M.S. Frings – författare

From the mysterious powers and forces peculiar to both individual and community that can turn our lives into either good or bad lives, I wish to point to two such powers being at the same time different in their own nature and yet closely related to each other: The powers that emerge from exemplary persons and leaders. Understood as basic to both sociology and the philosophy of history, it comes to us as no surprise that the problem of exemplary persons and leaders - along with the questions of the qualities types, selections and education of leaders; forms of unison existing be­ tween leaders and their followers, all of which belonging to the subdivisions of this problem - must be a burning problem for a people whose historical leaders from all walks of life have, in part, been swept away by wars and revolutions. This fact we also find in all salient epochs of history characterized more or less by changes in leadership. It is precisely for this reason that in our own time every group appears to struggle ever so hard with this problem, namely, who their leaders should be. This pertains equally to a group within a party, to a class, to occupations, to unions, to various schools or present-day youth movements, and even to religious and ecclesias­ tical groupings. Beyond any comparison, there is yearning everywhere for lead­ ership.

In comparison to Husserl and Heidegger, Max Scheler's philosophy of time as first presented here, is considerably wider in scope. Using posthumous manuscripts, Frings shows that Scheler conceived the origin of time in the self-activating center of individual and universal life as threefold "absolute" time of a four-dimensional expanse. This serves as a basis for establishing the phenomenon of objective time in multiple steps of constitutionality, including the physical field theory and theory of relativity. For Scheler, objective time, even though anchored in absolute time, deserves "maximum attention" in a technological society. Frings focuses here with Scheler on time experience of values and among social groups, time experiences in the mind-set of capitalism, in politics and morals, in population dynamics, and time experiences in the process of aging, all of which were signposts in Scheler's thought before his early demise.

There is little more than a decade left before the bells allover the world will be ringing in the first hour of the twenty-first century, which will surely be an era of highly advanced technology. Looking back on the century that we live in, one can realize that generations of people who have already lived in it for the better parts of their lives have begun to ask the same question that also every individual person thinks about when he is faced with the first signs of the end of his life. It is the question: "Why did everything in my life happen the way it did?" Or, "It would have been so easy to have channelled events into directions other than the way they went. " Or, "Why, in all the world, is my life coming to an end as it does, or, why must all of us face this kind of end of our century?" Whenever human beings take retrospective views of their lives and times - when they are faced with their own personal "fin du siecle" - there appears to be an increasing anxiety throughout the masses asso­ ciated with a somber feeling of pessimism, which may even be mixed with a slight degree of fatalism. There is quite another feeling with those persons who were born late in this century and who did not share all the events the older generation experi­ enced.

In comparison to Husserl and Heidegger, Max Scheler's philosophy of time as first presented here, is considerably wider in scope. Using posthumous manuscripts, Frings shows that Scheler conceived the origin of time in the self-activating center of individual and universal life as threefold "absolute" time of a four-dimensional expanse. This serves as a basis for establishing the phenomenon of objective time in multiple steps of constitutionality, including the physical field theory and theory of relativity. For Scheler, objective time, even though anchored in absolute time, deserves "maximum attention" in a technological society. Frings focuses here with Scheler on time experience of values and among social groups, time experiences in the mind-set of capitalism, in politics and morals, in population dynamics, and time experiences in the process of aging, all of which were signposts in Scheler's thought before his early demise.

From the mysterious powers and forces peculiar to both individual and community that can turn our lives into either good or bad lives, I wish to point to two such powers being at the same time different in their own nature and yet closely related to each other: The powers that emerge from exemplary persons and leaders. Understood as basic to both sociology and the philosophy of history, it comes to us as no surprise that the problem of exemplary persons and leaders - along with the questions of the qualities types, selections and education of leaders; forms of unison existing be­ tween leaders and their followers, all of which belonging to the subdivisions of this problem - must be a burning problem for a people whose historical leaders from all walks of life have, in part, been swept away by wars and revolutions. This fact we also find in all salient epochs of history characterized more or less by changes in leadership. It is precisely for this reason that in our own time every group appears to struggle ever so hard with this problem, namely, who their leaders should be. This pertains equally to a group within a party, to a class, to occupations, to unions, to various schools or present-day youth movements, and even to religious and ecclesias­ tical groupings. Beyond any comparison, there is yearning everywhere for lead­ ership.

