Philosophy Of Symbolic Forms Research Articles

The objectivity of mathematics in Cassirer’s symbol-theoretical approach

AbstractCassirer’s concept of symbolic forms represents a cultural-philosophical approach in which specific modes of objectification, the symbolic forms themselves, establish an independent truth. This truth does not consist in a purely analytical truth, but in the fact that we live along these symbolic forms in a specific stubbornness. When we use language, we live and experience language in its specific autonomy. The same applies to the other symbolic forms developed by Cassirer. Both before the cultural-philosophical phase of creation and within the philosophy of symbolic forms, Cassirer refers to mathematics several times. An interesting tension arises as to whether Cassirer could have understood mathematics as a symbolic form in its own right. On the one hand, cultural-historical considerations in Cassirer’s work speak in favour of this; on the other hand, Cassirer embeds mathematics as a mere formal science in physics and thus in the philosophical form of science as a whole. The article explores this tension—mathematics as a symbolic form—and shows that only indications within the framework of the historical-hermeneutical treatment would speak in favour of such an interpretation. Furthermore, the article argues that a specific, cultural-historical semiotics can be considered for mathematics in Cassirer’s work.

The influence of relativity on the philosophy of symbolic forms

AbstractIn this paper, I will deal with the analogy between Cassirer’s interpretation of relativity and his philosophy of culture. As to the structure of the paper, it will be divided into six parts. I will start with a brief introduction, after which I will succinctly outline Cassirer’s reading of Einstein’s theory, and in particular of general covariance. I will then focus on the presentation of his project for a “systematic philosophy” in the last chapter of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and subsequently delve into the lexical references to relativity made in Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. After this, I will tackle Cassirer’s rectorship speech, where relativity and the philosophy of culture are explicitly interwoven, but with the important clarification (already provided in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Philosophy of Symbolic Forms) that not all kinds of knowledge align with de-anthropomorphized objectivity. The final section contains the concluding remarks.

A Comparative Study of “Numbers” in Mythology and Science within the Perspective of Ernst Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms

This study aims to compare the differences and connections between the concepts, function, manifestation, and value dimensions of “number” in mythology and science from the perspective of Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms. It reveals the symbolic nature of “number” in mythology, analyzes the pure form of “number” in science, and explains how “number” constructs the logical system and cognitive framework of the scientific world as a pure formal symbol in the scientific system. By comparing the concept, manifestation, function, and value of “number” in mythology and science, this study reveals the philosophical and cultural significance behind them. In Ernst Cassirer's symbolic form philosophy, mythology and science, as important forms of human culture, together with other cultural forms such as art, constitute an integral part of "humanity" The primary research methods are literature review, comparative analysis, and case study. By systematically reviewing the discussions on mythology, science, and other fields in Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms, typical mythological stories and scientific theories are selected for a detailed comparative analysis of the use of “number” within them. The study has found that, emanating from the intuitive form of mythological thinking, “numbers” in mythology serve as one of the fundamental structures of the mythical world. In mythology, numbers exist as potent entities, transcending mere symbolic status. On the contrary, in science, "numbers" serve as an abstract symbolic language that follows clear and explicit structural principles, elucidating the essence and relationships between various scientific phenomena.

Ernst Cassirer and the Symbolic Mediation of Technological Artefacts

The concept of mediation plays a central part in several positions of contemporary philosophy of technology. Especially Don Ihde and Peter-Paul Verbeek have served to establish mediation as one of the core concepts in the postphenomenologically rooted philosophical analysis of human-technology-world relations. While meditation theory provides many important conceptual and empirical contributions to our knowledge of how material artefacts shape our embodied being in the world, too little attention has arguably been given to the development of concepts that enable a philosophical analysis of the symbolic aspect of technological artefacts. This paper aims to develop the notion of ‘symbolic mediation’ by drawing on inspiration from the tradition of philosophical anthropology, more specifically, the work of Ernst Cassirer and his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (PSF). Drawing on empirical examples of human-robot interactions (HRI), I coin two types of symbolic mediation: 1) mythic mediation and 2) aesthetic mediation.

