Max Ferdinand Scheler

1. Introduction

Max Ferdinand Scheler (1874–1928) is widely regarded as one of the central figures of early phenomenology and as a major innovator in value-theory, ethics, and philosophical anthropology. Working in the transition from 19th‑century neo-Kantianism to 20th‑century continental thought, he helped to redirect phenomenology away from a narrowly epistemological focus and toward questions of value, personhood, and the structure of the emotional life.

Scheler’s best-known contribution is his material value-ethics (materiale Wertethik), developed in opposition to both Kantian formalism and naturalistic ethics. He argued that values—such as noble, beautiful, just, or holy—are objective qualities disclosed in emotional and volitional acts, rather than mere subjective preferences or products of social convention. Moral philosophy, on this view, investigates an ordered realm of values and the ways in which persons respond to them.

Alongside his ethics, Scheler elaborated a distinctive concept of the person as the living unity of intentional acts, irreducible to body, psyche, or an underlying substance. This led him to a comprehensive philosophical anthropology, most famously presented in Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos (The Human Place in the Cosmos), where he situates the human being in a tension between life (Leben) and spirit (Geist).

Scheler also made pioneering contributions to the sociology of knowledge, to the phenomenology of love, sympathy, and ressentiment, and to a metaphysics of spirit and the holy that moved through and ultimately beyond his earlier Catholic commitments. His influence extends to personalism, existentialism, Catholic phenomenology, and German philosophical anthropology.

Scholars continue to debate the systematic unity of Scheler’s work, given its rapid development and his early death, but there is broad agreement that his analyses of value, emotion, and personhood remain a crucial bridge between classical phenomenology and later 20th‑century ethics and social theory.

2. Life and Historical Context

2.1 Biographical Outline

Scheler was born on 22 August 1874 in Munich, to a Jewish father who had converted to Lutheranism and a Catholic mother. He studied philosophy and sociology in Munich, Berlin, and Jena, receiving a doctorate in 1897 and habilitation by 1901. Academic posts at Jena, Munich, and later Cologne and Frankfurt provided the institutional framework for his rapid intellectual development.

Key moments can be summarized as follows:

He died suddenly of a heart attack on 19 May 1928 in Frankfurt, leaving several projects unfinished.

2.2 Intellectual and Political Milieu

Scheler’s life unfolded against the backdrop of Wilhelmine Germany, World War I, the Weimar Republic, and the crisis of European culture. Neo-Kantianism dominated German universities during his early career; his later work emerged alongside, and partly in tension with, Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology and the rise of Lebensphilosophie, historicism, and early existential thought.

World War I profoundly shaped his reflections on collective ethos, nationalism, and the breakdown of traditional values. He initially published patriotic writings, which some interpreters view as characteristic of a broader pre-war cultural enthusiasm. Subsequent texts, however, display increasing ambivalence regarding militarism and German exceptionalism, and emphasize Europe’s spiritual crisis.

In the Weimar years he participated in debates on democracy, socialism, and the future of religion in a secularizing society. His move to Cologne in 1920 marked some distancing from official Catholic institutions and a stronger engagement with sociology and social theory, in dialogue with figures such as Max Weber and the emerging Frankfurt milieu.

Historians differ on how tightly to link Scheler’s philosophical shifts to these contexts. Some stress continuity in his core concerns with value and personhood; others highlight the ways political upheaval and institutional conflicts catalyzed changes from Catholic apologetics to a more pluralistic, anthropological, and sociological orientation.

3. Religious Background and Early Influences

3.1 Family and Religious Milieu

Scheler’s mixed family background—Jewish by paternal origin, Lutheran by paternal conversion, and Catholic on his mother’s side—placed him at the intersection of multiple religious traditions in late 19th‑century Germany. Biographical studies suggest that this environment contributed to his early sensitivity to issues of faith, conversion, and religious identity, though the exact psychological impact is a matter of interpretation.

In the early 1900s he converted to Roman Catholicism, a move that shaped his middle-period writings. During this phase, he sought to articulate the rationality and experiential depth of Christian ethics using phenomenological tools, while avoiding scholastic neo-Thomism.

3.2 Academic and Philosophical Influences

As a student, Scheler encountered several intellectual currents:

Early works from the Jena period still display a critical-idealist orientation, but also a growing dissatisfaction with the abstractness and formalism of prevailing ethics.

3.3 Turn Toward Catholic Phenomenology

After his conversion, Scheler became associated with circles of Catholic intellectual renewal seeking non-scholastic philosophical expressions of Christian thought. Proponents of this reading emphasize that his early phenomenological analyses of love, repentance, and religious acts were motivated by apologetic concerns: to show that religious experience has its own rational, value-disclosing structure.

Others argue that although Catholic commitments clearly informed his interests—especially in Vom Ewigen im Menschen (On the Eternal in Man)—his work from the outset exceeded confessional boundaries. On this interpretation, Scheler used religious phenomena as particularly rich examples for a broader inquiry into value, person, and spirit.

Debate continues over how to characterize his later, more distanced stance toward Catholic doctrine. Some see a linear “secularization” of his thought; others detect a persistent, if transformed, orientation to questions traditionally associated with theology, such as the nature of the holy and the structure of ultimate value.

4. Engagement with Phenomenology

4.1 Encounter with Husserl and the Munich Circle

Scheler came into contact with Edmund Husserl’s work in the early 1900s and became associated with the Munich and Göttingen circles of realist phenomenologists, which included figures like Alexander Pfänder and Adolf Reinach. He was never Husserl’s formal student, but he adopted the descriptive, anti-psychologistic aspirations of phenomenology.

Proponents of the “realist phenomenologist” classification emphasize that Scheler retained Husserl’s early concern with the structures of intentional experience while rejecting the later transcendental-idealist turn. He opposed reducing phenomenology to a theory of consciousness and instead treated it as an inquiry into intentional acts and their objective correlates, especially values and persons.

4.2 Methodological Adaptations

Scheler adapted phenomenology in several ways:

Scheler’s phenomenology is often called axiological phenomenology because it centers on how values appear in experience. He argued that acts such as preferring, loving, and feeling are not mere subjective states but intentional relations that reveal an ordered realm of value-qualities.

4.3 Relations to Other Phenomenologists

Scheler’s stance toward phenomenology generated divergent assessments:

• Some interpreters stress his independence from Husserl, noting that he rarely engaged in detailed exegesis of Husserl’s texts and pursued questions—such as the hierarchy of values and the nature of the holy—largely absent from Husserl’s program.
• Others emphasize continuities, pointing to the shared commitment to intuitive evidence (Evidenz), eidetic analysis, and anti-naturalism in ethics and epistemology.

Within the broader movement, Scheler influenced and was in dialogue with Edith Stein, Roman Ingarden, and Dietrich von Hildebrand, among others, especially on topics of personhood and value. Interpretations vary on whether his later turn to anthropology and sociology still counts as “phenomenological” in a strict sense, or represents a hybrid method combining phenomenology with empirical and historical analysis.

5. Development of Material Value-Ethics

5.1 From Formalism to Material Ethics

Scheler’s material value-ethics takes shape most fully in Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik (1913–1916). It develops out of a critique of Kantian and neo-Kantian formal ethics, which grounded morality in universalizable maxims and the form of duty rather than in substantive content.

Scheler argued that formal ethics cannot account for the qualitative richness of moral experience, where we respond to concrete goods such as justice, loyalty, or holiness. According to him, any appeal to duty already presupposes an antecedent grasp of values that make certain actions worth doing.

"

“Every attempt to derive obligations from mere facts of nature already presupposes a prior grasp of value.”
— Max Scheler, Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik

5.2 Core Features of Material Value-Ethics

Material value-ethics rests on several theses:

Scheler distinguished this “material” ethics from both naturalistic ethics, which derive norms from empirical facts, and from subjectivist theories, which ground value in preference or social convention.

5.3 Historical Development and Revisions

Scholars trace the genesis of Scheler’s value-ethics through his essays of the early 1910s on emotions, sympathy, and religion, where he already analyzes how feelings disclose value. Formalism in Ethics systematizes these insights and presents them against the backdrop of contemporary debates with Kant, Nietzsche, and utilitarianism.

There is discussion about the continuity of this ethics with Scheler’s later work. Some commentators argue that the core structure of material value-ethics remains stable, while others hold that his subsequent emphasis on historicity, social mediation, and the metaphysics of spirit and life introduces tensions or revisions, particularly concerning the universality and accessibility of the value-hierarchy.

