Philosophical and Anthropological Ideas of E. Cassirer and the Posthuman Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37482/2687-1505-V454Keywords:
E. Kassirer, philosophical anthropology, symbolic nature of consciousness, inner man, transhumanism, posthumanism, posthumanityAbstract
Against the backdrop of the active postulation of a posthuman perspective by theorists of transhumanism and posthumanism, blurring the boundaries between the human and the non-human worlds and simplifying philosophical reflections on the inner world of man, the anthropological ideas of Ernst Cassirer are attracting particular interest. The purpose of this study is to highlight the distinctive features of the functionalsymbolic explanation of the essence of man in Cassirer’s philosophy and explore the relevance of his philosophical and anthropological views in the context of transhumanism and posthumanism. Considering humans from the point of view of their spiritual activity, Cassirer defines man as a symbolic being due to the fact that he has a unique ability to attach symbolic meaning to his surroundings. Cassirer replaces Kant’s forms of intuition and categories of reason with symbol. According to Cassirer, the symbolic nature of consciousness creates a special human existence, dominated not by physical but by spiritual laws determining a special inner world of man, which is a distinctive anthropological characteristic. It is precisely this characteristic that the theorists of posthumanism ignore when they postulate the idea of hybridization, placing man on par with non-human creatures and even technologies. The same problem is typical of transhumanism, which overcomes the boundary between human and technology. Cassirer argues that due to the unique symbolic nature of consciousness, man lives in a symbolic universe. This means that the human world cannot be entangled with the non-human world, as theorists of posthumanism hypothesize. Cassirer’s conceptualization of man who perceives reality through symbols undermines the posthumanist ideas of radical ontological openness and hybridization as well as the transhumanist postulate, according to which technology provides the means for unbound modification of human nature with the aim of achieving a transhuman phase as a transitional stage towards posthumanity. Cassirer’s ideas reintroduce the question of the inner man into anthropological discourse.
Downloads
References
Langer S.K. Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art. N. Y.: New American Library, 1942. 248 p.
Gilbert C. Cassirer’s Placement of Art // The Philosophy of Ernst Cassirer / ed. by P.A. Schilpp. Wisconsin: George Banta Publ., 1949. P. 605–630.
Verene D.P. The Origins of the Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Kant, Hegel, and Cassirer. Evanston: Northwestern Univ. Press, 2011. 168 p. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv47w6gg
Krois J.M. Cassirer: Symbolic Forms and History. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1987. 290 p.
Luft S. The Space of Culture: Towards a Neo-Kantian Philosophy of Culture (Cohen, Natorp, and Cassirer). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2015. 247 p. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198738848.001.0001
Luft S. Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms: Between Reason and Relativism. A Critical Appraisal // Ideal. Stud. 2004. Vol. 34, No 1. P. 25–47. https://doi.org/10.5840/idstudies200434113
Lofts S. The Subject of Culture // Symbolic Forms and Cultural Studies: Ernst Cassirer’s Theory of Culture / ed. by J.M. Krois, C. Hamlin. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2004. P. 61–77. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300156836-009
Lofts S.G. Ernst Cassirer: A “Repetition” of Modernity. N. Y.: State Univ. N. Y. Press, 2000. 276 p.
Skidelsky E. Ernst Cassirer: The Last Philosopher of Culture. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2008. 288 p.
Matherne S. Cassirer. London: Routledge, 2021. 306 p.
Truwant S. Cassirer’s Functional Conception of the Human Being // Ideal. Stud. 2015. Vol. 45, No 2. P. 169–189. https://doi.org/10.5840/idstudies20161543
Свасьян К.А. Философия символических форм Э. Кассирера: критический анализ. 2-е изд. М.: Альма матер: Акад. проект, 2010. 243 с. (Сер.: Соврем. рус. философия).
Кравченко А.А. Логика гуманитарных наук Э. Кассирера. Кассирер и Гете. М.: Диалог-МГУ, 1999. 333 с.
Соболева М.Е. Философия символических форм Э. Кассирера: Генезис. Основные понятия. Контекст. СПб.: Изд-во СПбГУ, 2001. 151 с.
Смирнов С.А. Антропология как строгая наука? К вопросу о методологическом обосновании философской антропологии. Ст. 3. Эрнст Кассирер. Человек в объятиях культуры // Филос. антропология. 2022. Т. 8, No 2. С. 17–34. https://doi.org/10.21146/2414-3715-2022-8-2-17-34
Zaner R.M. An Approach to Philosophical Anthropology // Philos. Phenomenol. Res. 1966. Vol. 27, No 1. P. 55–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/2106138
Bengtson E., Rosengren M. A Philosophical-Anthropological Case for Cassirer in Rhetoric // Rhetorica. 2017. Vol. 35, No 3. P. 346–365. https://doi.org/10.1353/rht.2017.0010
Демидова М.В. Теория человека Э. Кассирера // Власть. 2007. No 1. С. 88–91.
Recki B. Cassirer and the Problem of Language // Cultural Studies and the Symbolic / ed. by P. Bishop, R.H. Stephenson. London: Routledge, 2003. P. 1–20.
Кант И. Критика чистого разума / пер. с нем. Н. Лосского. М.: АСТ, 2017. 560 с.
Лосев А.Ф. Диалектика мифа. М.: АСТ, 2021. 448 с.
Obolevitch T. Symbol in Ernst Cassirer’s and Aleksei Losev’s Thought // Cultures, Epochs, Ideas, Styles / ed. by E. Tacho-Godi, O. Bychkov. N. Y.: Peter Lang, 2023. P. 425–434.
Braidotti R. Posthuman Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity, 2019. 210 p.
Забулионите А.-К.И. Трансцендентальное истолкование типологизации в «Философии символических форм» Э. Кассирера // Вестн. С.-Петерб. ун-та. Сер. 6: Философия, культурология, политология, право, междунар. отношения. 2008. Вып. 4. С. 277–288.
Barad K. Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter // A Feminist Companion to the Posthumanities / ed. by R. Braidotti. Cham: Springer, 2018. P. 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62140-1_19
Bennett J. Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 2010. 200 p. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv111jh6w