The Semiotic Potential of Mythology: Post-Metaphysical Version

Myth has been and continues to be an enigma to science, and its interest has led to an endless number of theories, concepts, and new questions. One of them is the phenomenon of myth when it is infinite through its semantic interpretation of the world without giving up its symbolic character. If for a long time the concepts of “myth” and “logic” were conceptually opposed, the linguistic paradigm of cultural philosophy, born in the womb of postmetaphysics, has opened the possibility of fully thinking through the logic of myth.In Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy, myth is total – it is in language and style, among the means of logical constructions of his texts, etc., because for him the existence of the world itself is semiotic. The phenomenology of Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, spoke about the myth in the key of finding and recreating their primary meanings as the reference concepts of ontology. The philosophy of symbolic forms by Ernst Cassirer, as well as the apology of the logic of myth by Alexey Losev, Yakov Golosovker are considered in terms of justification of the symbolic nature of myth as a manifestation of the symbolic language of sacral character.The “mythology” term used in this work does not claim to be a concept, but its legitimacy is based on the teaching of Claude Levi-Strauss, “charged” ideas of existential philosophy, which contributed to the discovery of the phenomenon of «handiness" as manifestations of immediate sensitivity to the world as existence. The ideas about the sacred nature of the symbol, which are further developed in this article, served as a basis for the possibility of speaking about mythology as a method of encoding the sacred, which is particularly significant and peculiar in the symbol. It is assumed that the symbolic exists in the space of the sacred, whose loss transforms it into a sign.

Voloshinov-Bakhtin’s Sociological Method in the Science of Language (on the example of the book “Marxism and the Philosophy of Language”)

This article discusses the attributes of the sociological method of V.N.Voloshinov (M.M.Bakhtin) on the example of the book “Marxism and the Philosophy of Language”. Analysis was conducted in the context of the early works of the Soviet philosopher, while taking into consideration their study by Yu. Davydov, S.G. Bocharov’s recollections of Bakhtin, as well as the author's previous article on a related topic. It is substantiated that Bakhtin's worldview evolved over time, with him having been influenced in parallel and in sequence by the ideas of the most prominent German philosophers of the first quarter of the 20th century: G.Simmel, G.Cohen, E.Cassirer, E.Husserl, M.Scheler and others. The desire to develop an independent system of views, starting from the phenomenological sociology of Scheler, led Bakhtin in his work “Problems of Dostoevsky's Creativity” to the idea of human consciousness’ “dialogism” being a member of society (an individual). In the work “Marxism and the Philosophy of Language”, Voloshinov-Bakhtin “materialistically” interprets Cassirer’s “philosophy of symbolic forms” and comes to the idea of “inter-individuality” of the ideological code environment (inter-subjectivity) as a fundamental socio-cultural phenomenon that should serve as the basis for understanding both individual consciousness and all forms of human culture.

에른스트 카시러의 상징형식의 철학이 갖는 교육적 함의

Purpose: This study examined Ernst Cassirer's study of human beings in the present era where human identity has become more confusing than ever before. This was caused by advances in science and technology that penetrated into specific areas of human life, along with the 4th industrial revolution and the COVID-19 pandemic. By re-illuminating this study with an educational focus, the researcher attempted to explore the direction of desirable education practices in the future. Methods: By focusing on 『An Essay on Man』 and 『The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 1-3』 among Cassirer’s works, the long-standing definition of man as a rational animal is questioned, and the process of human consciousness development as a symbolic animal is explored in language, mythology, and science. In response to the three symbolic forms, the characteristics of each were examined. In particular, the emphasis was placed on revealing educational implications from the characteristic of human thought called 'symbols'. Results: As a philosopher, Ernst Cassirer explored the uniqueness of humans by defining humans as symbolic animals. In addition, he utilized an indirect way to reveal the essence of human culture, starting from the premise that human existence can be known through culture created by humans. Symbolic form is the form of knowledge that humans acquire toward the world, and the symbolic form conceived by Cassirer appears through cultural forms such as mythology, religion, language, science, art, and history. Through them, human beings can communicate with their internal and external sides and achieve a synthesis between the world and the mind. Conclusion: Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms is in line with constructivist learning theory, which recognizes learning as an active process of constructing meaning on the basis of each learner’s experience. In addition, symbols can promote growth simultaneously through the learning community beyond the individual level by contributing to the cultivating of the spirit.

The missing piece in E. Cassirer\u2019s theory of symbolic forms: the economy

Ernst Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (PSF) primarily reflects on culture as a system of normative domains that are path-dependently configured. PSF elaborates on the domains of myth/religion, language, and science, but misses a discussion of the economy. By sketching a corresponding exposition, we contribute to the ongoing discussion of how economic science may investigate the world beyond utility functions. Our argument proceeds along historical and comparative lines with a ‘reciprocal comparison’ of the medieval economies of Europe and Japan. We thus approach the normative essence of economic thought and behaviour and test its variability in socio-cultural contexts diverging from ‘now’ and ‘here’. Our sketch of the economy as a symbolic form has important implications for the theoretical understanding of change in social systems. We argue that existing factors of change recognised in the economics discipline, such as fluctuations in supply and demand, and institutional innovation, critically require a superposition with patterns of cognition as they guide agents in their grasp of economic problems and, consequently, in their responses that shape material economies. We suggest that conceiving of the economy as a symbolic form makes these patterns of cognition accessible.

