Tobias Endres

In the current philosophy of perception, a debate about whether concepts permeate perceptual states in constituting the perceptual object or not has been widely discussed. Analytic philosophers and phenomenologists participate in this debate likewise, but it is also a debate in Kantian scholarship since the conceptualists’ thesis goes back to Kant’s Criticism and neo-Kantians already discussing such theory against any philosophy of immediate experience long before Wilfrid Sellars had started his attack against the so-called myth of the given. In light of this historical panorama, the article reconstructs Ernst Cassirer’s views on perception in order to systematically reject both Conceptualism and Non-Conceptualism. It can be shown that both positions are uncritical stances which make claims to either the absoluteness of language or perception and that much-discussed arguments such as the fineness of grain argument rely on a category mistake. The proposed solution is a view that upholds the criticism against the myth of the given, but replaces the idea of a conceptual mediation of perceptual experience with a symbolic mediation. As a consequence, perception must perform a paradoxical feat and has thus to be elastic.

Negativity is a crucial term in Classical German Philosophy. Whilst for Fichte the negation of the ‘I’ is constitutive for self-consciousness and Schelling terms transcendental philosophy “negative philosophy,” the full-blown concept of the negative arises in Hegel’s thought. In recent Cassirer scholarship, we witness a new endorsement of Hegelian interpretations of Cassirer’s works that are methodological in the sense of Hegel’s dialectic. Hegel’s impact on Cassirer has been noticed from the first wave of his reception in the US onward and has been investigated in comparison with the impact of Kant more than once throughout the ongoing global “Cassirer-renaissance”. The attempt to actually read Cassirer through the eyes of Hegel is, however, a rather new phenomenon. In Hegel, the concept of the negative is significant in regard to the concept of reality, the concept of (in)finity, the concept of subjectivity and the concept of relatedness. But first and foremost–and this will be decisive in this paper–the negative, in the form of the concept of negation, plays a major role in Hegel’s dialectic method. It is on this point that this paper will question the legitimacy of such strong Hegelian readings of Cassirer’s main works.

This paper defends the idea that Cassirer's methodology is idealistic in regard to validity claims and the structuralist views he holds and at the same time empiric in regard to the facts and genealogy of culture. This perspective is best to be unfolded along Cassirer's model of representation. The author does so by showing that Cassirer's triad of symbolic articulation (expressive, presentational, significative) and the triad of symbolic development (mimetic, analogical, symbolic) form a coherent and exhaustive theory of symbolic formation. In order to defend this view, two main objections from the secondary literature against the consistency of this essential theory piece of The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms have to be rejected.

The aim of the paper is to highlight a hidden reception of Ernst Cassirer’s works in the writings of Wilfrid Sellars. To set out such reception, I will begin with defining criteria that allow us to point out a possible influence from one thinker on another. In a second step, I will present several links between the set-out criteria and the constellation Sellars-Cassirer. Finally, the Cassirer Lectures Series at Yale, Sellars’ review of Language and Myth as well as Sellars’ lecture Philosophy and the Scientific Image of Man will serve as at the basis for an analysis of historical and systematic connections between Cassirer and Sellars. The conclusion will show that we actually can speak of a hidden influence from Cassirer on Sellars’ thought and that philosophical desiderata remain in this context which are worth to explore even today.

The article examines Cassirer's complete works as well as his posthumous writings with regard to Heinz Paetzold's thesis that Cassirer's philosophy undergoes a transformation to anthropology in his late work as well as Guido Kreis' thesis that such a transformation of the philosophy of symbols is not possible because it cannot guarantee its own ground. The author demonstrates a continuity in Cassirer's thinking with regard to the topic of anthropology, according to which Cassirer has been dealing with the problem of a metaphysics of the symbolic since at least 1921 and already in 1928 makes an initial determination of man as a being capable of form. The resumption of the anthropological question occurs in 1939 and is in clear continuity with the previous works. The reconstruction of the genesis of An Essay on Man (1944) that follows on from this finally reveals a hitherto well-kept secret of Cassirer-research, namely an answer to the question of why history first appears as a symbolic form in Cassirer's last published work.