6. Major Works and Their Themes

Scheler’s major writings cluster around ethics, religious phenomenology, anthropology, and social theory. The following overview highlights central texts and themes:

These works are often read as forming a developmental arc: from value-ethics and religious phenomenology, through analyses of emotional life, to an increasingly comprehensive anthropology and social theory. Interpretations differ over whether Scheler was moving toward a single systematic philosophy, or whether his oeuvre remains essentially fragmentary, with relatively autonomous strands in ethics, religion, and social thought.

7. Concept of Person and Spirit

7.1 Person as Unity of Acts

For Scheler, the person (Person) is neither a material thing nor a metaphysical substance in the traditional sense, nor simply the empirical psyche. Instead, he defines the person as the concrete unity of intentional acts—knowing, feeling, willing, loving—in and through which values are disclosed.

"

“The person is not a thing, nor a substance in the traditional metaphysical sense, but the concrete unity of acts.”
— Max Scheler, Vom Ewigen im Menschen

This conception aims to avoid both psychologism (reducing the person to inner states) and substantialism (treating the self as an inert underlying entity). The person is manifest only in its acts, yet is not reducible to any collection of them.

7.2 Spirit (Geist) and Its Distinction from Life

Scheler distinguishes spirit (Geist) from life (Leben). Life encompasses drives, instincts, and biological functions, while spirit refers to:

• Freedom from immediate drives
• Capacity for objective value-awareness
• Ability to form ideals, culture, and history

In his view, spirit is not a separate substance detached from the body but a distinct stratum of being that emerges in and through the living human. This leads to his portrayal of the human being as a tension between life and spirit, later elaborated in his philosophical anthropology.

7.3 Personal Individuality and Community

Scheler emphasizes both individual uniqueness and the relational character of the person. Each person has a singular “value-center” and an incommunicable core, yet personal acts such as love and sympathy inherently open beyond the self toward others and toward higher values.

Debates among interpreters concern how to relate Scheler’s personalism to communitarian or individualist positions. Some highlight his insistence on irreducible personal dignity; others note his analyses of communities (Gemeinschaft) and collective persons, suggesting a strong appreciation of supra-individual structures.

7.4 Critical Reception

Scheler’s concept of the person influenced later personalist philosophy (e.g., in Catholic and phenomenological circles). Critics have questioned whether defining the person as a unity of acts adequately accounts for personal identity over time, and whether his sharp distinction between spirit and life risks underplaying the embodied, social, and unconscious dimensions of selfhood. Proponents respond that his layered account of drives, psyche, and spirit already gestures toward a complex, non-dualistic understanding of the human being.

8. Hierarchy of Values and Moral Order

8.1 Structure of the Value-Hierarchy

A central element of Scheler’s ethics is the hierarchy of values (Wertstufenordnung). He proposes an ordered scale of value-types, distinguished according to depth, duration, independence from bodily conditions, and range of significance. A common schema is:

Higher values are, on his view, more enduring, less dependent on the body, and more intrinsically fulfilling than lower ones. Correct moral preference gives priority to higher over lower values when they conflict.

8.2 Moral Order and Right Preference

For Scheler, moral life consists in the ordo amoris—the order of love—through which a person’s value-responses are structured. A well-formed moral character corresponds to a rightly ordered hierarchy of loves and hatreds, such that higher values are preferred and realized even at the cost of lower ones (e.g., sacrificing comfort for justice).

This leads to an account of virtue and vice as patterns of value-response:

• Virtue: stable disposition to respond appropriately to the hierarchy of values.
• Vice: habitual misordering, such as preferring lower over higher goods.

8.3 Objectivity and Cultural Variation

Scheler maintains that the value-hierarchy is objective and a priori, accessible through phenomenological intuition. At the same time, he recognizes that historical cultures exhibit differing value-emphases and moral codifications.

Interpreters diverge on how to reconcile this objectivism with cultural diversity:

• One line of interpretation stresses that cultures can distort or partially realize the same objective hierarchy.
• Another suggests that Scheler’s later attention to history and society complicates a strict, timeless ordering of values, introducing more context-sensitivity than his early formulations acknowledge.