On Rehabilitation of Myth and Extension of Limits of the Rationality in Philosophical Thought of 19th – 20th Century

The article aims to create a thorough alternative to educative and positivist views regarding the historical and anthropological position of the myth. The purpose of the article is to present how a new way of addressing the myth was introduced in the history of the philosophical thought of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which views the myth as an integral part of human rationality. The author suggests that the rehabilitation of myth is a part of a general inclusive approach which continues in the philosophy of modern times and involves a substantial expansion of the limits of what can be considered as rational. The study is based on the ideas of such influential thinkers and researchers of the myth as Friedrich Schelling, Max Müller, Ernst Cassirer, Susanne Langer, and Hans Blumenberg. The article demonstrates the importance of a linguistic turn in the study of myth, conducted by M. Müller, and it is shown that his idea of myth as “a disease of language” is strongly connected to the rethinking of the essence and purpose of the philosophy initiated by Ludwig Wittgenstein and the representatives of the Vienna Circle. The author asserts that the supplementation of a linguistic dimension by anthropological approach, suggested by E. Cassirer and his follower S. Langer, as well as a consideration of myth as a selfsufficient symbolic form, leads to the rejection of the contradiction between mythological and rational thinking and facilitates the understanding of the close connection between myth and language. Despite the fact that E. Cassirer developed his philosophy of symbolic forms and remained in general within the tradition of transcendental idealism, while S. Langer, on the contrary, rejected idealism, they both reached similar conclusions in the view of myth. Based on the work of H. Blumenberg and other researchers, is the author presents that the rehabilitation of myth and its incorporation into rational limits are closely linked to the rehabilitation of metaphor as another form of non-discursive expression. It is shown that the recognition of myth as inevitable part of world perception contributes to a deeper understanding of the nature of human thinking.Article received 05.02.2019

The Symbolic Construction of Reality: The Xici and Ernst Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms

AbstractThis paper, unlike scholars who ascribe to it a copy theory of meaning, argues that the logic of the Xici is best described through “philosophy’s linguistic turn,” specifically Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms. Cassirer’s concept of the symbol as a pluralistic, constitutive, and functional yet concrete and observable form, is comparable to the symbolic system in the Xici 系辭: xiang 象, gua 卦, yao 爻, and yi 易. Their similarity is due to a shared philosophical orientation: humanism. The characteristics of the Xici—the part-whole (structuralist) relationship typical of correlative cosmology, the simultaneously sensuous and conceptual nature of its symbols, the stress on order as opposed to unity, and the importance of symbols per se—for Cassirer are characteristics that were only possible in European intellectual history after a substance ontology was replaced by a functional one. For Cassirer, a functional ontology is closely associated with a humanism that celebrates creations (i.e., language) of the human mind in determining reality. This humanism is coherent with the intellectual context—Confucian humanism—contemporary with the period of the Xici’s composition. It would thus be inconsistent to concede this humanism to the Xici without also conceding that its understanding of the symbols is akin to that of the linguistic turn. Finally, even regardless of this comparative framework, the Xici runs into a paradox if we read it through a copy theory of meaning, paradoxes that immediately dissolve if we read it through the paradigm of the linguistic turn.

Morphologie, Transformation und Übersetzbarkeit

The comparison of Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms and Levi-Strauss’ structural anthropology requires a clarification of their definitions of morphology, transformation and translatability. We will expose the morphological field where Cassirer’s aesthetics emerges in relation to Goethe, who represents an important source for Levi-Strauss as well. Defining the concept of transformation is supposed to follow his modifications of the key ideas of the German poet and biologist, by taking account of the new point of view provided by the theory of groups of transformation which the mathematician Felix Klein developed in the ≫circle of Erlangen ≪. Then we will show how Edgar Wind, a brilliant student of Cassirer, invents a kind of morphological aesthetics to provide art history with a methodology, and we will give some examples for the application of the concept of building series of pictures in the field of art history. We will examine the global function of the tables of Aby Warburg’s Atlas Mnemosyne, Erwin Panofsky’s wellknown iconological interpretation of Durer’s Melencolia I and then, by contrast, the creation of a virtual series of masks through an imaginative variation which Levi-Strauss creates to give sense to a particular Ameridian mask found during his investigations. Finally, we will investigate the problems appearing by the definition of transformation as translatability in both Cassirer’s and Levi-Strauss’ semiologies. We will ask for their uses of the model of translation in linguistics to compare different forms of structural homologies

