Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945)

Read in fits & starts over two years, so: lost the line of argument, but left with a strong impression of both wide-ranging erudition and theoretical depth. Cassirer's epistemological project strives to trace the root of culture to a mythic consciousness, adopting portions of Schelling's account of myth and Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit.

Next reading should focus on answering:

1 - Did Cassirer personally recover the Mythic Consciousness, or are his descriptions wholly reflective of show more secondary accounts? (Assuming it is even possible personally to recover a mythic consciousness.)
Primary sources from the Warburg Library in Hamburg, prior to its relocation to London (now part of Univ of London). The collection's focus being "the influence of antiquity on modern culture" (Wikipedia), organised along a unique classification system which "makes inspired connections between different fields of endeavour and study" (Warburg Institute).

2 - Any corroboration for his account?
Specifically within the anthropological literature or evolutionary biology. Without it, it's an interesting synthesis of material, but does not establish its validity. It is unclear whether the argument is based solely in phylogeny or whether aspects apply to ontogeny, e.g. whether an individual's development of a sense of self follows some stage of mythic consciousness.

3 - How does this argument fit into / rely upon his arguments set forth in earlier volumes on symbolic forms (thought)?
The key similarity of methodology: Cassirer focuses not upon the content of myth but on forms myths take in consciousness, the force they have, the way they are believed as intensely as 'objective reality' is believed. [5] He seeks a 'third way' of investigating mythological form: not its absolute / metaphysical basis (Idealism) nor from the perspective of social psychology (Ethnic Psychology), but "a critical analysis of consciousness" (Structuralism, Phenomenology). [10]

Basic myths are not a mere reflection of reality but a creative collaboration between self and reality; language confronts 'impressions' of reality with force of active 'expression'. Yet this dynamic occurs prior to the evolution of the conscious "I", so myths appear to consciousness as "objectively real". [24] And key is that mythical signs are different from signs of objective reality (e.g. from the mental experience of a stone or tree) in being spiritual not empirical, and so hold out potential for dissolution via a spiritual process, unlike empirical signs. And this process does, in fact, emerge "in the process from the magical-mythical world view to the truly religious view". [25]

4 - Does Cassirer's analysis imply a normative evolution from mythic consciousness to religious consciousness, or rather are they merely different perspectives, each with different advantages / disadvantages?
I presume we lose a specific connection to the material world when separate from a mythic consciousness, but not that it is on all accounts superior to the modern Cartesian outlook (or any of the presumably infinite possible manifestations of consciousness). But perhaps we may not pick and choose, or switch between, so much as find one to live into / within.

Need to integrate Cassirer's argument here and in Symbolic Forms generally, to his take in Essay on Man (a summary of the former?) and The Myth of the State (in which the rise of Nazism is taken as a case example of mythic consciousness at work?). show less

This book is a fascinating introduction not just to the "Renaissance philosophy of man" (as the title has it) but to Renaissance philosophy in general. The introductions to each piece presented are excellent and informative; I was particularly impressed with the editors' linking of the Renaissance with the developments of the Middle Ages which produced the movement, factors too often overlooked and too great to be missed. The pieces selected are simply amazing. Pico della Mirandola's show more "Oration on the Dignity of Man" has been one of my favorite pieces of writing in all of history (not just the Renaissance) since the first time I read it. It was illuminating to be able to see it placed within the context of the spectrum and historical development of Medieval and Renaissance thought, to see where his ideas came from and where they led to in the minds and hands of others. I recommend this book for anyone interested in the Renaissance, anyone interested in filling in the gap between Medieval and Enlightenment philosophy, and anyone interested in being a human being. show less

This is a great selection of shorter works by some of the major Renaissance philosophers and humanists. There is both an excellent general introduction by Kristeller and Randall as well as introductions to the different authors and their works by the translators or by the editors. Petrarca's On His Own Ignorance and That of Many Others is a fascinating and entertaining piece of invective where he gives a broadside to the four Venetian Averroists that had slandered him. His Ascent of Mont show more Ventoux is also included along with some excerpts from letters which gives a broader context to the first two works. While all the different introductions are both interesting and useful, I very much appreciated Charles Trinkaus' very sober introduction to his own translation of Valla's Dialogue on Free Will. Turning to the Platonists, both Ficino's Five Questions Concerning the Mind and Pico's Oration on the Dignity of Man are fantastic reading. And as for Pico's "manifesto", it was a joy to finally get to read it after having seen it referenced so often; it's truly remarkable that it should have been written at such a young age. The erudite Pomponazzi represents the Aristotelians and does so with flair in his On the Immortality of the Soul – I guess that to fully appreciate all of it you really need to know your Aristotle from your Averroes, along with your Thomas and your Alexander, and indeed your Plato well (or actually take the time to look up all the references, which would perhaps take up half a lifetime of study) but trudging through the first part was well rewarded – his writing gets less convoluted further on in this treatise. The last work in this book, A Fable About Man by the Spaniard Vives, is an enjoyable read which shows the influence of humanist thought outside Italy. The selections in this volume serves both to bring together and to contrast the three major currents of this time period: classical humanism, Platonism and Aristotelianism. Whether your main interest is literature or philosophy, there surely is no better way to get well acquainted with early Renaissance thought and the individual philosophers and authors than to read their own words.




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. show less

Prior to actually buying a couple used books by Cassirer, I had somehow come under the impression that he was a logical positivist, and had been a member of Schlick's Vienna Circle--he was of course nothing of the sort, though I have no other way of classifying him (not necessarily a bad thing).
This small, pleasing-to-read volume consists of two essays, the first presenting Cassirer's thoughts on the intellectual relationship between Rousseau and Kant, the second on Kant and Goethe.

Not show more being having read enough Rousseau or nearly enough Goethe, I can't really make any strong claims for the validity of Cassirer's interpretations, though they are compelling. The essay on Rousseau and Kant I found particularly interesting, because of Cassirer's claim that Kant understood Rousseau better than most modern critics, who too often elevate one aspect of Rousseau's admittedly tangled corpus against the others, coming up with a one-sided and even caricatured picture of the man whose book Emile was purportedly the only thing that ever caused Kant to miss his morning walk.

One side note: there was a, to my mind, strange translation of a famous Kantian phrase, here rendered as Kant having had to "destroy knowledge to make room for faith". I've only ever heard the more common "limit knowledge to make room for faith" which strikes me as more plausible, given that nowhere else in his work does Kant give the impression of having seen himself as a "destroyer" of knowledge. show less