Critics argue that any fixed hierarchy risks ethnocentrism or dogmatism, while supporters hold that it provides a necessary framework for criticizing both relativism and value-deformation, including phenomena like ressentiment.

9. Love, Sympathy, and Emotional Acts

9.1 Emotional Acts as Value-Disclosure

Scheler gives a systematic account of emotional acts—especially in The Nature of Sympathy—arguing that feelings are not merely subjective states but intentional relations to values. Acts such as joy, sorrow, love, hate, and sympathy are modes in which values become manifest.

He distinguishes intentional feeling (Fühlen von Etwas) from mere bodily sensations, emphasizing that emotions have aboutness: they are directed to persons, situations, or values.

9.2 Love as Cognitive Movement

Love (Liebe) occupies a privileged place. Scheler describes it as a movement that discloses ever higher values in its object:

"

“Love is not a mere feeling alongside others; it is the movement that discloses ever higher values in the object.”
— Max Scheler, Der Formalismus in der Ethik und die materiale Wertethik

On this view, love is cognitive as well as affective: by loving someone or something, the person becomes able to perceive deeper layers of value that would otherwise remain hidden. Hatred, conversely, tends to narrow or obscure the value-field.

9.3 Forms of Sympathy

In The Nature of Sympathy, Scheler distinguishes several phenomena often conflated under “empathy” or sympathy:

Scheler argues that sympathy presupposes the prior givenness of persons and their feelings; it does not construct the other’s mind from analogies, as some psychological theories had claimed.

9.4 Ethical and Social Implications

Scheler connects love and sympathy to the formation of community and the moral order of the person. Properly ordered love expands the person’s value-world and underlies solidarity, while deficient or distorted emotional acts (e.g., envy, ressentiment) contribute to moral and social pathologies.

Later thinkers have debated how Scheler’s exaltation of love as a value-disclosing act relates to religious conceptions of agape and to secular theories of care and recognition. Critics question whether love always clarifies values, pointing to cases where intense affect seems to bias or blind judgment; defenders reply that Scheler’s analyses already distinguish authentic from illusory or misdirected love.

10. Ressentiment and Critique of Modern Morality

10.1 Phenomenology of Ressentiment

In Ressentiment (Das Ressentiment im Aufbau der Moralen), Scheler analyzes ressentiment as a distinctive emotional disposition. Drawing partly on Nietzsche but developing his own account, he defines ressentiment as a lasting, self-poisoning attitude that arises when hostile feelings cannot be openly expressed or acted upon.

"

“Ressentiment is a self-poisoning of the mind, a lasting attitude which falsifies the value-perception of the world.”
— Max Scheler, Das Ressentiment im Aufbau der Moralen

Ressentiment, on his view, leads to systematic distortions of value-perception, particularly a tendency to devalue what one cannot attain and to exalt traits compatible with one’s own weakness.

10.2 Moralities of Ressentiment

Scheler extends this analysis to the “construction of moralities”. He argues that some forms of egalitarian or levelling morality—for example, extreme emphases on humility or mediocrity—can originate in ressentiment against the noble, powerful, or excellent.

Where Nietzsche traced Christian morality largely to ressentiment, Scheler offers a more nuanced view:

• He concedes that some historical Christian moralities may have been shaped by ressentiment.
• But he also defends the possibility of genuine Christian love and humility rooted in authentic value-intuition rather than in envy or impotence.

Thus, Scheler uses ressentiment both as a diagnostic tool for unmasking certain moral claims and as a way to differentiate authentic from inauthentic religious and moral attitudes.

10.3 Modern Society and Mass Culture

Scheler applies the concept of ressentiment to modern mass societies and bourgeois culture, where he sees widespread tendencies toward:

• Levelling of distinctions in value
• Suspicion of excellence and hierarchy
• Justification of weakness or failure via moralizing rhetoric

Interpreters disagree on the scope and fairness of this critique. Some read it as a conservative reaction to democratic and socialist movements; others argue that it provides a valuable phenomenological description of certain pathologies of modern moral consciousness, including victimhood discourses and cynical envy.

10.4 Relation to Nietzsche and Later Reception

Scheler’s account is often compared to Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals. While acknowledging Nietzsche’s insight into value-inversion, Scheler insists on the possibility of objective values and on the legitimacy of some higher, non-ressentiment-based moralities.

Later thinkers in sociology, psychology, and political theory have adapted the notion of ressentiment to analyze phenomena such as populist resentment, identity politics, and bureaucratic cynicism, though they differ on how closely they follow Scheler’s phenomenological framework or his value-objectivism.

11. Philosophical Anthropology and The Human Place in the Cosmos

11.1 The Anthropological Project

Scheler’s philosophical anthropology seeks to answer what it means to be human in a systematic way, integrating biological, psychological, cultural, and metaphysical dimensions. This project reaches a classic formulation in Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos (The Human Place in the Cosmos, 1923–1924).

There, Scheler confronts prevailing accounts—from natural science, metaphysics, and theology—and argues that none adequately captures the human as a being characterized by spirit within life.

11.2 Comparison with Animals

Scheler contrasts humans with animals along several axes:

He denies that humans are simply “rational animals” in an Aristotelian sense; rather, the decisive difference lies in spirit’s capacity to take distance from drives, to form culture, and to relate to the world as a whole.

11.3 Life, Spirit, and the Human Condition

Scheler emphasizes that humans are not pure spirit but remain rooted in life—in bodies, drives, and affects. The human condition is thus one of tension:

"

“Man is, in his essence, more than a mere living being and yet, in his existence, bound to life and its drives.”
— Max Scheler, Die Stellung des Menschen im Kosmos

This tension manifests in:

• The conflict between instinctual impulses and ideal demands
• The possibility of self-transcendence through value-realization
• The vulnerability to pathologies (e.g., ressentiment) arising from mismanaged relations between life and spirit

11.4 Influence and Debates

Scheler’s anthropology influenced later German thinkers such as Helmuth Plessner and Arnold Gehlen, who developed their own anthropological frameworks partly in dialogue with his. Scholars disagree on how metaphysical Scheler’s anthropology is:

• Some read it as primarily descriptive-phenomenological, focusing on essential features of human existence.
• Others see it as embedded in a broader metaphysics of spirit and life, especially in his unfinished late work.

Critics question whether the sharp distinction between human and animal underestimates continuities discovered by ethology and evolutionary biology, while proponents argue that Scheler’s focus on value-awareness and world-openness highlights genuinely distinctive aspects of human existence.

12. Sociology of Knowledge and Social Theory

12.1 Program of a Sociology of Knowledge

In Die Wissensformen und die Gesellschaft (The Forms of Knowledge and Society) and Probleme einer Soziologie des Wissens (Problems of a Sociology of Knowledge), Scheler develops one of the earliest systematic programs for a sociology of knowledge (Soziologie des Wissens). He investigates how different forms of knowledge—religious, philosophical, scientific, practical—relate to specific social structures, classes, and historical situations.

Unlike later relativist approaches, Scheler maintains that knowledge can be objectively valid even while its selection, distribution, and social efficacy are conditioned by social factors.

12.2 Forms of Knowledge and Social Carriers

Scheler proposes a typology of knowledge-forms and connects them to social “carriers”:

His analysis explores how changes in social structure—such as the rise of the bourgeoisie or the modern state—alter the relative prestige and function of these knowledge-forms.

12.3 Social Conditioning vs. Relativism

Scheler distinguishes between:

• Genetic questions: How social conditions influence the emergence and spread of beliefs.
• Validity questions: Whether beliefs are true or justified.

He argues that sociology of knowledge addresses primarily the former and should not claim to determine the latter. This leads to a dual-level approach: phenomenological and philosophical analysis of truth and value, combined with sociological analysis of how such contents are historically mediated.

Interpretations differ on how successfully he maintains this separation. Some commentators think his framework anticipates later attempts (e.g., in critical theory) to integrate social critique with normative claims; others contend that he underestimates tensions between strong social conditioning and robust assertions of objectivity.

12.4 Broader Social Theory

Beyond knowledge, Scheler’s writings engage with themes of social stratification, elites, and cultural epochs. He examines how value-orientations shape social orders and how phenomena like ressentiment affect class relations and political ideologies. While not a systematic sociologist in the manner of Durkheim or Weber, he contributes a value-theoretical and phenomenological perspective to early 20th‑century social theory.