O artigo examina os trabalhos completos de Cassirer, assim como seus escritos póstumos com relação à tese de Heinz Paetzold de que a filosofia de Cassirer sofre uma transformação em direção à antropologia em seu trabalho tardio, assim como a tese de Guido Kreis de que tal transformação da filosofia dos símbolos não é possível porque não pode garantir seu próprio fundamento. O autor demonstra uma continuidade no pensamento de Cassirer com relação ao tema da antropologia, segundo a qual Cassirer vem lidando com o problema de uma metafísica do simbólico desde pelo menos 1921 e já em 1928 faz uma determinação inicial do homem como um ser capaz de forma. A retomada da questão antropológica ocorre em 1939 e está em clara continuidade com os trabalhos anteriores. A reconstrução da gênese de _Ensaio sobre o homem_ que se segue revela finalmente um segredo até então bem guardado da pesquisa de Cassirer, ou seja, uma resposta à questão de por que a história aparece pela primeira vez como uma forma simbólica na última obra publicada por Cassirer.

Auf die Frage „Was ist Wahrnehmung und welche Rolle spielt sie für die Objektivität der Erfahrung?“ hätte Ernst Cassirer vermutlich schlicht geantwortet: „Wahrnehmung ist eine erste Form objektiver Erfahrung.“ Tobias Endres macht es sich zur Aufgabe, Cassirers „Philosophie der symbolischen Formen“ einer Neu- und Gesamtinterpretation zu unterziehen und sie als eine „Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung“ auszulegen. In Auseinandersetzung mit klassischen und gegenwärtigen Wahrnehmungstheorien wie der Sinnesdatentheorie, dem Disjunktivismus oder dem Enaktivismus gelingt es dem Autor, die Aktualität und Originalität solch einer phänomenologischen Wahrnehmungstheorie aufzuzeigen.

What are the Objects of Perception? Ernst Cassirer’s Response to Analytic Theories of Perception. On the basis of its third volume, the Phenomenology of Knowledge (1929), Cassirer’s principal work, the Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923-29), can be read as a phenomenology of perception. That is to say, Cassirer not only starts from the fact of multiple forms of cultural expression to reconstruct their transcendental conditions of objectification, but at once to trace their underlying forms of perceptive subjectivity. Hence, a holistic theory of subjective and objective spirit, to which Cassirer’s philosophy boils down, moves between exactly those two poles of perception and cultural expression. Starting from this interpretation, the article asks for the possibility to contribute to criticism towards recent theories of perception within the tradition of analytic philosophy. At the heart of things is the question: what should we actually conceive as the objects of perception? Inmost of its debates, analytic philosophy finds itself in the stranglehold of an internalism-externalism- dichotomy, that rests upon an unsettled understanding of objectivity. By contrast, Cassirer’s understanding of objectivity as objectification allows us to reformulate the question of the objects of perception, and hence to undermine the above dichotomy. The main points of reference of the critical examination are Peter Strawson’s Perception and its Objects (1979) and Tim Crane’s What is the Problem of Perception (2005). It will be shown that the foundation of Cassirer’s theory of perception, the distinction between perception of things and perception of expression, provides exactly the critical capability to move on from Crane’s contemporary diagnosed unsatisfactory alternative between disjunctivism and intentionalism which amounts to a new version of the controversy between direct realism and sense-data-theories in the twentieth century. Cassirer’s theory enables one to reconcile the directedness of perception with the representational capacities of the human mind.

Das Potenzial der Philosophie Ernst Cassirers ist keinesfalls erschöpft, sondern vielmehr in systematischer, transdisziplinärer und gesellschaftlich relevanter Perspektive anschlussfähig, um Fragestellungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie und der Wissenschaften zu begegnen. Die Cassirer-Rezeption befindet sich in dieser Hinsicht an der Schwelle des Eintritts in eine neue Phase, die im Lichte eines ‚Neulesens‘ sowie einer zunehmend globalen Vernetzung betrachtet werden kann. Von der Wissensforschung und Wahrnehmungstheorie über neue Gebiete symbolischer Formung wie Film, Geld und Virtualität bis zum spannungsreichen Verhältnis zwischen Demokratie und Mythos: Die Beiträge des Bandes verstehen sich als Aktualisierung von Cassirers Philosophie der Kultur- und Wissensformen im 21. Jahrhundert.