a moment”, Jaspers will say.

We can see that in this view of Jaspers’s, such notions as eternity, Transzendenz, Existenz are singularly superimposed onto one another. While speaking of eternity in time, Jaspers points to the transcendental dimension of being, Being “proper”, which enters empirical time thanks to an existential decision, thus giving time the status of the “eternal present”[22]. The term of “eternal present” (ewige Gegenwart) is meant to point to the non-temporal character of the present. This is because the eternal present, in Jaspers’s understanding, other than the ordinary, temporal present (so to speak), has neither the past nor the future – but it contains them both. However, this “eternal Now” is real, therefore it cannot occur outside time; simultaneously, as eternal it is not temporal, which means that while being in time it is also “across time”, as Jaspers puts it. This specific present is neither the beginning nor the end of time, because it “never was in the past, it will not be in the future, as the Now, it has no consequences, because nothing flows any more, but everything is eternal.”[23]

Let us reiterate, eternal being outside time or a reality existing outside the world are not available to man, but eternity as transcendence reveals itself in the phenomenon of time indirectly, namely it appears to human Existenz, which reads its script of the ciphers. This is possible because then the Existenz itself, in its flight, participates in eternity, and is eternity. As previously mentioned, human Existenz in Jaspers’s view is neither temporal or extra-temporal, but in a temporal phenomenon it belongs with the bond of its reference to the being of Transzendenz, which is eternal. Jaspers sees it as connecting, in time, what belongs to each other in eternity, Existenz and Transzendenz.

In Jaspers’s view, this “entrance” of eternity into time by the force of man’s existential decision gives new meanings to traditional philosophical notions. As a result, the transcendental dimension gains some kind of temporal present, enforced by Jaspers’s references to “eternal Now” and “eternal Present”. Consequently, not only empirical time is changed but also the empirical world, when empirical reality changes into the aforementioned “historic reality”. As a consequence of eternity entering the empirical world, the latter loses its former character to become – so to speak – the medium of Transzendenz. Interweaving of these two kinds of reality, worldly and transcendental, temporal and eternal, denies the world and empirical time their absolute character: “They are both in one, in that, which is more than life without death and death without life.”[24]

As a result of the existential deed, the word ‘immortality’ also gains a new meaning. In Jaspers’s philosophy, that word refers to the “flight” of Existenz, which is equated with the actualization of eternal being. The term ‘immortality’ therefore does not refer to the vital being and its eternal lasting, nor does it refer to the spiritual being as in Plato’s soul wandering across heavens, but it refers to a possible Existenz, which in its flight reaches immortality while asserting Being proper and it gains absolute consciousness. In this view, death is the fall of Existenz, giving up the possibility of its realization.

7. Duality of human being

In the “historicity” of human being, the duality (Doppeltheit) of the latter is clearly revealed: the fact that man lives in time, but in his existential dimension he is outside of time; his temporal Dasein gives him a chance to reveal that which is non-temporal – in the phenomenon of time, eternity is revealed to him. For Existenz, the paradox of duality is overcome at the moment of its decision, in which “me and my Dasein are one at the source.”[25] The achieved unity is accompanied by certainty that “for a moment, I am one, with myself”.

This duality of human being is also reinforced by the fact that the relationship between Existenz and Dasein is reciprocal, that it occurs as an interdependence: for the possible Existenz, the empirical Dasein is the material through which it reveals itself; on the other hand, its revelation in the empirical world equips that world with a particular significance. Only in the imperfect world, filled with contradictions and conditioning, existential freedom meets barriers, and by overcoming these barriers it achieves self-realization. In Jaspers’s view, existential freedom needs the world with its barriers and limitations in order to realize itself. It is as a result of a freely made decision that the factual definiteness of the world is transformed into “historic definiteness.” And then the “free adoption of Dasein as the historic definiteness of myself”[26] preempts any attempts to render the empirical definiteness of Dasein absolute, as if it were everything.

Free decision gives rise to a particular awareness, the “historic consciousness” of duality: “I know myself only as a temporal being, and I am temporal. I know myself as Dasein in time, but in such a way that Dasein, for me, reveals my non-temporal, personal being.”[27] Historicity of Existenz reveals its dual conditioning, first, by the empirical world as its material manifestation, and second, by Transzendenz as its absolute reference.

