Abstract
Jaspers has remained devoted to our discipline throughout his life. Psycho-pathology, the meeting point of clinical psychiatry and psychology, was not only his first major interest but continued to be the nucleus of his entire work. For him, the rigour of scientific method is the touchstone of philosophy. Only a man trained in the filigree of complexities of scientific collecting, classifying and reclassifying and who has not lost himself in it, will be qualified to take the step toward the utmost limits of human experience and the “enlightening of human existence”.
Most of the problems and controversies Jaspers brought to light for the first time and attempted to scrutinize are still with us. Very often we gain the impression that some of his ascetic restrictions have forestalled solution. Practical, everyday psychiatrists found Jaspers' abeyance difficult to tolerate and felt his attitude even as an humiliation. Possibly that is the reason that new schools have eagerly attempted to give final answers and that intermittently positive and negative criticisms of his work have been heard. W. Wagner (1957) in one of his notes expressed the feeling that “the shadow produced through Jaspers' way of thinking has become greater in time than the light that his psychopathology has brought into our understanding” …. Is this type of criticism pertinent? Has Jaspers really “dogmatized” psychopathology to the extent of limiting the possibilities of a further development? … The impression prevails that if his works are taken as a scholastic dictum, this may happen: however, this would be entirely against the spirit of his works and would endanger their very meaning. Jaspers tried to open new horizons for us and to increase our awareness in the performance of our daily work by showing how involved it is.
Unfortunately, in this endeavour of his Jaspers remains alone. He gave us the example of a scientist and philosopher. He showed us some directions in which to search and to study, but he did not give us precepts which could be adopted as a sure means to extend and concretize his herculean orienting effort. He leaves us in an ambiguous situation. Therefore it is difficult to become a disciple and to follow him on the road of human understanding.