Hans Blumenberg

1. Introduction

Hans Blumenberg (1920–1996) was a German philosopher of culture and historian of ideas whose work reoriented late 20th‑century debates about myth, metaphor, secularization, and modernity. Situated within continental philosophy yet drawing heavily on medieval theology, classical philology, and the history of science, he developed a distinctive approach to the ways humans make the world “bearable” through symbolic forms.

At the center of his thought stands the claim that human beings face an “absolutism of reality”—a world experienced as overwhelming, contingent, and indifferent. For Blumenberg, cultural formations such as religion, science, philosophy, and literature are not mere reflections of this reality but techniques of coping and orientation. Myths, metaphors, and images are treated as structurally significant responses rather than as residues of pre‑rational thinking.

His best‑known work, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age, intervened in disputes about whether modernity is simply a secularized continuation of Christian theology. Blumenberg argued that modernity represents a historically specific project of self‑assertion (Selbstbehauptung) and thus requires its own standards of evaluation. Closely related are his proposals for metaphorology, the systematic study of “absolute metaphors” that cannot be replaced by concepts without loss.

Across his writings—from Paradigms for a Metaphorology and Work on Myth to The Genesis of the Copernican World and later reflections on time and finitude—Blumenberg combined meticulous textual scholarship with broad anthropological claims. His work has influenced theology, literary studies, political theory, and religious studies, while remaining the subject of substantial criticism and debate regarding its historical claims and philosophical implications.

2. Life and Historical Context

2.1 Biographical Outline

Hans Blumenberg was born on 13 July 1920 in Lübeck, Germany, into a Catholic family with a Jewish mother under later Nazi racial law. His education was disrupted by National Socialism: classified as “half‑Jewish,” he was excluded from regular university study, subjected to forced labor, and spent part of the war in hiding. These experiences are widely regarded as shaping his later sensitivity to institutional fragility and to the dangers of totalizing world‑pictures, although he rarely theorized his persecution explicitly.

After 1945 he studied philosophy, German literature, and classical philology in Hamburg and Kiel, completing a doctorate (1947) on scholastic ontology and Husserlian phenomenology. Academic positions followed at Kiel, Hamburg, Gießen, and especially Münster, where he spent much of his career and produced his major works. He died on 28 March 1996 in Altenberge near Münster after a long illness.

2.2 Historical and Intellectual Milieu

Blumenberg’s life spanned the Weimar Republic, National Socialism, the division of Germany, and the Federal Republic’s consolidation. His early formation occurred against the backdrop of phenomenology, neo‑scholasticism, and Catholic theology, while his mature work responded to postwar debates about secularization, the scientific revolution, and the meaning of modernity.

Key contextual factors include:

Within this setting, Blumenberg developed a mode of historical-philosophical reflection that resisted both restorationist appeals to tradition and triumphalist narratives of rational progress.

3. Intellectual Development

3.1 Formation under Phenomenology and Scholasticism

In his early phase (1940s–early 1950s), Blumenberg worked at the intersection of Husserlian phenomenology and late medieval scholasticism. His dissertation examined the concept of reality in Husserl in dialogue with scholastic ontology. Proponents of this reading emphasize how this training provided:

Some interpreters argue that this phase already contained seeds of his later skepticism toward “ultimate” foundations.

3.2 Early Work on Myth, Metaphor, and Science

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Blumenberg turned to the history of science and metaphor. Essays later collected in Paradigms for a Metaphorology proposed that certain metaphors—such as “ground,” “light,” or the “book of nature”—have orienting functions that cannot be fully conceptualized. Concurrently, he studied the genesis of the modern cosmological image, leading to The Genesis of the Copernican World. Scholars see this as the period in which he formulated his enduring interest in non‑conceptual elements of thought.

3.3 Critique of Secularization and Defense of Modernity

By the mid‑1960s, Blumenberg’s attention shifted toward modernity and secularization. The Legitimacy of the Modern Age (1966) responded to theories presenting modernity as illegitimate offspring of Christian theology. He developed the notion of self‑assertion, portraying modern science and politics as responses to the perceived failure of medieval metaphysics. This move repositioned him within debates in political theology and critical theory.

3.4 Anthropology of Myth and Late Reflections

From the late 1970s, works such as Work on Myth elaborated an anthropology of myth: myth as cultural “work” coping with the absolutism of reality. Later texts—Life‑Time and World‑Time, Cave Exits, and posthumous notebooks—turned increasingly to questions of finitude, boredom, and anecdotes from literature. Commentators variously interpret this as a “literary turn,” an existential deepening of earlier themes, or a shift toward a more fragmentary style of philosophizing.

4. Major Works

4.1 Overview

Blumenberg’s major books span intellectual history, metaphor theory, and philosophical anthropology. They are often interconnected, with later texts reworking earlier insights.

4.2 Posthumous Publications

After his death, extensive notebooks and shorter texts were edited and published. These works often present more experimental or aphoristic reflections, providing insight into the workshop of his thought. Scholars differ on whether they should be treated as central contributions or as auxiliary material illuminating the major published books, but they have expanded the corpus used in interpretations of his metaphorology and anthropology.

5. Core Ideas: Reality, Myth, and Metaphor

5.1 Absolutism of Reality

Blumenberg’s notion of “absolutism of reality” designates the threatening, opaque, and contingent character of the world as it confronts human beings. Reality, on this view, is not first an object of neutral knowledge but a source of pressure and anxiety. Cultural forms are interpreted as strategies for reducing this pressure.

"

“The history of reality is the history of its reduction.”

— Hans Blumenberg, Work on Myth

Interpreters emphasize that this concept functions both descriptively (capturing a phenomenological experience of exposure) and normatively (motivating the need for cultural mediation).

5.2 Myth as Cultural Technique

In Work on Myth, Blumenberg redefines myth as ongoing “work” rather than as a primitive error:

"

“Myth is the attempt to make the world bearable as world.”

— Hans Blumenberg, Work on Myth

Mythical narratives, on this account, personalize threats, domesticate contingency, and make the world narratable. Proponents of this reading argue that it destabilizes rigid oppositions between myth and rationality, while critics contend that Blumenberg underplays myth’s potential for domination or violence.

5.3 Metaphor and Absolute Metaphors

Blumenberg’s metaphorology distinguishes between everyday metaphors and absolute metaphors—fundamental images such as “light of truth,” “ground,” “horizon,” or “shipwreck” that articulate basic orientations where conceptual language reaches its limits.

"

“Absolute metaphors cannot be translated back into conceptual language without loss.”

— Hans Blumenberg, Paradigms for a Metaphorology

These metaphors are historically variable yet resilient. They guide perception, shape problems, and suggest possible solutions. Supporters claim that this position broadens the scope of epistemology to include non‑propositional forms, whereas some critics worry that it blurs distinctions between poetic suggestion and philosophical argument.

6. Modernity and the Critique of Secularization

6.1 Targeting the Secularization Thesis

In The Legitimacy of the Modern Age, Blumenberg confronts the secularization thesis, especially as formulated by Karl Löwith and Carl Schmitt. That thesis maintains that fundamental modern concepts—progress, sovereignty, historical meaning—are merely secularized theological ideas, implying that modernity lacks independent legitimacy.

Blumenberg argues instead that the transition from medieval to modern thought involves reoccupation (Umbesetzung) of problem positions rather than simple conceptual carry‑over. Modernity arises because medieval theology reached internal limits (e.g., in debates on divine omnipotence and theodicy), generating new questions that could no longer be answered within its own framework.

6.2 Self‑Assertion and the Project of Modernity

Blumenberg characterizes modernity as a project of human self‑assertion (Selbstbehauptung): the attempt of humans to establish their own norms and institutions without appeal to transcendent guarantees. This self‑assertion is not portrayed as hubristic self‑deification but as a historically necessary response to the collapse of medieval assurances.

"

“The modern age must justify itself before the Middle Ages, not the other way around.”

— Hans Blumenberg, The Legitimacy of the Modern Age

6.3 Responses and Alternatives

Reactions divide broadly:

These discussions position Blumenberg as a central interlocutor in contemporary debates on modernity’s sources and legitimacy.

7. Methodology: Metaphorology and Intellectual History

7.1 Metaphorology as Proposed Discipline

Blumenberg’s metaphorology seeks a systematic study of metaphors as structural components of thought. Instead of treating metaphors as mere ornaments or as imperfect concepts, he investigates how they open, stabilize, or close off fields of experience. Case studies—such as the “book of nature,” the “cave,” or “shipwreck with spectator”—serve to trace long‑term shifts in orientation.

Methodologically, metaphorology:

• Examines semantic fields around a metaphor across epochs.
• Attends to ruptures and reoccupations, where metaphors are reused in new contexts.
• Treats absolute metaphors as indicators of limits of conceptualization.

Advocates see this as bridging philosophy, literary studies, and intellectual history; skeptics question its criteria for selecting and interpreting metaphors.

7.2 Style of Intellectual History

Blumenberg’s intellectual history differs from strictly contextualist or purely conceptual approaches. He focuses on problems (Problemgeschichte) and their changing formulations, emphasizing how cultures repeatedly confront similar existential issues under new conditions. Concepts, doctrines, myths, and metaphors are seen as responses to such problems.

Some historians value this for revealing deep continuities; others argue it risks anachronism by projecting unified “problems” onto heterogeneous historical actors.

7.3 Relation to Phenomenology and Hermeneutics

Blumenberg’s method is often situated between phenomenology (attention to structures of experience) and hermeneutics (interpretation of texts and traditions). Interpreters disagree on whether he should be classified primarily as a phenomenologist, a hermeneuticist, or an original hybrid, but most agree that his practice of reading exemplifies a reflective, self‑conscious form of intellectual history rather than a purely empirical historiography.

8. Anthropology of Finitude and Time

8.1 Human Finitude and the Need for Orientation

Throughout his work, Blumenberg develops an implicit philosophical anthropology grounded in human finitude. Humans are portrayed as vulnerable beings exposed to the absolutism of reality and in need of protective “distance” from it. Cultural products—myths, scientific theories, institutions—function as relief mechanisms that mediate this exposure.

Some commentators read this anthropology as fundamentally existential, highlighting themes of anxiety and contingency; others stress its functional character, focusing on how symbolic forms perform stabilizing roles regardless of their truth value.

8.2 Life‑Time and World‑Time

In Life‑Time and World‑Time, Blumenberg analyzes the disparity between finite individual life‑time (Lebenszeit) and the vast, indifferent world‑time (Weltzeit). Human projects and expectations collide with temporal scales that far exceed individual control.

This discrepancy generates experiences of meaninglessness, boredom, and urgency. Cultural techniques—from calendars to philosophies of history—are interpreted as efforts to synchronize or reconcile these timescales. Critics sometimes question whether Blumenberg overgeneralizes a specifically modern experience of time.

8.3 Contingency, Boredom, and Cave Exits

Later writings, including Cave Exits, explore motifs of boredom, curiosity, and the pursuit of “exits” from confining world‑pictures. Re‑reading Plato’s cave allegory, Blumenberg collects historical “exit” scenarios—religious conversions, scientific breakthroughs, literary epiphanies—as variations on the desire to escape limitations of one’s given horizon.

These reflections extend his anthropology by showing how humans oscillate between needing protection from reality and seeking new exposures to it. Readers differ on whether this oscillation implies a tragic, ironic, or open‑ended view of the human condition.