“Historic consciousness” of duality is important in the context of man’s attitude towards the world: it changes that attitude. This is because it brings out the particular role of the world for man as an existential being, namely, its importance in achieving existential “immortality” therein. As a result of this change, Dasein appears to man no longer as an empty continuation, but as the place of his personal life. On the other hand, the hollowness of Dasein devoid of transcendental dimension is also revealed: the emptiness of time which is not filled with eternity. Therefore, the empirical Dasein reveals its dual countenance to man: it is infinitely important to the possible Existenz and its realization, while being meaningless in itself; Dasein is both important and unimportant; ultimately, what it is, depends on man’s decision.

Once we become aware of this dual character of human being, it becomes impossible to render one of its dimensions absolute. Otherwise, if Dasein is not treated as the manifestation of Existenz, it acquires an absolute character in the eyes of man, which means that man becomes dependent upon it, and bound with its limitations. However, when he freely adopts the conditions in which he was destined to live, they cease to pose limitations, but they are merely the “historic definiteness of myself.” The act of that adoption is also the act of unity with the world, “me in the manifestation of myself, with Dasein as my historic definiteness, are one.”[28]

That adoption signifies a particular reconciliation with the world. On the other hand, we observe a similar distortion of Existenz rendered absolute, which when abstracted from Dasein, fades as unreal, remaining only as a pure possibility. Instead, when performing unconditional actions in the world, man discovers that the being of Transzendenz goes beyond the world, and does not remain within it, but at the same time, it is that world which makes it possible to form the bond with it, through unconditional action. Therefore, the world is the only place in which the outworldly can be realized.

In Jaspers’s concept, only these three kinds of reality in conjuction, the worldly, the existential, and the transcendental, in their proper functions, create man’s historicity, and the loss of one means the loss of the others. And so, if Dasein becomes everything to man, then there is no room for existential reality to reveal itself. The loss of existential reality also means – as Jaspers would say it – the betrayal of Transzendenz. Then Dasein itself, devoid of existential value and of transcendental truth, becomes invalid and untrue. Therefore, only within this triadic bond do they gain their utmost value, while losing their absoluteness and becoming interdependent one on the other. Their interlinking brings unity of these varied dimensions of reality, but not their uniformity.

Uniformity, however, occurs in human being: it signifies man’s identity within himself, as a result of accepting that, which is other – a particular situation in which he finds himself – as his own. In the act of accepting these conditions, man’s freedom is engaged – which means that possibly they can also be rejected.

8. High moments

Let us reiterate: this tri-unity reveals the dependence of Existenz on the being of Transzendenz, bound to it through the gift of freedom, and at the same time the dependence on a wholly different being, namely, the world as a plane of its potential realization. This second dependence, of existential freedom on the world, may inspire in man an attitude towards the world which Jaspers describes as respect – respect for the world. This respect does not cause distance nor does it stop man from acting, quite the reverse – in his philosophy, Jaspers stresses the need for readiness to engage oneself with the world, to enter situations, undertake tasks, dare to act. “Historic consciousness stays close to reality.” This is because for Jaspers’s man, definiteness of reality requires “fine tuning” (zur Bestimmung), it calls for action.

Let us remind ourselves that taking an existential decision to participate in the world leads to entering of timelessness into temporal empirical being, and this means that Existenz then becomes “one in the other”. Thanks to that participation, the moment gets deepened, and the present gets filled; what transpires is the eternal present, which – as already stated – includes also the past and the future, memories and goals. So deepened, or as we might say, widened present then becomes an eternal present in metaphysical time. The linking of the Dasein of phenomena and the transcendental eternal Being reveals itself in “historic consciousness” in such a way that what is definite points to what is eternal, while “eternity is absolutely bound with the moment.”[29]

Then, the meaning of passing also undergoes a change. The moment which is not existentially experienced fades, as if it never existed. Conversely, the moment which is deepened by an existential decision, which Jaspers calls the “high moment” in order to stress its significance, constitutes the peak of personal life. These “high moments” form a chain of personal life, they do not fade, and even when they pass, they remain present, they mark the quality of an individual man and his dignity. However, you cannot plan for such a life. You cannot assume these “high moments” a priori. These are the foundations for the courage of existence, which contains the risk of an unpredictable result, the lack of certainty as to “where the path leads”.

