In order to appreciate Jaspers’ concept of boundary situations, one must bear in mind the importance of the antinomical structure of existence. What are antinomies? By antinomies, Jaspers means the unresolvable conflicts and irreducible discrepancies we confront in existence, which constitute a fundamental part of human existence. The notion of antinomical structure is crucial to Jaspers’ philosophy, because not only does his elucidation of human existence presuppose this structure, but also the related concept of opposites permeates much of his work. According to Jaspers, an antinomic concept is necessarily involved with its opposite and cannot be understood without it. For example, life could not be fully grasped without death. Similarly, communication is inseparable from solitude, and Dasein from Existenz. Since neither side seems to be adequate on its own, some kind of synthesis must take place in human experiences. In this sense, Jaspers’ treatment of antinomies is reminiscent of the concepts of the Kantian ‘transcendental’, as well as the Hegelian ‘dialectic’.
In both Psychologie der Weltanschauungen (1919) and Philosophy (1932) Jaspers presents impressive phenomenological descriptions of, and new insights into, boundary situations in connection with the antinomical structure of existence. The notion of boundary situations was first introduced in Psychologie. In this book, Jaspers postulates his earlier account of the antinomical structure of existence and the relationship between boundary situations and the subject/object dichotomy.88In Philosophy, we encounter a later version of the anti-
nomical structure of existence. Although the arrangements of the chapters and sections differ in Psychologie and Philosophy, the underlying principle of this concept remains the same in both ver- sions. The explanations of the boundary situations themselves do not differ much either.
Jaspers points out that when one encounters unresolvable situ- ations, contradictions, and underlying tensions, then the problem of antinomy arises.89He describes an antinomy as:
what we call an incompatibility that cannot be overcome, a contra- diction that will not be resolved but exacerbated by clear thinking, an antithesis that does not round itself into a whole but remains an irre- ducible fraction at the bounds of thinking. The antinomical structure of existence means that solutions can only be finite, can resolve only particular conflicts in existence, while a look at the whole will always show the limiting insolubilities.90
Jaspers’ statements here may seem puzzling. If the antinomies of existence are unresolvable and insoluble, how can one transcend them in world orientation? The answer lies in the understanding of the subject/object dichotomy (Subject-Object Spaltung) which points to the connection between Dasein and Existenz, and between different spheres of experience and knowledge. When one encoun- ters limitations or boundaries of the empirical world, one becomes aware of the interconnection between the subjective and the objec- tive realms. Although Jaspers does not spell it out, what he tries to convey is that antinomies are unresolvable when we try to grasp the
whole of Being in our finite existence. He insists that Being can be
grasped in its appearance only, i.e. as determinate objectivity. When it is thought of, it splits into subject and object, and never perceived as a whole. Jaspers calls such determinate objects, as they appear to us, ‘phenomena of reality’. But Being itself cannot be a determinate object since it is reducible to neither subject nor object. As Ehrlich remarks, ‘Being-in-itself transcends the subject-object dichotomy wherein all being that is for us makes its determinate appearance’.91
Ehrlich further suggests that Jaspers’ periechontology ‘builds on the opposition-pairs Being-in-itself and appearance, object and subject, transcendence and immanence’.92
It is not clear, however, whether one can actually transcend the subject/object dichotomy or not. On the one hand, Jaspers tells us that ‘it can never be overcome’.93On the other hand, we are told that
it is possible to transcend it through achieving selfhood, for example, in boundary situations. But one must remind oneself that transcend- ing for Jaspers indicates transcending in thought. He takes tran- scending to mean to go beyond objectiveness into non-objectiveness. Thus the Jaspersian concept of transcending refers to transcending- thinking which occurs when one is driven to the boundaries of one’s empirical realm. But this does not mean that the individual can liter- ally go beyond or ‘out-of-the-world’. In other words, through tran- scending-thinking the individual realises the impossibility of the unity of opposites. Paradoxically, awareness of this impossibility makes it possible for the individual to have an awareness of this unity only for a split second, in the Augenblick. Only in this sense can one transcend one’s limitations and the antinomies of existence. As mentioned earlier, Jaspers thinks that these opposite tendencies are inherent in the antinomical structure of existence. In his view, we think and artic- ulate our thoughts in terms of opposite possibilities and we make choices. We try to eliminate contradictions and to achieve objectivity.
