Among the great European thinkers of the 20th century\, Helmuth
Plessner occupied a special position. Having studied medicine
and zoology and then turning to philosophy\, his thought articulates
various central problems from the life sciences to phenomenology\,
and to the reflection on human sociality. The aim of this
conference is to discuss and valorise Plessner&rsquo\;s contribution to
the understanding of the human phenomenon\, and especially his
position regarding phenomenology. The objective is twofold: to
assess Plessner&rsquo\;s historical significance\, and to discuss his continuing
relevance for contemporary anthropology.
Plessner&rsquo\;s relationship with Husserl was not an easy one. In his
recollections he often defined himself as an &ldquo\;unfaithful&rdquo\; pupil.
Having worked on Fichte with a somewhat perplexed Husserl\, he
ultimately found the latter&rsquo\;s phenomenology useful\, although too
strict as an approach\, and decided to work on his Habilitation
with Max Scheler. However\, Plessner expressed how subsequent
phenomenologists such as Jean-Paul Sartre or Maurice Merleau-
Ponty seemed to agree with his positions in Die Stufen des Organischen\,
but at the same time had problems with Scheler&rsquo\;s assessment
of his work. But how is Plessner&rsquo\;s dissatisfaction with
Husserl connected to other possible developments\, especially
that of the &ldquo\;realist&rdquo\; faction in phenomenology (e.g. Hedwig Conrad-
Martius)? What can this tell us about the limits of Husserl&rsquo\;s
&ldquo\;transcendental&rdquo\; turn? And how does Plessner&rsquo\;s perspective relate
to and distinguish itself from other forms of that &ldquo\;phenomenological
anthropology&rdquo\; Husserl himself was so keen to refute (as
in Phä\;nomenologie und Anthropologie\, Hua XXVII)? Following
hints from Odo Marquard and Joachim Ritter\, this can also bring
us to reflect on what the meaning of anthropology was in the
given historical context\, also relating to the early anthropological
(mis)readings of Heidegger&rsquo\;s works: how could this lead to a renewed
dialogue with Plessner?
Furthermore\, Plessner&rsquo\;s works are powerful examples of interdisciplinarity.
His anthropological perspective\, while philosophical
in scope\, is developed through a discussion of the available
biological literature\; as a sociologist\, he questioned his own time
in its various articulations\, including the nowadays pervasive
topic of the role of technology in society. Could his approach still
be a model for contemporary anthropological research\, for instance
regarding technologically mediated lifeworlds? How do
phenomenological methods help to illuminate these structures?
Topics relevant to the conference include (but are
not limited to):
1. Plessner&rsquo\;s relationship to phenomenology (e.g.
Gö\;ttingen and Munich circles\, Scheler\, post-
Husserlian German and French traditions\, and
other thinkers such as Georg Misch etc.)
2. Plessner&rsquo\;s reading of Idealism and neo-Kantian
elements in his works
3. The sociological turn in Philosophical Anthropology
and Schü\;tz&rsquo\;s phenomenological sociology
4. Problems and limits of phenomenology in its application
to anthropology
5. Plessner&rsquo\;s relevance for current research in anthropology\,
life sciences\, and philosophy of
technology
If you are interested in giving a talk at this conference\,
please send a title and abstract of your
presentation to
thiemo.breyer@uni-koeln.de
Deadline: 1 May 2025
(Announcement of decisions: 1 June 2025)