To sum up, we may state that Jaspers’s view of “eternity in time” demonstrates that in high moments of his life, man can achieve immortality, and in mortal life, he can achieve eternity. In man, this inspires respect towards the world and towards his Dasein, as it means that the world affords him a possibility of the highest achievement, while the realization of his most profound being, his Existenz, occurs therein. The existential decision, which is made in this world, not only confirms interdependence, but also the reciprocal completion of these two different kinds of reality, of the world and of man, and that means that one without the other is meaningless. Existential immortalization within the world is one with its adoption, as a consequence of which the world ceases to be merely a shadow, an appearance, but it becomes the manifestation of true Being.

This belief of Jaspers’s, however, raises the question whether his concept of “historicity of reality” obscures the image of human misery, demonstrated in other categories of his philosophy, such as limit situations, foundering, the antinomy of the world? If we make the world the place of the highest spiritual achievement which realizes Existenz, immortalizes time, and actualizes Transzendenz, does not this lead to an excessive affirmation of the world, and therefore of all things which are imperfect within it? If we make the world our own, does not this mean, to some extent, the “ownership” of crime, sin, and lies? To what extent does the “historicity of Existenz” safeguard us from accepting that which is not righteous? Jaspers himself expresses such hesitation when he writes: “The world becomes inexpressibly beautiful in its transcendently grounded abundance, although even then, in its horror, it still remains a question.”[30]

Jaspers’s concept of “eternity in time” is an original answer to the human desire for immortality and for unity with divine transcendence. “Yet Transzendenz is outside time”[31], therefore, as such, in its non-temporal eternity it is inaccessible to man, who is a temporal being. However, Jaspers wishes to reconcile the complete hiddenness and inaccessibility of the divine absolute with the indelible human longing thereof. He finds the solution in human Existenz, whose unconditional action becomes the source of its flight towards divine Transzendenz, going beyond the conditioned world and time. His thought indicates that Transzendenz – in a particular way – can be available to man in the world and in time. This is possible thanks to his freely made decision, and only in a cipher, as “God is not present in the world as himself”[32]. Finally, this means that Jaspers’s man, while remaining mortal, may achieve immortality in life; he may partake in eternity in the “high moments” of his mortal life.

What is the message of this thought by Jaspers? On the one hand, it seems that it brings optimism, by asserting that everything is up to man; on the other hand, it is extremely demanding, calling for the highest spiritual effort, for courage, and for risk taking with no guarantees. On the one hand, eternity thus understood is within human reach, rather than being elsewhere in another, “second” world and in an unknown, distant future; it can be achieved here, in his world and now, today, in his present. On the other hand, however, the “high moment” does not change man’s situation in the world forever – in that world, his empirical being remains under constant threat and meets life’s problems and difficulties and insurmountable barriers. “Eternity in time” is no state of bliss, achieved once and for all, but it is pursued again and again in the world, and reached but for a moment, at this time.

  1. K. Jaspers, Philosophie, Heidelberg 1973, p. 17.
  2. Jaspers seems to be following the paradox inherent in the work of Kierkegaard.
  3. In this paper we shall not discuss the three mentioned or other modes of the encompassing.
  4. K. Jaspers, Philosophie, III, p. 57.
  5. Ivi, II, p. 253.
  6. Ivi, p. 46.
  7. Ivi, p. 121.
  8. More about Jaspers’ notion of “historic” (geschichtlich) is below.
  9. K. Jaspers, Philosophie, vol. II, p. 119.
  10. Ivi, p. 120.
  11. Ivi, p. 122.
  12. Ivi, pp. 293-294.
  13. K. Jaspers, Einführung in die Philosophie, München 1981, pp. 44-45.
  14. Ivi, p. 45.
  15. Ivi, p. 46.
  16. Ibid.
  17. K. Jaspers, Philosophie, II, p. 47.
  18. Ivi, I, p. 17.
  19. Ivi, III, p. 92.
  20. Ivi, p. 56.
  21. Ivi, p. 18.
  22. Ivi, II, p. 71.
  23. Ivi, III, p. 57.
  24. Ivi, p. 62.
  25. Ivi, p. 122.
  26. Ivi, p. 123.
  27. Ivi, p. 122.
  28. Ivi, p. 123.
  29. Ivi, p. 126.
  30. Ivi, p. 13.
  31. Ivi, p. 165.
  32. Ivi, p. 116.

Leave a comment