For Jaspers, these contradictions can be partially reconciled and this difficulty can only be partially overcome through transcending- thinking in boundary situations. It is crucial to grasp that antinomies cannot be wholly transcended. In this respect, Jaspers is postulating the compossibility of opposing concepts in thought in boundary situ- ations. He reiterates that transcending is possible only for Existenz in boundary situations; it is not accessible to Dasein. In sum, although one cannot entirely transcend the boundary itself in the strict sense, it is not impossible to transcend, albeit within limits, antinomies in existence by means of transcending-thinking. Transcending is a pure thinking process, it is not going beyond the empirical; rather it is
thinking beyond the empirical.
At this point, I wish to draw attention to the concept of boundary itself. In his analysis of boundary situations, Jaspers regards the term ‘boundary’ as a metaphor which signifies a ‘critical threshold, not as a barrier to individual achievement’.94Kirkbright reflects on Jaspers’
view of boundaries and says that boundary situations reveal that ‘border experience is achieved at a threshold that leads to other areas of knowledge’ by which she means the transcendent realm.95
Jaspers says that the word ‘boundary’ implies that there is some- thing else. In fact, he acknowledges the existential implication of oth- erness by the term ‘boundary’ (Grenze). ‘Otherness’ may imply a realm beyond this temporal existence, and in a sense it is, yet it is to be found in this world. The awareness of otherness affirms an inner metaphysical movement away from ignorance of what is not immedi- ately comprehensible. But since this otherness is beyond the reach of Dasein; one is unable to grasp the specific limiting character of ultimate situations. Boundary situations require a fundamental shift in one’s mode of thinking and attitude towards situations. This acute awareness of boundaries urges one to view them in a new light, and in some cases enables one to transcend these boundaries in terms of transcending-thinking since Existenz is a transcendent (Das
Transzendente), mode of the Encompassing. Jaspers tells us that when
human thought attempts to comprehend what is non-objective, the transcendent, it inevitably leads to the objectification of the transcend- ent, as one grapples with contradictions and antinomies. Jaspers main- tains that life is a process of experiencing boundaries, and this in turn gives way to ‘foundering’ in thought. For Jaspers, foundering is the ultimate cipher and an inevitable part of human experience in the process of transcending-thinking. Through such threshold experiences in boundary situations the individual can achieve authentic existence.
In his discussion of limitations of existence, Jaspers often empha- sises the human inability to grasp Being as a totality. Yet in his attempt to understand the world, man becomes absorbed in objectifying thinking. He fails, because Being itself as a whole cannot be grasped by the finite human mind. Jaspers reiterates that Being always appears to us divided into ‘subject/object’, and not as Being itself. He expresses his view regarding this inevitable split as follows:
We call this basic condition of our thinking the subject-object dichotomy. . . . What is the meaning of this ever-present subject- object dichotomy? It can only mean that being as a whole is neither subject nor object but must be the Comprehensive, which is mani- fested in this dichotomy.96
The human condition and limitations in the world make man aware of the fragmentary character of ‘being-there’, and of the disharmony in world orientation. Jaspers emphasises that as consciousness-as-such, we do not engage in matters beyond the boundaries of scientific realm. He holds that objective knowledge is insufficient to provide adequate guidance and insight into antinomies. We think in terms of categories, e.g. the categories of objectivity, the categories of actuality, and so on. Concepts like Being itself and Transcendence do not belong to any of the categories. For Jaspers, the absolute unity of Being as world or as self is not achievable for the individual. As regards the self, man is aware of his finitude and of the impossibility of his becoming complete or whole (Ganzwerdenwollen).
In his analysis of the antinomical structure of existence, Jaspers investigates the empirical and the existential self within the framework of subject/object dichotomy. He argues that Dasein has to be under- stood in terms of inner conflicts and opposites. He reflects on the inherent contradictions in the self, and asserts that self-being is ‘the union of two opposites: of standing on my own feet and of yielding to the world and to transcendence’.97In other words, the concrete human
being stands between two realms, the objective and the subjective. As an empirical self, man is in the objectivity of mundane being. He cannot exist without the world, yet he can never achieve self-being without Transcendence. Jaspers reiterates that man gains existential awareness and comes to himself by encountering conflicts, raising questions about the limitation of his existence, and by philosophis- ing.98This is possible, he says, through transcending-thinking.
Antinomies, as Kant also declared, signify the limits of under- standing in the empirical realm. At the same time however, Jaspers
points out, as does Kant, that antinomies are a source of strength and that one should not ignore them. The underlying tension of antin- omies, in Jaspers’ view, stimulates the thinking mind, and this can lead to foundering. The limitations of existence and knowledge give an impetus to the individual to turn inwards, contemplate and explore his own subjectivity which is an integral part of transcending- thinking. Jaspers adds that this kind of transcending in world orien- tation happens in a ‘leap’.99Such existential experiences can ultimately
lead to the attainment of self-being.
This brings us to the last point that we shall consider in this section, namely Jaspers’ concept of foundering (Scheitern). Foundering has close connections with both the antinomical structure of exist- ence and boundary situations. It is an important existential concept because the underlying tension of antinomies, in particular the subject/object split, leads to foundering. Jaspers tells us that without foundering one may not be able to achieve self-realisation:
Everything founders . . . although the thought that all things founder
will initially express despair in the boundary situation, an Existenz cannot come to itself if it has not been in boundary situations.100
Jaspers explains foundering thus: boundary situations draw our attention to the precarious status of our everyday existence. These situations bring out the awareness of one’s transient nature and the inadequacy of the human condition, which accentuate the limitation and predicament of the human being. As Jaspers often says, when we find ourselves in situations that are not in our control, we are faced with profound dissatisfaction and crises. He observes that when we encounter crises, we often fail to come to terms with the situation we are in. In Jaspers’ words:
In every boundary situation, I have the ground pulled out from under my feet, so to speak.101
Jaspers calls this awareness of inadequacy and the sense of failure foundering (Scheitern). This sense of failure is an important aspect of boundary situations because such crises can lead to the achievement of selfhood through foundering. According to Jaspers, in boundary situations when one has the experience of foundering, one’s possibil- ities and freedom disappear. Foundering indicates the presence of nothingness and at the same time awareness of Being itself. Despite the negative connotation of failure, however, Jaspers turns the notion of Scheitern around in a positive way and discusses the possibility of
breaking through the boundaries of extreme situations. He suggests that as a result of reflecting on these unavoidable extreme situations true philosophising can arise. This in turn may open the gateway, as it were, to the realm of Transcendence. One cannot will foundering in existence, it can only be genuine in the presence of Existenz.
In boundary situations, then, one may founder in one’s confronta- tion with the antinomies of existence. That is, when we are con- fronted with discrepancies and contradictions, we sense that reason is failing us. The experience of foundering should be considered as a metaphor for an attempt to grasp Being itself by way of transcending- thinking, or as a cipher which points to the eternal aspect of Existenz. It is clear that Jaspers’ concepts of the antinomical structure of existence, the subject/object polarity, and foundering are inseparable from his notion of boundary situations. As indicated, Dasein is one of the specific modes of the Encompassing that can encounter a threshold which may be revealed in boundary situations. When one becomes entangled in antinomies, one is thrown back upon oneself, and one’s self-being becomes an issue. In these circumstances, the individual will be driven to the threshold of his existence where he may experience boundary awareness. According to Jaspers, this boundary experience may occur through transcending-thinking. He emphasises that it is only in this respect that one may attempt to reconcile contradictions and be able to transcend antinomies in thought. Jaspers’ notion of boundary experience is crucial to our understanding of his existence philosophy and is discussed in the fol- lowing section.