Simon Truwant

This special issue focuses on two related topics in Ernst Cassirer’s thought: objectivity and truth. Through this lens, the guest editors attempt to illuminate (a) the historical and systematic value of Cassirer’s philosophical project, (b) the continuing relevance of his account of the plurality and universality of human understanding in view of the crisis of truth that currently permeates Western culture, and (c) the way Cassirer’s style can inspire contemporary scholars who wish to evade the analytic-continental divide. Tobias Endres and Simon Truwant gathered twelve contributions from more analytic oriented authors from the philosophy of science and more continental oriented authors from the philosophy of culture. By bringing these scholars together on a shared topic, they hope to help bridging this divide that is also reflected within Cassirer scholarship by preoccupation with either his philosophy of science or philosophy of culture. The articles in this special issue are preceded by a ceremonial speech that Cassirer gave on the occasion of his assumption of the rectorate of the University of Hamburg on November 7, 1929 and that was translated into English for the first time by the guest editors.

This special issue focuses on two related topics in Ernst Cassirer’s thought: objectivity and truth. Through this lens, the guest editors attempt to illuminate (a) the historical and systematic value of Cassirer’s philosophical project, (b) the continuing relevance of his account of the plurality and universality of human understanding in view of the crisis of truth that currently permeates Western culture, and (c) the way Cassirer’s style can inspire contemporary scholars who wish to evade the analytic-continental divide. Tobias Endres and Simon Truwant gathered twelve contributions from more analytic oriented authors from the philosophy of science and more continental oriented authors from the philosophy of culture. By bringing these scholars together on a shared topic, they hope to help bridging this divide that is also reflected within Cassirer scholarship by preoccupation with either his philosophy of science or philosophy of culture. The articles in this special issue are preceded by a ceremonial speech that Cassirer gave on the occasion of his assumption of the rectorate of the University of Hamburg on November 7, 1929 and that was translated into English for the first time by the guest editors.

The 1929 encounter between Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger in Davos, Switzerland is considered one of the most important intellectual debates of the twentieth century and a founding moment of continental philosophy. At the same time, many commentators have questioned the philosophical profundity and coherence of the actual debate. In this book, the first comprehensive philosophical analysis of the Davos debate, Simon Truwant challenges these critiques. He argues that Cassirer and Heidegger's disagreement about the meaning of Kant's philosophy is motivated by their different views about the human condition, which in turn are motivated by their opposing conceptions of what the task of philosophy ultimately should be. Truwant shows that Cassirer and Heidegger share a grand philosophical concern: to comprehend and aid the human being's capacity to orient itself in and towards the world.

This is the first comprehensive volume in English on Cassirer's philosophy for over seventy years. Eleven leading Cassirer scholars address all of the key aspects of Cassirer's multi-faceted thought and situate them in the wider context of his philosophy of culture. Their essays demonstrate the depth and richness of a philosophical enterprise that still awaits recognition as one of the most original contributions to twentieth-century philosophy. Interpreting Cassirer will prove invaluable not only for Cassirer scholars and researchers of early twentieth-century philosophy, but also for scholars of the philosophy of culture, language, science, art, history, and mind.

This paper argues that Cassirer’s development of ‘the critique of reason into a critique of culture’ was prompted by two motives that ultimately seem to collide. On the one hand, Cassirer attempts to overcome the Kantian dichotomy between the faculties of sensibility and the understanding. To this end, he turns to the schemata of the Critique of Judgment. On the other hand, Cassirer expands the scope of transcendental philosophy to include cultural domains such as myth, language, and the human sciences. His desire to maintain both the differences between these domains and the unity of reason however leads to a new dualism between the material modalities of the symbols and their ideal, recurring, forms. Yet, by adopting both a constitutive and a regulative conception of objectivity, Cassirer renders this duality legitimate, and his motives for a philosophy of culture on a Kantian foundation compatible.

Since the publication of The Metaphysics of Symbolic Forms, scholars have insisted that Cassirer’s account of human consciousness can only be found in this posthumous ‘fourth volume of the philosophy of symbolic forms.’ I will argue, however, that Cassirer’s philosophy of culture was already from the beginning essentially also a philosophy of the human being: as I see it, Cassirer consistently holds a ‘functional conception of human consciousness’ that can serve as a foundational element of his thought precisely by remaining in the background of his writings. In his published works, Cassirer adopts Natorp’s reconstructive approach to consciousness within the framework of his philosophy of culture. On this basis, he develops a transcendental, ‘functional’, conception of subjectivity that forms the exact counterpart of his view of objectivity. Cassirer’s metaphysics translates this conception in the language of his contemporaries, but does not substantially alter it.

Both Kant and Levinas state that traditional ontology is a type of philosophy that illegitimately forces the structure of human reason onto other beings, thus making the subject the center and origin of all meaning. Kant’s critique of the ontology of his scholastic predecessors is well known. For Levinas, however, it does not suffice. He rejects what we could call an ‘existential ontology’: a self-centered way of living as a whole, of which all philosophical ontology is but a branch. Alternatively, he presents an ethical way of living centered on ‘the Other’. Kant also, however, eventually turns to ethics to uncover a more fundamental domain of meaning. Hence, both thinkers ultimately agree about the primacy of ethics over theory. Despite this concurrence, Levinas nevertheless criticizes all aspects of Kant’s turn towards ethics: his reason for making this turn, the kind of critique that he applies to this domain, and the outcome thereof. These three points reflect Levinas’ more general critique t..