The constitutive functions of symbolic forms of culture E. Cassirer

Details
Category: Uncategorised

author: Olena Yatsenko

Urgency of the research. The problem of philosophical comprehension of the phenomenon of culture in different variations and methodologies is invariably presented in the worldview discourse. Especially when the nature of the existence of culture becomes problematic and crisis. In such cases, it is advisable to verify the mechanisms of culture, to analyze the procedures of its (culture) formation and dynamics. E. Cassirer was, if not the first, but the most famous author, who unambiguously noted the attribution of human essence and existence in the space of symbolic forms of culture. Thus, culture has acquired the necessary legitimization for the ascertainment techniques of thinking, perception and activity. Are there any reasons to consider these processes as spontaneous and variational, or rather causal and universal? In the context of the increasing pace of globalization and the mass of post-colonial critics, this problem is of particular importance and meaning.

Target setting. The main problem of the study is the answer to the question: are epistemological, axiological, and activity constructs of human subjectivity universal and invariant in historical and cultural retrospective, or their content determined by the appropriate socio-cultural context of formation and sustainability?

Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. E. Cassirer's works are of constant interest from scientists of various fields of knowledge and specificity of research. In the philosophical aspect, the works of K. Swasyan, A. Losev, Yu. Lotman, V. Bibler and others on the study, interpretation and analytics of the system of understanding of the world and a human by E. Cassirer became already a textbook. So, Jeremy Heis (2011) considers the method of symbolic forms in the philosophy of mathematics of E. Cassirer one of the most meaningful in view of the criticism of Euclidean geometry. Christine Ludl (2015) refers to a methodology for the study of the facts and artifacts of E. Cassierer's culture, which insisted on the constitutive nature of perception and thinking. This idea is supported by Emmanuel Alloa (2015), who analyzes the problem of the perspective of perception and assessment of reality. S. Gayevska (2015) seeks to elucidate patterns of human understanding through the prism of symbolic forms that are the "morphology" of the spirit. Minakov M. (2006) insists on the importance of the historical tradition in forming the foundations of thinking and knowing the world. Jon Solomon (2009) explores the problem of narrative on the basis of theoretical concepts of E. Cassierer's philosophy and contemporary processes of globalization. The problem of interaction between cultures and different worldviews is explored by Stephan Steiner (2015). Oli Belas (2018) criticizes educational practices based solely on the concept of knowledge. The author applies the philosophy of E. Cassirer's symbolic forms in order to illustrate the connection between knowledge and time. I. Victor (2018) applies the epistemological methodology of E. Cassirer's research to the study of the specifications of Ukrainian culture.

The research objective. Appeal to the philosophical heritage of E. Cassirer is productive in exploring the problem of universality / contextuality of the basic procedures of thinking, perception and human activity. In other words, do symbolic forms really shape subjectivity, or do they just sort out the chaos of empirical perception?

The statement of basic material. The main instrument of human interaction with the world is called by Cassirer as symbol. It is the ability of a person to create and operate with symbols, that the thinker attributes as a significant feature of the human essence. Character of creation is not representative of human activity in reality, but constitutive. In other words, the person does not reflect the objects and processes of the world in consciousness, and the consciousness itself projects a certain symbolic meaning of reality. The symbol outlines of the procedure for defining an object or phenomenon, and in this its transcendental nature. All symbolic forms differ in their specificity (meaningful, expressive-representational, logical-verbal, etc.), but they all have a similar structure. The structure of the symbolic form is differentiated by the type of connection between speculative and empirical, and includes expression (perception), representation (contemplation), pure meaning (concept). That is, the formation of a corpus of culture occurs as a dialectical process of abstracting information of empirical experience, which in turn is determined by abstract symbolic forms. Indicative in this respect is the postulation that not individual pieces of empiricism are compared, but abstract forms denoting and defining perception. This act occurs at the stage of transformation of perception into imagination.

Conclusions. The symbol is a substitute for things, and not burdened by the causality of the material world, potentially unlimited in the possibilities of definition, even that does not exist. Language, myth, religion, art, science - all these forms are only conditionally related to the world of things, and they do not need such attribution to justify their ontology. It is well known that the phenomenon of culture is permanently at the epicenter of critical philosophical discourse. The currency range of interpretations of the purpose and content of culture varies from fascinating-approving theories (F.-M. Voltaire, F. Fichte) to the shattering critique of its influence and subsequent fate (J.-J. Rousseau, F. Nietzsche). It is undoubtedly a fact that culture produces its own ontology other than natural. And a person loses both his natural instincts and absolutism of vital values. And it is natural that the gap between the marking and the marked will increase rapidly.

Key words: symbol, subjectivity, symbolic form, transcendence, ontology.

