Language as Symbolic Form in Ernst Cassirer

2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
Claudiu Baciu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Ernst Cassirer

How Cassirer explains myth and other symbolic forms through semiotic functions

Semiotica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (233) ◽  
pp. 125-144
Author(s):  
Masoud Algooneh Juenghani
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Evolution ◽  
Specific Form ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Ernst Cassirer ◽  
Symbolic Forms ◽  
Philosophy Of Culture ◽  
Independent Functions ◽  
Theoretical Assumptions ◽  
The World

AbstractErnst Cassirer (1874–1945), Neo-Kantian philosopher of Marburg school, studies myth as a component of symbolic forms. He considers myth as the cornerstone of philosophy of culture as well as the source of such other forms as language, religion, art and science. Cassirer, applying an epistemological approach towards myths and other realms of human culture, argues that human beings experience the world through a mediated process. Of course, this mediated encounter with the world has different aspects in the evolving course of culture. These aspects are completely dependent upon the symbolic form through which man experiences his world. However, it seems what Cassirer puts forth as an explanation of the cultural evolution of mankind is basically influenced by his semiotic viewpoints. Therefore, the present article tries to find the theoretical resources of Cassirer’s thought and analyze his reasoning in this regard. Emphasizing Cassirer’s theoretical assumptions as well as his methodology, we have tried to better understand his claims about myth and other symbolic forms. It has been revealed that Cassirer’s theory is mainly shaped by his particular models of semiotic functions. Analyzing the semiotic functions of each specific form indicates that Cassirer has differentiated three independent functions. Each of these functions works on an expressive, Ausdrucken. representative, Darstellungen. or signifying Bedeutungen. basis and is respectively correspondent with myth, language, and science.

Der Bildungswert der Kunst: Cassirer und Tolstoj

2009 ◽  
Vol 2009 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-208
Author(s):  
Jörn Bohr
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Background ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Ernst Cassirer ◽  
Educational Value ◽  
Unpublished Works

In editing the hitherto unpublished works of Ernst Cassirer often new questions emerge. One of these questions is the following: Why does Cassirer mention Tolstoy in arguing about art as a symbolic form? By discussing the theoretical background of this question and the educational value of art a deeper insight on the relation of art and freedom will be the consequence.

scholarly journals The Mythical Foundation of Money and its Early Moments of Abstraction. Connections Between Georg Simmel and Ernst Cassirer

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 73-98
Author(s):  
Timo Klattenhoff
Keyword(s):  
Abstract Thinking ◽  
Georg Simmel ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Ernst Cassirer ◽  
Symbolic Forms ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Philosophy Of Symbolic Forms

Are there similarities between Georg Simmel's concept of money in its early stages and Ernst Cassirer's works on myth as a symbolic form? To answer this question, this paper discusses parts of Simmel's “Philosophy of Money” and Cassirer's “Philosophy of Symbolic Forms”: By showing how primeval use of objects which carry monetary characteristics can be parallelized with ways of mythic world interpretation, similarities between Simmel's and Cassirer's arguments can be highlighted. It is not only the mind, which gains the ability of abstract thinking their examples and concepts point to, but also an idea of culture, which reflects this development.

Θεωρία in Ancient Greek Exegetical Literature

2020 ◽  
pp. 85-104
Author(s):  
Борис Тимофеев
Keyword(s):  
Mystical Experience ◽  
Near East ◽  
Literary Form ◽  
Traditional View ◽  
Ancient Greek ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Near Eastern ◽  
The World ◽  
Genesis 1 ◽  
Book Of Genesis

Современная научная богословская мысль склонна к унификации терминов и явлений в сфере своих компетенций. Эта тенденция в современных исследованиях в некоторых случаях распространяется и на древние христианские памятники. Так, например, слово θεωρία многие учёные определяют как мистический метод духовного толкования Священного Писания. Это определение нередко применяется в качестве универсального технического определения при анализе экзегетических произведений древних авторов. При этом игнорируется узус самих экзегетов, которые употребляют это слово в иных значениях. В рамках данной статьи предпринимается попытка выявить и показать основные значения слова θεωρία в древней греческой экзегетической литературе. The article deals with the theology, composition and literary form of the narrations which constitute the prologue part of the book of Genesis (1, 1-11, 26). During the second half of the 19th and at the turn of the 20th cent., following the emergence of the Documentary hypothesis as well as the comparison of the Holy Scripture with the newly-discovered literary monuments of Ancient Near East, the greater part of the narrations that constitute the Prologue were labeled myths and ancient Hebrew folklore (J. Wellhausen, H. Gunkel, J. Frazer). In addition to the then detected Near Eastern parallels, this new attitude towards the narrations of the Prologue was fostered by its lack of a clearly expressed historical dedication and the symbolic form of their exposition. Defending the traditional view of the Prologue as sacred history and prophetic revelation, bishop Kassian (Bezobrazov) proposed to consider all the biblical narrations that contain theophanies as metahistorical. Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov, A. F. Losev and B. P. Vysheslavtsev, who analyzed the phenomenon of myth-making, called the Biblical narration of the origins of the world a myth, but in a sense different from that proposed by Gunkel and Frazer. They have founded a new and positive conception according to which a myth is not fi but rather a kind of reality based upon mystical experience. The author of the article analyzes each of the terms enumerated - «history», «myth», «metahistory» - in their use relating them to the Prologue; he also examines the possibility of their harmonizing with the traditional ecclesiastical view of this part of the book of Genesis.

Prologue to Genesis (1, 1-11, 26): Prophetic Revelation, History, Myth or Metahistory?

2020 ◽  
pp. 17-46
Author(s):  
Михаил Анатольевич Скобелев
Keyword(s):  
Mystical Experience ◽  
Near East ◽  
Literary Form ◽  
Traditional View ◽  
Ancient Near East ◽  
Symbolic Form ◽  
Near Eastern ◽  
The World ◽  
Genesis 1 ◽  
Book Of Genesis

В статье рассматриваются богословие, композиция и литературная форма сюжетов, входящих в состав Пролога книги Бытия (1, 1-11, 26). Во второй половине XIX - начале XX вв. в результате появления Документальной гипотезы и сопоставления Священного Писания с литературными памятниками Древнего Ближнего Востока большая часть сюжетов, составляющих Пролог, была объявлена мифами и древнееврейским фольклором (Ю. Велльгаузен, Г. Гунекель, Дж. Фрезер). Кроме выявленных ближневосточных параллелей, новому отношению к повествованиям Пролога книги Бытия способствовали: отсутствие в нём ясно выраженной исторической задачи и символичность изложения. Защищая традиционный взгляд на Пролог как на священную историю и пророческое откровение, епископ Кассиан (Безобразов) предложил рассматривать все библейские сюжеты, содержащие теофанию, как метаисторию. Протоиерей Сергий Булгаков, А. Ф. Лосев, Б. П. Вышеславцев, занимавшиеся феноменом мифотворчества, назвали библейское повествование о начале мироздания мифом, но в ином смысле, чем это делали Г. Гункель и Дж. Фрезер. Они обосновали новый положительный взгляд, согласно которому миф не есть выдумка или фантазия, а реальность, основанная на мистическом опыте. В статье анализируется каждый из перечисленных терминов: «история», «миф», «метаистория» применительно к Прологу, а также рассматривается возможность их согласования с традиционным церковным взглядом на эту часть книги Бытия. The article deals with the theology, composition and literary form of the narrations which constitute the prologue part of the book of Genesis (1, 1-11, 26). During the second half of the 19th and at the turn of the 20th cent., following the emergence of the Documentary hypothesis as well as the comparison of the Holy Scripture with the newly-discovered literary monuments of Ancient Near East, the greater part of the narrations that constitute the Prologue were labeled myths and ancient Hebrew folklore (J. Wellhausen, H. Gunkel, J. Frazer). In addition to the then detected Near Eastern parallels, this new attitude towards the narrations of the Prologue was fostered by its lack of a clearly expressed historical dedication and the symbolic form of their exposition. Defending the traditional view of the Prologue as sacred history and prophetic revelation, bishop Kassian (Bezobrazov) proposed to consider all the biblical narrations that contain theophanies as metahistorical. Archpriest Sergey Bulgakov, A. F. Losev and B. P. Vysheslavtsev, who analyzed the phenomenon of myth-making, called the Biblical narration of the origins of the world a myth, but in a sense different from that proposed by Gunkel and Frazer. They have founded a new and positive conception according to which a myth is not fiction but rather a kind of reality based upon mystical experience. The author of the article analyzes each of the terms enumerated - «history», «myth», «metahistory» - in their use relating them to the Prologue; he also examines the possibility of their harmonizing with the traditional ecclesiastical view of this part of the book of Genesis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document