Jaspers’ encompassing is described as both “beyond the reach” and “the ultimate ground”, in other words over the horizon yet beneath our feet
Yes, that’s a great way to capture Karl Jaspers’ concept of the “Encompassing” (das Umgreifende). Jaspers uses this term to point to the ultimate reality or ground of being that transcends any specific object of thought or experience while simultaneously being the condition for all experience and thought.
When he says the Encompassing is “beyond the reach,” he’s highlighting its transcendent quality—it cannot be fully grasped, conceptualized, or objectified. It is always just beyond the horizon of what we can think or articulate. At the same time, calling it “the ultimate ground” emphasizes its immanent aspect. It underlies and supports everything; it is the very condition for the possibility of being and knowing.
Jaspers’ philosophy is often described as a kind of philosophical faith—a recognition of the limits of human cognition alongside a trust in the reality that exceeds those limits. There’s a dynamic tension between immanence and transcendence, much like standing on solid ground while looking out into an endless sea.
Are you exploring Jaspers in a particular context, like existentialism, philosophy of religion, or perhaps his ideas on communication and truth?
Philosophy of religion
In the philosophy of religion, Jaspers’ concept of the Encompassing plays a fascinating role. Unlike traditional theological frameworks that might define God as a specific entity or personal being, Jaspers approaches ultimate reality with a kind of negative theology. The Encompassing resists objectification; it cannot be fully captured by religious dogma or doctrines.
For Jaspers, religious symbols, myths, and scriptures are not absolute truths but ciphers—they point beyond themselves to the ineffable Encompassing. This idea aligns with his broader existential project of transcending mere empirical or rational knowledge to encounter deeper truths through Existenz (authentic existence).
He also distinguishes between philosophical faith and revealed religion. While revealed religion often relies on concrete historical claims and institutional structures, Jaspers’ philosophical faith is more about an open, personal engagement with transcendence. It invites a kind of inward journey, where the individual encounters the mystery of being through existential experiences, such as suffering, love, guilt, and the “boundary situations” that confront us with our own limits.
How does this resonate with your own thinking about religion? Are you more interested in the mystical, existential, or perhaps ethical dimensions of Jaspers’ approach?
Does Jaspers’ have a particular take on ethics?
Yes, Jaspers’ approach to ethics is deeply intertwined with his existential and transcendental philosophy. Unlike systems of ethics that provide concrete rules or normative guidelines (like Kantian deontology or utilitarianism), Jaspers’ ethics are more about personal authenticity and the individual’s encounter with the Encompassing.
For Jaspers, true ethical action arises not from external prescriptions but from the inner freedom of Existenz. This involves a deep sense of responsibility, not just to concrete others but also to the transcendent dimension of life. His idea of communication is crucial here—genuine ethical life involves open, truthful dialogue that respects the other as a manifestation of the Encompassing.
Jaspers also emphasizes boundary situations—moments of crisis, suffering, or death—where ordinary ethical frameworks might fall short. In these moments, the individual is called to respond authentically, often without clear answers, guided instead by a kind of existential faith and openness to transcendence.
In the context of religion, his ethics lean towards a kind of existential humility. He cautions against absolutizing one’s own ethical or religious perspective and encourages a continual openness to other perspectives as ciphers of the Encompassing.
Does this align with what you’re looking for in ethical thought? Are you more interested in the personal, societal, or perhaps spiritual dimensions of ethics?
Regarding communication, does Jaspers’ “open truthful dialogue” connect with Levinas’ “ethical responsibility for the other”
Yes. There is a deep resonance between Jaspers’ concept of open, truthful dialogue and Emmanuel Levinas’ idea of ethical responsibility for the Other, though they approach it from different philosophical starting points.
For Jaspers, communication is not merely the exchange of information but a profound, existential encounter. Genuine communication (Existenzkommunikation) involves openness, honesty, and a willingness to transcend one’s own perspective. It is through this dialogical process that individuals can encounter the Encompassing and approach truth—not as a static possession but as a dynamic process.
Levinas, on the other hand, emphasizes the face-to-face encounter with the Other as the foundation of ethics. The face of the Other calls us into an ethical relationship, one that precedes rational thought or theoretical frameworks. For Levinas, this encounter demands an infinite responsibility—it is as if the Other’s vulnerability and alterity place an ethical claim upon us.
Where they converge is in the primacy of the encounter with the Other as a moment of transcendence. For both philosophers, this encounter breaks through the ego’s self-centeredness and opens the self to something beyond itself. Jaspers frames this in terms of communication with the Encompassing, while Levinas articulates it as an ethical demand that originates in the Other’s absolute difference.
However, they differ in tone and emphasis. Jaspers maintains a kind of mutuality in dialogue—each person is both speaker and listener, both revealing and discovering. Levinas, meanwhile, focuses more on the asymmetry of the ethical relationship, where the Other’s need or command takes precedence over the self’s freedom.
Are you exploring this connection in a particular context, like interfaith dialogue, ethical theory, or maybe a specific social issue?