German and French Philosophers Turn-to-Others and Turn-to-Text: The Battle of Germans

and Frenchs Minds

Contemporary Philosophy
By: Kristoffer Lorenz L. Basbao

I.)

Introduction: Contemporary Philosophy

Contemporary Philosophy, in the history of western philosophy, is the time wherein the focus of

philosophy is the existence of others and the use of language. It is presently the trending philosophy. We
are now living in the contemporary world. It is the Turn-to-Others and the Turn-to-Language. The
focus is the Other to show that man is not solipsistic and man longs to extend himself to other subjects
like him. With the help of others, the objectivity of the world is possible. The objectivity of the world
cannot be achieved only by the ego. It needs other subjects like him for the objectivity to be possible.
Aside from the objectivity of the world, relationship is also highlighted. Relationship cannot happen
with the ego alone. It can happen if there are more egos present. The very basic relationship is the IThou relationship (Buber). It can extend more to the relationship with the community (Scheler). The
examples of philosophies during these time are Husserls Intersubjectivity, Heideggers Mitsein,
Schelers Person and Community, Levinas Face, Bubers I-Thou, etc. All focused on the
relationship with the Other/s.
Aside from (the) Other/s, language is also the focus of contemporary philosophy. The use of
language is highlighted because it bridges the ego to other subjects. Communication is possible with
language. Later, relationship is established through it. With the medium of language, thoughts and ideas
can be passed, shared and expressed. Of course, we cannot deny the fact that language has its
limitations. There will always be limitations in language. Let us consider that language cannot really
capture the pure eidos. It even distorts them. The interpretation of the Other also matters. That is why
during the contemporary era, philosophies like Linguistic Analysis and Hermeneutics existed to achieve
the correct interpretations. But what will we do without language and communication? Relationship will
also be hard to achieve. Before we can have mutual relationship with others (w/out using so much
language) we need first to relate with them through the use of language in communication. The
examples of other contemporary philosophies which focuses on language are Heideggers Destruction,
Freges Sense and Reference, Russells Denotation, Derridas Deconstruction, etc.
II.)

German Philosophers and their Philosophies

A.) Schelers Values, Person and Community
Max Scheler is one of the big names among the Contemporary Philosophers. He first tackled

Values. Values is the phenomena of acts. Mans actions are based from what he/she values. Values
can either be good or bad. A person who does good actions values doing good acts while a person who
does bad actions values doing bad acts. The root of values is the liking and attraction. The first time
one sees it to an exemplar, he/she likes it without knowing the reason. The Values for Scheler is
empirical but a priori which is innate.

Personhood is the goal of humanity. Ones person can be known through his/her actions. Ones
actions reveal ones values and ones values reveal the person. Person is a good act done unto others. A
single act of good act does not make one a person. It is more than a habit. Its a continuous practice and
journey. For Scheler, as humans, it is the project we need to reach while we are living. In life, there are
four levels of values. These are survival values, spiritual values, moral values and the values of the holy.
The survival values are the lowest level of values man can achieve. The focus of it is survival and life. It
is usually the values of the children. The spiritual values are the values of appreciation to arts,
knowledge, language and sciences. As of now, the highest level of values man can achieve is the moral
values. There, personhood is achieved through doing good acts to other beings. It is achieved by
persons. The highest level of values which usually cannot be achieved is the values of the holy. It is
where the fading-of-the-I happens where one does not think of ones self anymore. It is the values of
the saints. Through the fading-of-the-I, communion happens.
B.) Heideggers Being-in-the-World and Mitsein
Martin Heidegger is one of the brightest students of Husserl. He is known in his philosophy
Being-in-the-World. The Being is always in the World. It is never possible that the being will separate
himself from the world. That is why, he later separated from Husserl because of some contradictions in
their views (especially in his Being-in-the-World and Husserls Transcendental Reduction).
Heidegger is not in favour with Husserls Reductions. He is not in favour with reductions because he is
not agree with the egos will separation from the world for the Being is always in the world. The ego
who is inside the body is always in the world. Another thing is that, what for is the clarity, which one can
achieve with transcendental reductions, if one becomes solipsistic? It is in contrast to mans nature as
relational being. Another is, ordinary people are not philosophers and ordinary people cannot understand
the language of Philosophy, so why go with reduction? For Heidegger, its (Husserls Reduction) too
much ideal is useless.
Another philosophy of Heidegger is Mitsein. Mitsein means being with. To be with
needs an Other. In being with the Other, relationship starts. With Mitsein, Heidegger focused on the
importance of presence especially in building relationships. The more the being-with, the stronger the
relationship becomes. We cannot achieve Mitsein without the presence of the Other. Because we
humans have body, it is better that we be-with others personally as opposed to virtually (which is
trendy in the present) because the Personal Mitsein is the one that deepens the relationship.
C.) Gadamers Interpretation and Play
Hans-Georg Gadamer is one of the famous philosophers in the field of Hermeneutics. The main
point and subject of his philosophy is Interpretation. In interpretation, there are four things to be
considered. These are the Geist, Bildung, Sensus Communis and Taste. Geist refers to the
flow of history, its spirit, where history is going, and the consciousness of events. Bildung
refers to the imageness, the context and culture. Sensus Communis refers to the usual understanding
of the word, the feel of the word (including its nuances), and the standard understanding. Taste
refers to the uniqueness in style and manner. This four must be considered because interpretation is not
alone a subjective interpretation but also to get the sense the author wanted to pass/send to the
reader.With these four humanistic concepts considered, the Fusion of Horizon happens.

D.) Habermas Dialectics of Word and Consensus

Jurgen Habermas is a neo-marxist philosopher. He is Marxist in critique but not in philosophy.
His philosophy is all about Dialectics in Word. In his philosophy, dialogue is being emphasized. The
ending point of his philosophy is his emphasis on the necessity of reaching Consensus. Through
consensus, no one is being left-out. All stakeholders should participate in the consensus. Those who
are defective are given the chance to become capable in knowing the better side, the better decision. It is
formative in the part of the one who explain things, who explain the reasons to the defective ones. If
they give in, they become active participators of consensus. In order to reach the consensus, there are
three things to be recognized/observed. These are openness, humility, and the unforced force of the
better idea. First, both side must be open to the truths of the other side. One must recognize the truth
from the others idea. One must also be open to see the not-so-good-idea in ones idea. Being open to
it is an act of humility. One must be humble enough to accept the not-so-good-idea in ones idea. If
that happens, one must change his side. With that, better idea wins. It finds its way to surface. In
agreeing and accepting, communal owning happens. In communal owning, winning happens to all
because all became active participators of the consensus.
III.)

French Philosophers and their Philosophies (Levinas, Ricoeur, Sartre, Foucault,

Derrida)
A.) Levinas Face and Infinite Responsibility

Emmanual Levinas is known in his philosophy, the Infinite Responsibility to the other. Levinas
did not agree with Husserls Immanent Transcendence. For Husserl, the Other is part of the Ego, but
the Other is other and not the Ego. Levinas would not agree with him. For Levinas, the Other is totally
Transcendent, totally alien. The Other is a foreigner, and never be part of the ego. Even though the
Other is not part of the ego, the ego has responsibility to the Other. The measure of responsibility is
infinite. There is surplus of responsibility in every ego. This surplus can explode the ego because its too
much for the ego to contain. This is what Levinas called the Infinite Reponsibility to the Other. The
essence of the Other is Face. For Levinas, there is a great calling in us to face the Face, to face our
responsibility to the Other.
The face is a structure of relationship which happens at the time of facing. This face of the
Other tells us be for me. Our face tells the Other too be for me. Our choices are to be for him or
not for him. If we are for him, we become social and relational. If we are not for him, we deny our very
self as relational beings for it is humans nature to be in relation with others. And so, we can say that
being relational means we are for the Other and for the Other to be relational, the Other must be for us.
If we accept that we are for the Other, responsibility comes next. Being responsible of the Other means
being accountable of him/her. We are accountable of the Other whatever happens to him/her. Because
we cannot define Others eidos as what Husserls reduction would suggest, we cannot define the
limits of our responsibility. With this, we can say that we are infinitely responsible of the Other. That is
why if we see the Other in need, we must help him/her. He/she is begging be for me. And so, we must
help the face we are facing because we are for the Face.
B.) Ricoeurs Historical Critique and Human Relationships
Paul Ricoeurs philosophy is about Historical Critique. In Historical Critique, there are four
worlds to be considered. These are World of the Author, World of the text of the Author, World of