13. Religion, the Holy, and Late Metaphysics

13.1 Phenomenology of the Holy

Scheler’s reflections on religion, especially in On the Eternal in Man, focus on holy values (heilige Werte), which he regards as the highest stratum in the value-hierarchy. He analyzes religious acts—adoration, repentance, worship—as intentional relations to a personal or supra-personal absolute.

Holy values are, in his account, distinct from moral, aesthetic, or vital values, though they can ground and transform them. Religious experience thus reveals a dimension of “the eternal” in the person, understood phenomenologically as a stable orientation toward ultimate value.

13.2 Relation to Christianity and Other Religions

During his Catholic phase, Scheler often uses Christian concepts and figures to illustrate religious phenomena, and some writings aim to defend the uniqueness of Christian love and revelation. However, he also analyzes non-Christian traditions and suggests that holy values can be intuited across religious boundaries.

Interpretations diverge:

• One view treats Scheler as a Catholic phenomenologist, whose philosophy is fundamentally shaped by Christian revelation.
• Another emphasizes his move, especially after 1920, toward a more universal phenomenology of religion, in which Christianity is one historically privileged but not exclusive realization of holy values.

13.3 Late Metaphysics of Spirit and Life

In his final years, Scheler worked on an ambitious, largely unfinished metaphysics of spirit and life. Surviving outlines and fragments indicate an attempt to integrate:

• The hierarchy of values and beings
• The dynamic interplay between life (as impulsive, striving force) and spirit (as value-oriented, world-opening dimension)
• A conception of the cosmos as an ongoing process of value-realization

Some scholars read these late projects as a move toward panentheistic or process-like metaphysics, though precise classification remains contested due to the incomplete state of the texts.

13.4 Debates on Continuity and Orthodoxy

A central question in Scheler scholarship is how to understand the relation between his early Catholic writings and his late metaphysical work:

Proponents of the continuity thesis highlight persistent themes of holy value and eternal personhood; advocates of the break thesis point to his increasing distance from institutional Catholicism and to metaphysical formulations that seem to exceed or revise traditional dogma.

14. Relation to Husserl, Heidegger, and Other Contemporaries

14.1 Husserl and Phenomenology

Scheler’s relation to Edmund Husserl is both foundational and contentious. He adopts Husserl’s critique of psychologism and the ideal of rigorous, descriptive philosophy, yet rejects Husserl’s later transcendental idealism. Scheler emphasizes a realist orientation, treating values and persons as features of a world that is not constituted solely by consciousness.

Some commentators see Scheler as a key representative of “realist phenomenology”, standing alongside figures like Reinach and Pfänder. Others argue that his methodological practice departs enough from Husserl that he should be considered only tangentially phenomenological.

14.2 Heidegger and Existential Themes

Scheler and Martin Heidegger were near-contemporaries engaged with overlapping questions about human existence, though their approaches differ. Scheler’s later anthropological and metaphysical writings intersect with Heidegger’s concerns about facticity, historicity, and the human world-relation.

Comparative studies note:

Some scholars argue that Scheler anticipates existential themes, especially regarding finitude, decision, and historicity, while remaining more explicitly axiological and metaphysical than Heidegger’s early work.

14.3 Other Contemporaries: Weber, Nietzsche, and Neo-Kantians

Scheler also stands in dialogue with:

• Max Weber: Both develop forms of sociology of religion and knowledge, but Scheler supplements Weber’s value-neutral analysis with a realist theory of value.
• Nietzsche: Scheler appropriates Nietzsche’s critique of moral ressentiment while rejecting value-nihilism, defending an objective hierarchy of values.
• Neo-Kantians: His material value-ethics is formulated explicitly against Kantian formalism, arguing that concrete value-contents are primary.

14.4 Influence within the Phenomenological Movement

Within the broader phenomenological tradition, Scheler influenced thinkers such as Edith Stein, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Emmanuel Mounier, Karol Wojtyła (later Pope John Paul II), and Roman Ingarden. Interpretations differ on whether to classify his legacy primarily under personalism, Catholic phenomenology, or philosophical anthropology.