Morphologie und Humanismus oder: wie man zur Katze wird

Though the relationship between Goethe, Cassirer and Levi-Strauss has been explored extensively, the focus usually lies on questions of genealogy. This article aims for a different course: Building on the notable similarities between Goethe’s discussion of morphology, Levi-Strauss’ structuralistic approach and Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms we will investigate the epistemological similarities between the three authors. They can be found in a specific form of humanism (or anti-humanism) which connects questions on the conditions of the world and its accessibility with the more global question of humankind and its place within the natural world, thus, by virtue of a specific interpretation of the concept of transformation, opening the door for new approaches which have recently been discussed as ontological turn

Do estruturalismo ao culturalismo: a filosofia das formas simbólicas de Ernest Cassirer

Resumo Ao investigar as origens neokantianas do estruturalismo e do culturalismo, este artigo analisa o desenvolvimento do pensamento de Cassirer, seguindo sua trajetória intelectual do conhecimento à cultura e da cultura à práxis. Este artigo está dividido em duas partes. Na primeira, o autor apresenta uma análise da concepção relacional do conhecimento de Cassirer. Na segunda, a crítica do conhecimento é suplantada por uma crítica da cultura. O autor analisa a filosofia antropológica das formas simbólicas e a compara criticamente com a teoria vitalista da cultura de Simmel. O artigo termina com a reivindicação por uma sociologia prática inspirada pelo retorno de Cassirer à filosofia prática de Kant.

Cassirer on Neuroscience

The aim of the present study is to determine the possibilities and limitations of the neuroscientific subject description. This provision should be formulated from an epistemological, cultural and scientific perspective. For this purpose, the thesis of the double contextuality of the neuroscientific subject description is developed. Both the research object of some neuroscientists, the subject, and the research itself are embedded in specific cultural-historical contexts. Both are shaped and determined by these contexts. At the center of these representations is Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms, because at this point it should also be examined to what extent his philosophy can be made fruitful for the question of the possibilities and limitations of brain research. This article is the summary of a larger and more detailed investigation [1].

Freedom and Culture

Through a key passage (Xici 2.2) from the Book of Changes, this paper shows that Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms shares similarities with the canonical account of symbolic formation in the Chinese tradition: the genesis of xiang (象), often translated as image or symbol. xiang became identified with the origins of culture/civilisation itself. In both cases, the world is understood as primordially (phenomenologically) meaningful; the expressiveness of the world requires a human subject to consummate it in a symbol, whilst the symbol in turn gives us access to higher orders of meaning. It is the self-conscious creation of the symbol that then allows for the higher forms of culture. For both the Xici and Cassirer, symbols and the symbolic consciousness that comes with it is the pre-condition for the freedom, ethics and the cultivation of agency. As for both the Xici and Cassirer, it is human agency that creates these symbols, it will be argued that the Xici is making a Cassirerian argument about the (ethical) relationship between human agency, symbols and ethics/freedom.

A Philosophical-Anthropological Case for Cassirer in Rhetoric

In this article we argue that Ernst Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms is an indispensible philosophical-anthropological companion to rhetoric. We propose that appropriating Cassirer's understanding of symbolic forms enables rhetoric to go beyond the dominant perspective of language oriented theory and fully commit to a widened understanding of rhetoric as the study of how social meaning is created, performed and transformed. To clearly bring out the thrust of our enlarged rhetorical-philosophical-anthropological approach we have structured our argument partly as a contrastive critique of Thomas A. Discenna's recent (Rhetorica 32/3; 2014) attempt to include Cassirer in the rhetorical tradition through a reading of the 1929 debate in Davos between Cassirer and Martin Heidegger; partly through a presentation of the aspects of Cassirer's thought that we find most important for developing a rhetorical-philosophical-anthropology of social meaning.

