liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Karl Löwith on the I–thou relation and interpersonal proximity
Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies, Technology and Social Change. Linköping University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Linköping University, Centre for Medical Humanities and Bioethics (CMHB).ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6150-5489
2024 (English)In: Continental philosophy review, ISSN 1387-2842, E-ISSN 1573-0611, Vol. 57, p. 141-163Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Current research on second-person relations has often overlooked that this is not a new topic. Addressed mostly under the heading of the “I–thou relation,” second-person relations were discussed by central figures of the phenomenological tradition, including Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger, but also quite extensively by much lesser-known authors, such as Karl Löwith, Ludwig Binswanger, and Semyon L. Frank, whose work has been undeservedly neglected in current research. This paper starts off by arguing that, in spite of the rightly acknowledged differences between the Husserlian and the Heideggerian approaches to the investigation of the social world, both approaches converge in the claim that the I–thou relation is founded on more basic forms of sociality. In a second step, against the background of Frank’s and Binswanger’s challenges to that claim, I argue that Löwith’s proposal that the I–thou relation is a primordial form of sociality can be vindicated by con- ceptualizing I–thou relations as close personal relationships (paradigmatically exem- plified by companion friendships and romantic partnerships). After assessing how Löwith’s approach to the I–thou relation stands vis-à-vis Heidegger’s and Husserl’s views, I conclude by suggesting how Löwith’s approach can contribute to current research on second-person relations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2024. Vol. 57, p. 141-163
National Category
Philosophy, Ethics and Religion
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-205021DOI: 10.1007/s11007-024-09632-8ISI: 001247420000001OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-205021DiVA, id: diva2:1872829
Funder
Linköpings universitet
Note

Funding Agencies|Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond [DFF-7013- 00032]; Independent Research Fund Denmark [832940]; European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union

Available from: 2024-06-18 Created: 2024-06-18 Last updated: 2024-12-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records

León, Felipe

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
León, Felipe
By organisation
Technology and Social ChangeFaculty of Arts and SciencesCentre for Medical Humanities and Bioethics (CMHB)
In the same journal
Continental philosophy review
Philosophy, Ethics and Religion

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 119 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf