were the authentic being of entities, then the relationship of being of two entities with the greatest resistance between them, and so the intense pressure of one entity against another, would involve bringing something like a world into presence. But this is not directly given between two entities in a relationship of resistance. The pressure and counterpressure, thrust and counterthrust, of material things never allow something like a world in the sense of world hood to come into being. Instead, resistance is a phenomenal character which already presupposes a world.
In addition, this phenomenon of resistance is inadequate because it is basically oriented only to the correlation of acts, just as it was in Dilthey. Scheler is thus also forced, as a basis for this old proposal of a subject which has acts, to draw again upon the distinction of in mente and extra mentem. Notwithstanding, here, quite independently from another quarter within phenomenology comes the insistence that reality can never be understood in terms of the mere knowledge of something, that above all an epistemology cannot be oriented toward judgments or the like. All this is worth noting, and Scheler emphasized particularly the latter quite forcefully when he said that today still three-fourths of all epistemologies are of the wrongheaded opinion that the primary aspect from which the object of knowledge, the entity in itself, can be apprehended is the judgment.
Resistance as well as bodily presence find their ground in this, that world hood already is. They are particular phenomena of an isolated encounter, isolated to a particular kind of access involved in sheer striving. The conception of the entities of the world as resistance is then associated in Scheler with his biological orientation, with the question of how a world in general is given for primitive life forms. In my view, this method of clarifying by analogy from primitive life forms down to single-celled animals is wrong in principle. It is only when we have apprehended the objectivity of the world which is accessible to us, that is to say, our relationship of being toward the world, that we can perhaps also determine the world hood of the animal by certain modified ways of considering it. The reverse procedure does not work, inasmuch as we are always compelled to speak on the basis of the analogy in analyzing the environing world of the animals. This environing world therefore cannot be the simplest one for us.
When we have seen that the elucidation of the reality of the real is based upon seeing Dasein itself in its basic constitution, then we also have the basic requirement for all attempts to decide between realism and idealism. In elucidating these positions it is not so much a matter of clearing them up or of finding one or the other to be the solution, but of seeing that both can exist only on the basis of a neglect: they presuppose a concept of 'subject' and 'object' without clarifying these