Reflections on Ernst Cassirer’s

An Essay on Man
Kevin Goodman
Skidmore College
 Reflections on Ernst Cassirer’s
An Essay on Man
Kevin Goodman

An Essay on Man, by Ernst Cassirer, presents a philosophy of culture through an examination of

the various modes of human knowledge, which for Cassirer, defines culture. Cassirer begins his

defense by stating that we are in a “crisis” in our knowledge of ourselves. The question of culture

is the question of who we are. For Cassirer this problem requires a structuralist approach as we

cannot merely contemplate the nature of our existence but must contextualize it. The problem,

however, is that each individual has their own way of seeing the world as do the various

disciplines. Truth is multifaceted and the various modes of human knowledge seem

contradictory. Religion yields a different truth than science but so too does the particular science

from other sciences, Cassirer claims there is little unity—human knowledge has become

fragmented. Therefore, it is Cassirer’s quest to find the common thread, or as he says, “a clue of

Ariadne to lead us out of this labyrinth.”

For Cassirer to solve this problem he must find a common reducible phenomenon that is

foundational to all aspects of human knowledge. The primal mechanism of our self-awareness,

he proposes, is symbolic thought. Cassirer’s proposition is that symbolic thinking has led to all

knowledge, to language, myth, religion, art, and science. Accordingly, man no longer lives “in a

merely physical universe,” says Cassirer, “man lives in a symbolic universe.” Therefore, the

universe is a condition to man’s experience within it as he can only relate and reason according

to his own experience. Cassirer makes a point of telling us the distinction between a symbol and

a mere “sign,” as a sign represents something physical. Cassirer’s symbol is an ideal “form”

rather than an indicative or imitative form. Cassirer’s symbolic thinking is a subjective universe,

a world shaped by experience rather than a world as it is, apart from man. Accordingly, man

seeks to know the universe in order to interpret himself. Here is where man becomes reflective

1|Page
 Reflections on Ernst Cassirer’s
An Essay on Man
Kevin Goodman

and rises above nature, becoming something other than animal, a difference that gravely

concerns Cassirer.

The problem of man is in part the difference that sets him apart from the other animals,

from the rest of nature. Animals might possess the ability to interpret signs but they fail a truly

symbolic thought process. Cassirer offers the concepts of space and time as evolutionary leaps in

symbolic thinking. If animals possess a rudimentary capacity for symbolic thought it is man’s

conception of space and time that really separates him and makes possible the advanced forms of

culture and knowledge. What concerns Cassirer is not actual space and time but

conceptualizations of space and time. A point that I disagree with is his insistence that primitive

man has an instinct for space, but is unable to conceptualize it. Cassirer uses ethnographic

accounts of contemporary tribes to illustrate his point. The reason I disagree with this particular

point is that Alaskan native whalers traditionally carried sticks with them from which they carve

the contours of the shoreline, which serves as a rudimentary map. From this point of view, I see

the possibility that primitive others may possess a different modality rather than lack a symbolic

conception of space. This difference, however, does not falsify Cassirer’s theory for an earlier

human state of existence. Regardless of origins, symbolic space is a tool for making sense of the

environment; it is the premise of geometry, geography, astronomy and the mathematical

sciences. Cassirer quotes Kant who says that space is our “outer experience” while time is our

“inner experience.” Conceptual time gives us memory. As we move into the topic of memory,

Cassirer once again becomes concerned with human differences that are apart from the animal

world. Cassirer suggests that human memory is more than the recollection of prior stimuli, but a

conceptual reconstruction of the past, and again we see the symbolic process at work. Symbolic

2
 Reflections on Ernst Cassirer’s
An Essay on Man
Kevin Goodman

time manifest as a memory of the past and gives way to a “symbolic future”, and it is this

conceptualization of time that gives way to intellectual possibility.

Intellectual possibility gives us ideal facts, and Cassirer points out that many scientific

facts originated with symbolic possibility rather than mere empirical observation. This is

significant because the problem for Cassirer is essentially the nature of knowledge. Cassirer tells

us that it can be “difficult to differentiate between the two spheres of being and meaning.”

Despite the danger of confusing our inner world for the actual world, the sphere of meaning

gives us possibility and therefore logic. Indeed, Cassirer states “mathematics is not a theory of

things but a theory of symbols.” For Cassirer, facts are subject to the function of ideals and he

illustrates this point by giving us an example of the utopia, as it is an impossible possibility, but a

possibility that nevertheless causes change. Symbolic thought is therefore an ability to create

change; or as Cassirer says, “The ability constantly to reshape his human universe.”

