Heidegger’s description of Scheler’s anthropology and personalism—as spirit defined in terms of its acts and opposed to something substantial, and therefore something all together different from the soul and body—it is evident he treats only the very “essential” elements of Scheler’s anthropology, i.e., those elements of Scheler’s account that have to do with his description of the essence of the person (spirit) and the whole personal being. And thus, Heidegger’s criticism works. But the question is whether Heidegger’s too brief account of Scheler does the anthropologist justice in finding some elements within the whole of Scheler’s philosophy (and therefore not restricted to his anthropology) that might account for a kind of “fundamental ontology,” or something that does “reach the dimension of the question of being in Da-sein”.

¶ 1:25 PM