the Reader, and World of the text of the Reader. What usually happens is that, the World of the
Reader is the only world considered in interpreting history. It should not be. The reader should be
aware and conscious to consider that the author also has a world. The reader should consider the context
of the author, his situation, his background, the events and his environment. Aside from the World of
the Author and the World of the Reader, the World of the text of the Author and the World of the
text of the Reader must also be considered. It is because language has its own world. Every language is
a world. It is a world of meaning to be interpreted and used by man. The World of the text of the
Author is different from the World of the text of the Reader because it is very possible that the
meanings and the nuances of words in the past is different from the meanings and the nuances of the
words in the present. These four worlds should be considered in order that the reader could meet the
sense of the message of the author. Here happens the bringing of the past to present.
Another philosophy of Paul Ricoeur is the Human Relationships. For him, there are only two
kinds of relationship in the history. These are the Socius and the Neighbor. The Socius kind of
relationship is like a Master-Slave relationship. In this kind of relationship, the focus is ones functions
and obligations with the other. This is the ideal relationship in work. The person who is in power teaches
and disciplines his members no matter how close they are as friends outside their work. On the other
hand, the Neighbor kind of relationship is like a Friend-Friend relationship. In this kind of
relationship, one treats the other as a close friend and a brother. There is a lesser boundary compared to
the Socius relationship where in the focus is in ones functions. In the Neighbor kind of relationship,
ones relationship with the other is valued. The relationship is being nurtured. Ricoeur is in favored in
the Neighbor kind of relationship. In reality, both of them are important. These relationships should be
practiced and applied in propriety (in the right situation and call of time) and balanced. Too much
Socius as well as Neighbor are not good.
C.) Sartres Nothingness and Freedom
Jean Paul Sartres philosophy is about Nothingness and Freedom. He started with Be-ing
and Nothingness as a critique to Heideggers Be-ing and Time (be-ing as to be). For Heidegger, the
ground of mans be-ing is time. In other words, mans actions are grounded in time (as in time of the
Time-of-the-World). Time is given because of the world. Because the time flows, be-ing is possible.
Everything is grounded in time. On the other hand, Sartre considered Nothing as the ground of being. Sartres nothingness is like an empty space or void. Because there is nothing, man can do a lot
of things. Man can fill up nothing with something. Filling up nothing with something comes
freedom.
Man uses his freedom in filling nothing with something. For Sartre, man is not born and later
to be free. Man is freedom itself. Man does/acts because he has freedom and he is freedom. Man as
freedom and mans freedom is not limited. It is total and infinite. For Sartre, Nothing is a context
where freedom is total. Man has a total freedom. Man has a total freedom but it does not mean that he
will just do anything what he feels to do (pagusto). Man can do anything he want all as long that he is
responsible for his actions for Freedom comes with responsibility. With nothing as the ground of
freedom, the burden of responsibility is too much. That is why, we humans should be responsible for
everything we do. We should be responsible for our actions because they have consequences. If mans
freedom is total, the consequences of mans actions are also total and infinite. These consequences of his
actions will haunt him and they are inescapable. Aside from the consequences, mans conscience will

also haunt him. That is why, we humans must use our total freedom responsibly and we must listen to
our conscience first before we act. As we face the consequences of our actions, we can blame no one but
our self alone.
D.) Foucaults History of Power
Michel Foucaults philosophy centers on History and Power. His philosophy is about history as
History of Power. For Foucault, power moves history. All of us, humans, have power. We share our
power from our leaders. We ordinary people have our own power to see ourselves as a change we want
to see in the world. Our leaders are more powerful than us in terms of the position. We just share our
power from them. The problem with power is that, it is most of the time abused. Our leaders, who are
more powerful than us abused their power while we ordinary citizens, who have lesser power use our
power well.
If we speak of History, we refer to the history of a particular place or a bigger group of place (e.g
History of the Philippines, History of Asia and History of the World). Talking about places, every place
has their own set of leaders. Leadership comes with greater power. Our leaders are more powerful than
us. Power comes with great responsibility. Because our leaders are more powerful than us, they have
more responsibilities than us. Their being powerful demands so much responsibility from them. They
are not only responsible for their self alone but also responsible for the people they are leading. Because
the leaders shepherd the people they are leading, they are the ones who dictate where their history will
go. They can dictate the geist of history (where history is going). Good and responsible leaders make
good history while bad and corrupt leaders make bad history. What is lacking with our leaders is
discipline. If they have self-discipline, they will not abuse their power and they will not put the lives of
the people they are leading at stake/ in danger.
IV.)

Differences of German and French Philosophers

A.) German Philosophers
1.) Idealists

German Philosophers (e.g. Husserl, Scheler, Heidegger, Gadamer and Habermas) are Idealist
philosophers. They are Idealist in the sense that their philosophy is too ideal. Even though German
philosophies are too ideal, they are still achievable by man. Husserls Transcendental Reduction,
Schelers Values, Person and Community, Heideggers Authenticity, Gadamers Interpratation (with the
considerations on the four Humanistic Concepts) and Habermas Consensus are too high for man to
achieve (but can be achieved). German Philosophers have ideal philosophies because they believe that
man can push himself to his very limit. In reaching his very limit, he can be the best that he can be.
German Philosophers wanted man to reach his highest possible self. Even though they are criticized with
their idealism, for them, there is nothing wrong with being ideal.
2.) Structural-Ontologists
German Philosophers are known for their being Structural-Ontologists. They provide
philosophical structures which the French seldom does. They make structures in their philosophies to
express their philosophical views and to guide the people reading their philosophy. Sometimes, the
structures they make are in the form of procedure. For example: Husserls procedure in reaching the
Transcendental Attitude is Epoche, Eidetic Reduction and Transcendental Phenomenological Reduction.
Structures made by the German Philosophers serve as guide to achieve the ideals in their philosophies.