Cassirer sets out to apply the principals of his symbolic thesis to the various aspects of

human culture, beginning with myth and religion. In beginning his examination of myth, Cassirer

criticizes the allegorical interpretations of myth as these defy what myth really is. The reality of

the myth is that it is “an unconscious, not a conscious fiction,” says Cassirer. While this does not

define myth, it tells us that the quest for a specific and particular meaning for particular myth

may be in vein. Cassirer then proceeds to criticize modern attempts to reduce myth to a universal

form, utilizing Freud’s concept as an example. According to Cassirer, these attempts fail without

“stretching the facts for the sake of rendering the theory a homogeneous whole.” According to

Cassirer, myth is an attempt to realize a reality but mythic reality is an emotive nature. Cassirer

claims that primitive man does not feel apart from nature, that primitive man does not have the

3
 Reflections on Ernst Cassirer’s
An Essay on Man
Kevin Goodman

desire to classify nature, but views himself as part of a whole. To evidence this premise Cassirer

offers totemic belief in animal descent. Here, reverence for the environment and a sense of unity

with nature dictate man’s impulse for possibilities. One such possibility is an afterlife, indeed,

Cassirer claims primitive man can scarcely conceive of death. This aspect of myth gives basis for

a primitive religion. Myth and magic are not found in “everyday life,” asserts Cassirer, but arise

from situations where uncertainty prevails or threatens. Myth and magic are sympathetic

practices, they are produced in recognition that other forces control man’s destiny, and man

assumes these forces possess a consciousness as he does. The evolution of religion, according to

Cassirer, is when morality supersedes magic. This evolution is liberation, according to Cassirer,

as man practiced magic in an attempt to escape the bonds of nature but this was unsuccessful.

Before religion had conceived of righteousness, primitive culture was dictated by taboos, which

superseded ethical intention. Man was bound by strict rules and confined by the conditions of

nature but an evolved religion offered man the inspiration to supersede these limitations.

Cassirer begins his examination of language with a criticism of the interjectional theory

of language, which accordingly describes language as evolving from involuntary emotional

outcries. According to this theory, man used sounds to convey his feelings much as animals but

eventually begin to associate sounds with the objects of his feelings. Cassirer believes that this is

insignificant in explaining our objectified language. This is another point where I disagree with

Cassirer, and though I do not know if the interjectional theory is sufficient on its own, it does

seem like a plausible beginning for human speech. Cassirer, again, becomes concerned with the

difference between animal “utterances” and human “speech” and I am wondering if he has an

agenda in keeping us distinct. Rather than offer an alternative theory for the origin of speech,

4
 Reflections on Ernst Cassirer’s
An Essay on Man
Kevin Goodman

Cassirer says such a history “would not suffice to solve the fundamental problems of a

philosophy of language.” Rather, Cassirer insists we take a structuralist approach at language and

examine language as a system. This system is about naming things, Cassirer says, “without the

help of the name every new advance made in the process of objectification would run the risk of

being lost again in the next moment.” Here we see that language is a symbolic form and it is

from this form that intellect takes shape.

Art, for Cassirer, “is not an imitation but a discovery of reality.” The truth of art is that it

elaborates human experience, contrasting with science, which attempts to deduce truth to a

minimal law. Cassirer rejects those theories that purport that the purpose of art is to imitate

nature nor does he wholly agree that it is solely a product of emotion. Every utterance, brush

stroke, word, or color makes the whole, the purpose of which is “an intensification of reality.”

However, this intensification is neutralized in art, as Cassirer notes, “the image of passion is not

the passion itself.” Art therefore gives man a tool for glimpsing possible realities with the

security of not having to experience the reality. Cassirer states this by saying, “art turns all these

pains and outrages, these cruelties and atrocities, into a means of self-liberation, thus giving us

an inner freedom which cannot be attained in any other way.” There is another quality of art, it

exists in the realm of myth, in the realm of the fantastic. The artist gives personality to his

subject and imbues it with meaning. The artist is the mythmaker, and his creation is the “universe

itself.” Cassirer, however, realizes the problem of such descriptions and suggests we examine the

“fundamental structural elements of our sense experience itself—in lines design, in architectural,

musical forms.” Here, art takes on a sensual form and Cassirer suggests that art is an enjoyment

of form but he repudiates that it is not merely a “response to the demand for entertainment.”

5
 Reflections on Ernst Cassirer’s
An Essay on Man
Kevin Goodman

There is something deeper—“The artist is a sort of somnambulist who must pursue his way

without the interference or control of any conscious activity.” Here there is a deeper rational, a

subconscious logic prevails in the forms of the artist. Art performs “a definite task in the

construction and organization of human experience,” says Cassirer. From this, we can rationalize

that art is a structural type; it is one of man’s symbolic structures, which he continually shapes

and which continually shapes him.

History too is not apart from symbolic thought, and though it is built upon facts, Cassirer

insists, “factual truth implies theoretical truth.” Indeed, history is not a state of actual existence,

it must be imaginatively reconstructed; in the words of Cassirer, “Ideal reconstruction, not

empirical observation, is the first step in historical knowledge.” The historian begins with foreign

text and artifacts and must reestablish their meaning. Not only does the historian establish the

symbolic meaning of these text and artifacts, he construes their meaning sequentially over a

symbolic time. Here, Cassirer demonstrates his semiotic approach in contending that the symbol

is meaningless without context. The historian must gather as much data as he can to

contextualize the event. Cassirer reminds us that a single artifact might have no significance, no

meaning, but the discovery of another artifact can imbue the once insignificant artifact with new

meaning, and new significance. In accordance, history is not an absolute form; it is an ideal form.

Furthermore, history can only be conceived in the context of the historian, as it is the historian

that translates the relics of the past into a narrative that can be understood today. Thus, there is a

natural conflict between subjectivity and objectivity, which Cassirer corrects in stating that the

historian has a right to sympathize, “to embrace friends and opponents.” This is nevertheless

problematic, and Cassirer elaborates that this sympathy must never be emotional (though history

6
 Reflections on Ernst Cassirer’s
An Essay on Man
Kevin Goodman

itself is emotional), it must strive to be fair, to be objective. For Cassirer, history is akin to

poetry, the historian must bring to life the great drama of human life. “Art and history,” says

Cassirer, “are the most powerful instruments of our inquiry into human nature.”

“Science is the last step in man’s mental development,” declares Cassirer, “and it may be

regarded as the highest and most characteristic attainment of human culture.” The goal of science

is to classify human knowledge, to discover the rules of nature, to simplify our understanding of

the universe. Cassirer insists, “Human culture begins with a much more complex and involved

state of mind.” It was however necessary to begin with myth, to begin with alchemy and

astrology. Eventually man would separate magic from natural causations and occurrences. It may

be that science shares an instinct with language to classify things but the direction of science is

towards an “objectification.” Numbers accordingly, give science this special distinction as

number, unlike a word, has a definite place in a greater scheme, a sequence. Cassirer says of

numbers, “we conceive it as a new powerful symbolism which, for all scientific purposes, is

infinitely superior to the symbolism of speech.” Accordingly, we now have a symbolism not only

for things but also for relations, and “relations of relations.” Mathematical symbolism is “an

instrument for the discovery of nature and reality,” maintains Cassirer. The difference between

science and the rest of culture, according to Cassirer, is that “the principal aims of scientific

thought is the elimination of all personal and anthropomorphic elements.” Nevertheless, man

cannot escape his ideal world but it is his capacity for symbolic thought that makes all

knowledge possible.

In conclusion, Cassirer proposes that symbolic thinking is the rudimentary mechanism of

all culture. Society has been progressing towards “liberation” from the impositions of nature and

7
 Reflections on Ernst Cassirer’s
An Essay on Man
Kevin Goodman

symbolic thought has enabled this impulse. Cassirer’s assertion that symbolic thinking is the key

to understanding human consciousness is convincing. However, I am not sure that Cassirer

achieved his goal of unifying human knowledge. I interpreted this to be the ambition of a new

school of thought. However, rather than a new paradigm for thought, Cassirer presents a semiotic

theory of consciousness. Perhaps Cassirer is more of a scientist in his reductions of human

consciousness. Cassirer tells us that to understand the nature of the individual we have to realize

man’s place in a greater whole, the system, and I share an affinity with Cassirer’s structuralism.

There is a semiotic quality to Cassirer’s work, though it does not claim to be a semiotic analysis,

it applies semiotic principals to understanding the renderings of consciousness. Primary among

these is the assertion that the meaning of a symbol is contextual and based on a greater system—

that to interpret the sign is to put it into context. What I find in Cassirer’s work is a validation of

semiotic principals. Cassirer not only attributes the semiotic subject, the symbol, as the

fundamental premise of human knowledge, he does so with a contextual semiotic approach and

the result is a convincing theory of mind and culture.