There is little more than a decade left before the bells allover the world will be ringing in the first hour of the twenty-first century, which will surely be an era of highly advanced technology. Looking back on the century that we live in, one can realize that generations of people who have already lived in it for the better parts of their lives have begun to ask the same question that also every individual person thinks about when he is faced with the first signs of the end of his life. It is the question: "Why did everything in my life happen the way it did?" Or, "It would have been so easy to have channelled events into directions other than the way they went. " Or, "Why, in all the world, is my life coming to an end as it does, or, why must all of us face this kind of end of our century?" Whenever human beings take retrospective views of their lives and times - when they are faced with their own personal "fin du siecle" - there appears to be an increasing anxiety throughout the masses asso­ ciated with a somber feeling of pessimism, which may even be mixed with a slight degree of fatalism. There is quite another feeling with those persons who were born late in this century and who did not share all the events the older generation experi­ enced.

From the mysterious powers and forces peculiar to both individual and community that can turn our lives into either good or bad lives, I wish to point to two such powers being at the same time different in their own nature and yet closely related to each other: The powers that emerge from exemplary persons and leaders. Understood as basic to both sociology and the philosophy of history, it comes to us as no surprise that the problem of exemplary persons and leaders - along with the questions of the qualities types, selections and education of leaders; forms of unison existing be­ tween leaders and their followers, all of which belonging to the subdivisions of this problem - must be a burning problem for a people whose historical leaders from all walks of life have, in part, been swept away by wars and revolutions. This fact we also find in all salient epochs of history characterized more or less by changes in leadership. It is precisely for this reason that in our own time every group appears to struggle ever so hard with this problem, namely, who their leaders should be. This pertains equally to a group within a party, to a class, to occupations, to unions, to various schools or present-day youth movements, and even to religious and ecclesias­ tical groupings. Beyond any comparison, there is yearning everywhere for lead­ ership.

There is little more than a decade left before the bells allover the world will be ringing in the first hour of the twenty-first century, which will surely be an era of highly advanced technology. Looking back on the century that we live in, one can realize that generations of people who have already lived in it for the better parts of their lives have begun to ask the same question that also every individual person thinks about when he is faced with the first signs of the end of his life. It is the question: "Why did everything in my life happen the way it did?" Or, "It would have been so easy to have channelled events into directions other than the way they went. " Or, "Why, in all the world, is my life coming to an end as it does, or, why must all of us face this kind of end of our century?" Whenever human beings take retrospective views of their lives and times - when they are faced with their own personal "fin du siecle" - there appears to be an increasing anxiety throughout the masses asso­ ciated with a somber feeling of pessimism, which may even be mixed with a slight degree of fatalism. There is quite another feeling with those persons who were born late in this century and who did not share all the events the older generation experi­ enced.

It is the purpose of these essays to commemorate the one hundredth birthday of the philosopher Max Scheler. On this centennial occasion it may be appropriate to recall the first two major works of the philosopher''s life. Scheler is known mostly as the author of a monumental work on ethics, entitled: Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik (Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values), which is the only existing foundation of ethics written by a European philosopher in this century. Although its two parts were published separately (1913/1916) because of circumstances during World War I, all manuscripts had been finished by Scheler prior to the outbreak of the war. His ethics has been translated into various languages, including a recent translation in English. In the same year (1913) Scheler also published another major work which dealt with the phenomenology of sympathetic feelings, and which is translated into English under the title of the enlarged second and following editions: The Nature of Sympathy.

It is the purpose of these essays to commemorate the one hundredth birthday of the philosopher Max Scheler. On this centennial occasion it may be appropriate to recall the first two major works of the philosopher's life. Scheler is known mostly as the author of a monumental work on ethics, entitled: Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik (Formalism in Ethics and Non-Formal Ethics of Values), which is the only existing foundation of ethics written by a European philosopher in this century. Although its two parts were published separately (1913/1916) because of circumstances during World War I, all manuscripts had been finished by Scheler prior to the outbreak of the war. His ethics has been translated into various languages, including a recent translation in English. In the same year (1913) Scheler also published another major work which dealt with the phenomenology of sympathetic feelings, and which is translated into English under the title of the enlarged second and following editions: The Nature of Sympathy.