Daseinsanalysis in Scientific Discours - Openness, Critique, Responsibility, Connectedness

Daseinsanalysis stands at a decisive threshold. Rooted in phenomenology and hermeneutics, it offers a unique understanding of human existence. And yet, its presence in contemporary scientific discourse remains marginal—not only because its mode of thinking does not conform to certain paradigmatic requirements, but also because many representatives of Daseinsanalysis have so far contributed too little to existing scientific dialogues. The responsibility does not lie solely with the ‘mainstream’, but also with shortcomings in training, methodological connectivity, and self-positioning. In many cases, the marginal role of Daseinsanalysis is less the result of ideological opposition than of practical deficits—such as insufficient education in scientific research, limited familiarity with academic standards, and a lack of publication activity. Those who do not enter the arena of discourse—or are not equipped to do so—cannot expect to be seen or heard.

Moreover, the very notion of “scientific discourse” deserves critical reflection. Science is not a uniform enterprise: it encompasses diverse cultures of inquiry—from the quantifying rigor of experimental methods to the interpretive depth of the humanities. In disciplines such as history, anthropology, and philosophy, objectivity is not measured in numbers, but in contextual insight and coherence. These domains already share affinities with Daseinsanalysis—through their commitment to meaning, situated understanding, and the human world in its lived complexity. The marginality of Daseinsanalysis, then, is not only a matter of ideological misfit, but of missed dialogue with those parts of science where it might naturally belong.

Call for Papers and more informations here: