The paper considers Cassirer’s account of the philosophical problems raised by the theory of relativity. The main question the paper addresses is how Cassirer, as a Neokantian, responds to the discoveries made by Einstein. The problem here is especially the presupposition of the a priori nature of Euclidean geometry. Cassirer’s answer lies in showing that Kant’s philosophy is broad enough to include also non-Euclidean geometries in the determination of the physical world. He does this by showing that though Kant conceived (...) space and time as forms of pure intuition he already connected them with certain theoretical factors, with the rules of the understanding. Space as the pure form of coexistence and time as the pure form of succession imply no special relations of measurement and it is thus a mistake to assume the a priori nature of Euclidean geometry. The way different geometries can figure in the determination of the physical world is explained in reference to the Klein approach to geometry, which defines geometrical properties as those that stay invariant according to a certain group of transformations. It is the concept of a group that is the real concept a priori. Group theory plays an even larger role in physical theories as well as Cassirer’s epistemology. Namely, with the theory of relativity it becomes evident that physical theories are theories of invariants according to a group of transformations. Cassirer claims that the general doctrine of invariability of certain values must recur in some form in any theory of nature, because it belongs to the logical and epistemological nature of such a theory. (shrink)

La Bibliothèque des Archives de Philosophic comprend maintenant un ouvrage où l'on trouve la traduction française de quatre textes importants pour l'historien du savoir. Le texte central est celui du Collogue Cassirer-Heidegger qui eut lieu à Davos en mars 1929, où les deux philosophes confrontèrent leur lecture de Kant. Les trios autres textes ont pour but de mettre un peu mieux en lumière le sens de cette confrontation: il s'agit1. du résumé anonyme des « Conférences du Professeur Martin Heidegger sur (...) la Critique de la Raison Pure de Kant et sur la tâche d'une fondation de la Métaphysique » et du résumé des « Conférences du Professeur Ernst Cassirer »;2. du compte rendu fait par Cassirer du Kant-Buch de Heidegger;3. du compte rendu fait par Heidegger du deuxième volume de la Philosophie der symbolischen Formen de Cassirer. (shrink)

Can a phenomenology of culture be at the same time a philosophy of culture? In other words, can a descriptive exploration of acts and objects of culture serve at the same time as a critical reflection on those acts and objects? Or does cultural critique imply a separate and additional task, that of a normative examination of the explored cultural phenomena? What would be the founding values of such an examination? How would it be established? Furthermore, what would be the (...) importance of recognizing the distinct nature of this task compared to the exploratory-descriptive one? How would the two tasks relate to one another? Finally, is a full-fledged philosophy of culture, i.e. a critical exploration of cultural phenomena, needed? And if yes, why? These are the questions addressed by this paper. Answers are sought in a close examination of the work of Ernst Cassirer which involved both a phenomenology of cultural forms as well as an attempt at their normative-critical evaluation. And yet his work was criticized by many for its lack of an ethical dimension, a critique endorsed by another phenomenologist of culture, Alfred Schutz, whose work itself was accused for being non-critical. Beginning with a presentation of these two phenomenologies of culture this paper examines closely the charges directed against Cassirer's comprehensive philosophy of culture, namely, its idealism and its a-moralism. Through this examination the paper aims to shed light on a number of issues pertaining to the questions formulated above. (shrink)

: Few texts summarize and at the same time compound the challenges of their author's philosophy so sharply as Hermann Cohen's Das Prinzip der Infinitesimalmethode und seine Geschichte (1883). The book's meaning and style are greatly illuminated by placing it in the scientific, political, and academic context of late-nineteenth century Germany. As this context changed, so did both the reception of the philosophy of the infinitesimal and of the Marburg school more generally. A study of this transformation casts significant light (...) on the political relevance of the philosophy of science in theWilhelmine era. As a means of following this development across time, Cohen's text is read through its changing reception in the philosophy of his closest disciple, Ernst Cassirer. (shrink)

Cassirer’s philosophy of culture has been examined through various disciplines. Until now, however, no such assessment has taken place within the field of economics. In this paper, I attempt to develop this unexplored task through the economic concepts of commodity, money, capital, and culture. I argue that these concepts can help to draw an updated concept of capitalism and power relations created through capitalist planning. I also claim that these concepts can contribute to understanding the historical specificity of capitalist culture, (...) by understanding it as an historical process of social production. I conclude that these concepts are able to defy Cassirer’s view of capitalism as a system in which economic prosperity and political liberty could be achieved in a universal manner. Finally, I demonstrate that these concepts can shed light on Cassirer’s failed quest to find a coherent universal culture within capitalism. (shrink)

Ernst Cassirer’s epistemological trilogy – Substanzbegriff und Funktionsbegriff (1910), Zur Einsteinschen Relativitätstheorie (1921) and Determinismus und Indeterminismus (1937) – is well known to Western scholars, some of whom recently devoted a number of in-depth and interesting studies to Cassirer’s epistemology. Nonetheless, they overlooked aspects of Cassirer’s concept of idealisation and his model of science as found in his last epistemological work: Determinismus und Indeterminismus. In this essay I will consider these two almost disregarded aspects of Cassirer’s epistemology in order to (...) provide a better understanding of his idea of science. (shrink)