References:

  1. Viktor, I., 2018. ‘Filosofsʹki vymiry symvoliky ukrayinsʹkoyi tradytsiyi : symvolika pryrodnoho i sotsiokulʹturnoho v folʹklori (Philosophical Dimensions of the Symbolism of the Ukrainian Tradition : Symbolism of the Natural and Socio-Cultural in Folklore)’, Visnyk Kharkivsʹkoho natsionalʹnoho universytetu imeni V. N. Karazina, Seriya «Teoriya kulʹtury i filosofiya nauky», (58), S. 112-118. (DOI : DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/2306-6687-2018-58-19).
  2. Hayevsʹka, SR., 2015. ‘Lyudyna v paradyhmi «symvolichnykh form» E. Kasirera ()’, Visnyk Cherkasʹkoho universytetu, № 11 (344), S. 77-83.
  3. YeGU, 2001. ‘Davosskaya diskussiya mezhdu E.Cassirerom i M.Khaydeggerom (Davos Discussion between E. Cassirer and M. Heidegger)’, Issledovaniya po fenomenologii i filosofskoy germenevtike, Minsk : YeGU, S. 124-134.
  4. Cassirer, E., 1998. ‘Izbrannoye. Opyt o cheloveke (Favorites. The Experience of Man)’, M. : Gardariki, 784 s.
  5. Cassirer, E., 2006. ‘Poznaniye i deystvitel'nost' (Cognition and Reality)’, M. : Gnozis, 400 s.
  6. Cassirer, E., 2002. ‘Filosofiya simvolicheskikh form : v 3 t. (Philosophy of symbolic forms: in 3 vol.)’, M.; SPb. : Universitetskaya kniga, 280 s.
  7. Minakov, MA., 2006. ‘Ponyattya prafenomeniv ta kulʹturnoho dosvidu u filosofiyi E. Cassirera (The Concept of Trade-Offs and Cultural Experience in the Philosophy of E. Cassirer)’, Mulʹtyversum : filosofsʹkyy alʹmanakh, NAN Ukrayiny, In-t filosof. im. H.S. Skovorody, Vyp. 54, Kyyiv : Ukrayinsʹkyy Tsentr dukhovnoyi kulʹtury, S. 111-122.
  8. Svas'yan, K., 1980. ‘Problema simvola v sovremennoy filosofii (Kritika i analiz) (The Problem of Symbol in Modern Philosophy (Criticism and Analysis))’, Yer. : Izd-vo AN ArmSSR, 224 s.
  9. Soboleva, ME., 2001. ‘Filosofiya simvolicheskikh form E. Kassirera. Genezis. Osnovnyye ponyatiya. Kontekst (Philosophy of Symbolic Forms of E. Cassirer. Genesis. Basic Concepts. Context)’, SPb. : Izd.-vo SPbGU, 180 s.
  10. Alloa, E., 2015. ‘Could Perspective Ever be a Symbolic Form? Revisiting Panofsky with Cassirer’, Journal of Aesthetics and Phenomenology, Volume 2, Issue 1. P. 51-71. (DOI : DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20539320.2015.11428459).
  11. Belas, O., 2018. ‘Education, knowledge, and symbolic form’, Oxford Review of Education, Volume 44, Issue 3, P. 291-306. (DOI : DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2017.1389711).
  12. Heis, J., 2011. ‘Ernst Cassirer's Neo-Kantian Philosophy of Geometry’, British Journal for the History of Philosophy, Volume 19, Issue 4, P. 759-794. (DOI : DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2011.583421).
  13. Krois, JM., 2004. ‘Why Did Cassirer und Heidegger Not Debate in Davos?’, Simbolic Forms and Culteral Studies : Ernst Cassirer's Theory of Culture, New Haven; London : Yale University Press, 177 p.
  14. Ludl, C., 2015. ‘Objet et processus de recherche : Méthodologie et épistémologie du concept de représentation(s) (Object and Process of Research : Methodology and Epistemology of the Concept of Representation)’, Méthod(e)s : African Review of Social Sciences Methodology.. Volume 1, Issue 1-2 : Weak Theory, Bad Data? Heuristic Roles and Practical Limits in Fieldwork/Faible théorie, faibles données ? Rôles heuristiques et limites pratiques des concepts dans le travail de terrain, P. 91-110. (DOI : DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/23754745.2015.1017278).
  15. Paetzold, HE., 1995. ‘Ernst Cassirer. Von Marburg nach New York (Ernst Cassirer. From Marburg to New York)’, Eine philosophische Biographie, Darmstadt, 240 p.
  16. Skidelsky, E., 2008. ‘Ernst Cassirer : the last philosopher of culture’, Princeton, NJ [u.a.] : Princeton Univ. Press, 304 p.
  17. Solomon, J., 2009. ‘The proactive echo : Ernst Cassirer's The Myth of the State and the biopolitics of global English’, Translation Studies, Volume 2, Issue 1 : The Translational Turn, P. 52-70. (DOI : DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700802496258).
  18. Steiner, S., 2015. ‘The Relevance of Cassirer and the Rewriting of Intellectual History’, History of European Ideas, Volume 41, Issue 4 : Peter E. Gordon’s Continental Divide : Heidegger, Cassirer, Davos. P. 447-453. (DOI : DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/01916599.2014.980055).