Символізм візуального образу в філософських концепціях Е. Кассірера та С. Лангер: культурний контекст

It’s mentioned that the European atmosphere of increased interest in the problems of symbol and symbolism in the cultural space, giving rise in the second half of the XIX century to the registration of symbolism in art direction also contributes to a number of philosophical studies to the rethinking of the functioning of the cultural sphere, as well asthe whole of human existence from the standpoint of symbolism.A powerful concept that gives us an understanding of the global symbolic basis of culture is the theory of E. Cassirer, which he outlines in his work "The Philosophy of symbolic forms", expanding these issues infurther series of works collected under the title "An Essay on Man". Cassirer’s views are one of the main methodological foundations in our research, because the human culture has deeply symbolic character and consists of various symbolic forms, among which art takes a special place. Culture is not something predetermined; it is created by a person who is gradually separated from the natural world precisely because of its ability for continuous production of symbols. Along with the myth Cassirer distinguished such symbolic forms as language, art, science, through which the essential components of the symbolic reality of man are also produced. In work "Philosophy of Symbolic Forms", the art is mentioned in the context of consideration of the specificity of these symbolic realms and researcher focuses on myth, language and the problem of scientific knowledge. The philosopher indicates the communicative function of art, which becomes extremely important in the twentieth century in the context of the active involvement of the viewer in the process of co-creation. One of the main characteristics of symbolism about art that it distinguishes the concept from the previous Cassirer's symbolic concepts, particularly medieval, in his opinion, that art is really symbolic, but the symbolism of art should be understood not in transcendental but immanent sense. S. Langer in "Philosophy in a new key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art", continuing the Cassirer's line on the recognition of the symbolic nature of human existence and the view of man as the "symbolic animal", along with an analysis of the symbolism of language, which it defines as discursive, consider the symbolism of visual forms, which he calls presentations, or re discussion, referring to him the sphere of art. Analyzed concepts demonstrate strong scientific interest to the question of symbolism in human culture, and emphasize the relevance of treatment to this issue.

Cassirer thinker of technology

Este artigo apresenta e analisa as reflexões de Ernst Cassirer, concentradas em dois textos, sobre a técnica. Para a sua compreensão começa-se por estudar a sua filosofia das formas simbólicas, mostrando a sua fidelidade ao método transcendental kantiano; considera-se depois o pensamento alemão seu contemporâneo sobre a técnica, que inscreve esta no campo da cultura. No ensaio “Forma e técnica” (1930), Cassirer analisa a essência específica da técnica enquanto forma simbólica, bem como as suas relações com as outras formas simbólicas: o mito, a arte, a ciência e o cosmo ético. No livro O mito do estado (1946), a construção da ideologia totalitária é explicada pela fusão da técnica com o mito, apresentando-se a genealogia do mito ariano e as técnicas de manipulação ao seu serviço. Cassirer dá-nos uma visão dramática do campo da cultura, a qual difere da do pessimismo da perspectiva trágica de Simmel, afirmando que a missão da filosofia é a de ser uma consciência lógica da cultura, simultaneamente sabendo-se colocar contra e para além dos tempos

KASIREROVO RAZUMEVANJE KULTURE. Filozofija simboličkih oblika kao filozofija kulture

<p>Kasirerovo razumevanje kulture u ovom radu razmatra se s obzirom na celokupni okvir njegove filozofije, odnosno s obzirom na njegovo centralno mesto unutar tog okvira. Pojam kulture pokazuje se kao mesto sistemskog jedinstva Kasirerovog projekta filozofije simboličkih oblika, shvaćene kao filozofija kulture. U tom kontekstu pojam kulture analizira se u pogledu njegove veze sa pojmom simboličkih oblika, odnosno s obzirom na mogućnost njihove adekvatne teorijske obrade, za koju se ispostavlja da je ostvariva jedino kao filozofija kulture.</p>

Could Perspective Ever be a Symbolic Form?

ABSTRACTErwin Panofsky's essay “Perspective as Symbolic Form” from 1924 is among the most widely commented essays in twentieth-century aesthetics and was discussed with regard to art theory, Renaissance painting, Western codes of depiction, history of optical devices, psychology of perception, or even ophthalmology. Strangely enough, however, almost nothing has been written about the philosophical claim implicit in the title, i.e. that perspective is a symbolic form among others. The article situates the essay within the intellectual constellation at Aby Warburg's Kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliothek in Hamburg, and analyzes the role of Ernst Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms for the members of the Warburg circle. Does perspective meet the requirements for becoming a further “symbolic form,” beyond those outlined by Cassirer? The article argues that, ultimately, perspective cannot possibly be a symbolic form; not because it does not meet Cassirer's philosophical requirements, but rather, because that would uproot Cassirer's overall project. While revisiting Panofsky with Cassirer unearths the wide-raging philosophical implication of the essay, revisiting Cassirer with Panofsky means to highlight the fundamentally perspectival nature of all symbolic forms.