Critics from Husserlian and Heideggerian lines sometimes see Scheler’s value-metaphysics as insufficiently critical of traditional ontological assumptions, while admirers regard his willingness to develop a robust theory of values and spirit as an important counterweight to more strictly methodological or ontological versions of phenomenology.

15. Reception, Influence, and Criticisms

15.1 Early Reception

During his lifetime, Scheler was widely recognized in German-speaking philosophical circles. His lectures attracted large audiences, and works like Formalism in Ethics and The Nature of Sympathy were quickly discussed. Early reception often linked him with Catholic renewal and personalism, though his later, more secular-leaning projects broadened his appeal.

15.2 Influence on Later Thought

Scheler’s impact spans several fields:

His notion of ressentiment has been used in political theory, psychology, and cultural criticism to analyze modern social conflicts and identity politics.

15.3 Major Lines of Criticism

Scheler’s work has also attracted significant criticism:

• Metaphysical and theological commitments: Some argue that his value-hierarchy and notion of the holy rely on unjustified metaphysical assumptions or on a Christian framework not shared by all.
• Objectivity of values: Empiricist, pragmatist, and relativist critics question whether phenomenological intuition can secure the objectivity and universality of values that Scheler posits.
• Concept of person and spirit: Materialists and naturalists contest his sharp distinction between spirit and life, arguing that cognitive science and evolutionary biology favor more continuist accounts.
• Sociology of knowledge: Some sociologists consider his program too philosophically normative and insufficiently empirical, while philosophers worry that social conditioning may threaten the robust objectivity he claims.

15.4 Reception Across Traditions

Scheler’s reception has varied by region and tradition. In the German-speaking world, he has remained a reference point in debates on anthropology and value-theory. In Catholic and personalist circles, he is often celebrated as a foundational figure. In Anglophone philosophy, his influence has been more limited, though interest has grown through translations and renewed attention to phenomenological ethics.

Interpretations diverge on how to situate Scheler within 20th‑century philosophy: some present him as a major but underappreciated systematic thinker, others as a brilliant but fragmentary figure whose diverse projects resist unification.

16. Legacy and Historical Significance

16.1 Place in the History of Philosophy

Scheler occupies a distinctive position between classical phenomenology, neo-Kantianism, and later continental thought. He is frequently cited as:

• A founding figure of material value-ethics and axiology
• One of the originators of philosophical anthropology
• An early architect of the sociology of knowledge

His work helped shift philosophical attention from exclusively cognitive or logical structures to the emotional, axiological, and personal dimensions of experience.

16.2 Contributions to Ethics and Anthropology

In ethics, Scheler’s insistence that values are disclosed in emotional acts contributed to later developments in virtue ethics, care ethics, and phenomenological moral philosophy. His hierarchy of values and critique of formalism provided tools for engaging both deontological and utilitarian traditions from a new angle.

In anthropology, his depiction of the human as a being of spirit within life influenced subsequent reflections on embodiment, culture, and world-openness, particularly in German philosophical anthropology. These discussions continue to inform contemporary debates about human uniqueness, animality, and technology.

16.3 Cross-Disciplinary Resonance

Scheler’s ideas have resonated beyond philosophy:

• In theology, his analyses of love, the holy, and personhood inform various currents of 20th‑century Christian thought.
• In sociology and social theory, his sociology of knowledge and account of ressentiment have shaped understandings of ideology, class consciousness, and cultural conflict.
• In psychology and psychoanalysis, his descriptions of emotional life and value-distortion offer alternative frameworks to purely drive- or cognition-based models.

16.4 Ongoing Relevance and Research

Contemporary scholarship continues to explore:

• How Scheler’s phenomenology of value can contribute to metaethics and moral psychology
• The viability of his value-objectivism in light of evolutionary and cultural accounts of morality
• The relation between his early Catholic phenomenology and late metaphysics, particularly concerning the concept of the holy

Some researchers emphasize Scheler’s potential as a resource for dialogue between religious and secular philosophies, given his attempt to articulate religious phenomena in phenomenological terms. Others view his work as a precursor to more recent efforts to integrate normativity, embodiment, and sociality within a unified philosophical framework.

While assessments of his ultimate systematic success vary, there is broad agreement that Scheler’s exploration of values, persons, and the emotional foundations of ethics constitutes a significant and enduring contribution to 20th‑century thought.