The structures they make are strong and well supported. More examples of the structures they made are
Husserls Leib and Korper, Epoche, Concordant Behavior, Transcendental Reduction,
Lebenswelt, Heideggers Dasein, Mitsein, Being-Towards-Death, Being and Time and more.
They make structures that carry their frame of thinking.
3.) Ontological-Phenomenological
The German Philosophers are Ontological Philosophers with Phenomenology as their method.
Their method in philosophizing is Phenomenology. Phenomenology started with the Germans given that
Husserl, who is the founder of Phenomenology is a German. Husserl, Heidegger and Scheler are
German Phenomenologists.
B.) French Philosophers
1.) Centrality of Choice
If the German Philosophers are known for their too much idealism, the French Philosophers are
known for their centrality on choice. In German philosophers philosophy, their philosophy is
imposing due to their being ideal (Example: Habermas Consensus, Husserls Transcendental Ego,
Gadamers Fusion of Horizon). On the other hand, French Philosophers emphasize Choice in their
philosophy. Man is given the freedom to choose what to do. Their philosophies are just giving man
suggestions and advices on what to do and then let man choose what to do. Example: Be for the other
or not? Use freedom well or not? It is up to us to choose what we think is best for us.
2.) Critique
If the German Philosophers are known for their being Structural-Ontologists, the French
Philosophers are known for making Philosophical Critiques. The French Philosophers are the ones who
would critique the German philosophies. That is why, their philosophy is based on their solutions to the
downside and the weak points of the German Philosophers philosophies. They would supply
whatever is lacking and wrong with the German philosophies. Examples: Emmanuel Levinas critiqued
Husserls Immanent-Transcendence and Heideggers Dasein. Jean Paul Sartre critiqued Heideggers
Being and Time. Jean Jacques Derrida critiqued Husserls Back-to-Experience and expounded
Heideggers Destruction. These are just some of the more examples of the falsifications done by the
French Philosophers to the German philosophies.
3.) Existential-Ethical
French Philosophers ground their philosophy in Ethics. They tackle matters concerning morals.
They would solve moral issues in their philosophy. Examples: Levinas face the Face, Infinite
Responsibility, Sartres Total Freedom, Ricouers Respect on Mans Fragility and Foucaults
Discipline and Pastoral Power.
V.)

French Philosophies: The More Practical One

Personally, I am in favor with the French Philosophers philosophy compared to the German

Philosophers philosophy because the French Philosophies are more applicable in the present world
compared to that of Germans. German Philosophies are too ideal and hard to be understood by the
ordinary people. Habermas Consensus is a good and ideal philosophy but it is hard to be achieved in
this contemporary world given the reality that each of us have different views and we would like to

insists whatever our views are. Husserls Phenomenology is also a high-calibre philosophy but it is too
deep, too ideal and too boring for an ordinary man to read. Schelers Values, Person and Community
is too ideal for man to achieve because it encourages ones fading-of-the-I. The fading-of-the-I
means lesser concern to self, is not good anymore. On the other hand, French Philosophies are too
realistic and graspable by the ordinary people reading it. These are Levinas facing the Face and
Infinite Responsibility, Sartres Total Freedom, Ricoeurs Respect to mans fragility and
Foucaults Discipline and Pastoral Power. This is what contemporary people needs.
French Philosophy explained to a Contemporary Man
We need to face our responsibility to others. If we see that the other is in need, then be for him.
Others cannot do things always on their own and we cannot do things always on our own. And so, we
need to help each other. We humans are also called to use our freedom wisely. We have to use it wisely
because we are also the ones to face the consequences of our actions. We are to be responsible of our
actions because it will later bounce back to us. Before we do things, we refer first to our conscience. We
should consult our self if what we will do is for the good or for evil. If for the good, is it for the good of
self alone (which is selfish) or for the good of all. We humans are also called to impose self-discipline in
our self. Our self is our very tough enemy especially if we want to do something that is not ought to do.
If we have self-discipline and we know that what we are to do is not good, we will not do it for the good.
We are also called to respect our self and others. If we have self-respect, we will not do things that can
degrade and put our dignity and humanity down. If we will have respect for others, then there will be
external and internal peace in us.