9. Impact on Theology, Literary Studies, and Political Theory

9.1 Theology and Religious Studies

Blumenberg’s redefinition of myth and his critique of secularization have significantly influenced theology and religious studies. Theologians sympathetic to modernity employ his arguments to defend the autonomy of secular reason while still affirming religious discourse. Others use his account of myth as cultural work to reinterpret biblical narratives as ongoing strategies of coping rather than static doctrinal deposits.

In religious studies, his notion of myth as a cultural technique has been mobilized to analyze ritual, narrative, and symbol formation. Some scholars, however, argue that his approach underestimates institutional and power dimensions of religion.

9.2 Literary and Cultural Studies

In literary theory, Blumenberg’s metaphorology and analyses of images such as “shipwreck with spectator” have provided tools for examining the cognitive and orienting functions of literary metaphors. Comparative literature and cultural studies have drawn on his work to trace the migration of motifs across periods and genres.

Critics in this field sometimes suggest that Blumenberg’s philosophical agenda leads to a selective reading of literary texts, foregrounding certain metaphors at the expense of others.

9.3 Political Theory and Political Theology

In political theory, Blumenberg’s dispute with secularization theses associated with Carl Schmitt has made him a central reference in discussions of political theology. Political theorists use his arguments to:

• Challenge narratives that present modern democracy as a derivative of theological sovereignty.
• Explore how political concepts are shaped by absolute metaphors (e.g., “body politic,” “ship of state”).

Some political theologians respond that Blumenberg’s emphasis on rupture obscures deeper continuities between theological and political imaginaries. Additionally, critical theorists debate whether his focus on cultural coping mechanisms risks naturalizing existing political arrangements by framing them as necessary responses to the absolutism of reality.

10. Reception, Criticisms, and Debates

10.1 Reception in German and International Contexts

In German‑language philosophy, Blumenberg has been widely recognized as a major figure in phenomenology‑adjacent thought and the history of ideas. His work entered theological, literary, and historical debates from the 1960s onward. Internationally, reception has been more gradual, often following translations of key works into French, Italian, and English. Anglophone interest increased markedly with the translation of The Legitimacy of the Modern Age and Work on Myth.

10.2 Main Lines of Criticism

Criticisms cluster around several themes:

10.3 Debates on Genre and Style

Blumenberg’s dense, allusive style and preference for essays, case studies, and later aphoristic notes have provoked discussion about the systematicity of his philosophy. Some readers regard the apparent fragmentariness as a deliberate enactment of his anti‑foundational stance; others find it an obstacle to clear argumentative reconstruction.

Scholars also differ on how to weigh the posthumous notebooks: whether they should be integrated into a unified Blumenbergian system or treated as experimental side paths. These methodological debates continue to shape contemporary scholarship on his work.

11. Legacy and Historical Significance

Blumenberg’s legacy is often framed in terms of his contribution to rethinking the relationship between myth, metaphor, and modernity. His challenge to straightforward secularization narratives has become a standard reference point in discussions of political theology, modern rationality, and the genealogy of key concepts. Even critics typically engage his argument about the autonomy of modernity as a position that must be addressed.

In the humanities, his metaphorology has encouraged scholars to treat images and figures not as decorative but as cognitively and historically significant. This has influenced research programs in intellectual history, literary studies, and religious studies that track long‑duration motifs rather than only explicit doctrines. Some observers credit him with helping to legitimize a renewed interest in myth and narrative within philosophy without simply abandoning rational critique.

Institutionally, Blumenberg’s work has led to specialized research centers, conferences, and edited volumes devoted to his thought. Translations and critical editions of his notebooks have expanded the corpus and prompted reassessments of his overall project. His concepts—absolutism of reality, self‑assertion, work on myth, life‑time and world‑time—are now widely cited beyond their original context.

Assessments of his historical significance vary. Some portray him as a major late‑modern representative of phenomenological and hermeneutic traditions; others see him as a transitional figure whose emphasis on cultural techniques anticipates contemporary theory of media and practices. There is broad agreement, however, that his work has reshaped the vocabulary with which scholars discuss the vulnerability of human meaning‑making in the modern age.