This paper examines the expression of being from the syntactic perspective in the framework of Cassirer＇s philosophy of language in his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. It first introduces the debate about the validity ...This paper examines the expression of being from the syntactic perspective in the framework of Cassirer＇s philosophy of language in his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. It first introduces the debate about the validity of the question of being between the logical and ontological perspectives, represented by J. S. Mill＇s attempt to annul the question and Heidegger＇s counter argument. It then moves to the syntactic perspective by using Aquinas＇ statement that in every apprehension being should be present, and then reconsiders the function of copula in a sentence. The main part of this article follows Cassirer＇s argument by picking up the so-called ＂war of the giants＂ between the Heraclitean flux and the Parmenidean immovable being in the context of language in Plato＇s three dialogues, namely Cratylus, Theaetetus, and Sophist. It then moves on to Cassirer＇s Kantian scheme of analysis to handle the Platonic question, and argues that words and sentences are different moments of unit formation in our consciousness. It concludes with Cassirer＇s argument of the priority of sentence over words, and that the concentration merely on the copula is a limited approach to the question. The purpose of this paper is to show Cassirer＇s contribution to the problem of being by shifting the attention from semantics to the syntax and by breaking new ground from neo-Kantianism, and offers an approach to understand the role of language in our knowledge of the objective world which is neither purely nominal nor realist.展开更多
The term“philosophy of mythology”is not a newly-coined terminology.It has been used by Schelling1,a German philosopher of the 19th century,as the title of his masterpiece.Ernst Cassirer,a famous German philosopher o...The term“philosophy of mythology”is not a newly-coined terminology.It has been used by Schelling1,a German philosopher of the 19th century,as the title of his masterpiece.Ernst Cassirer,a famous German philosopher of the 20th century also used it in the chapter heading of the introduction of Symbolic Forms of Philosophy Volume 2.2 However,a review of the books on mythology or philosophy in China reveals the concept of philosophy of mythology is still unfamiliar to the Chinese academic circles since the books mentioned above of both Schelling and Cassirer have not been translated into Chinese.So there is a necessity to clarify the title of this book.展开更多
Several of Rousseau＇s critics begin with the presupposition that his writings are inconsistent or incoherent ann proceed to locate the ＂essence＂ of his philosophy in some of his writings while excluding others. Ern...Several of Rousseau＇s critics begin with the presupposition that his writings are inconsistent or incoherent ann proceed to locate the ＂essence＂ of his philosophy in some of his writings while excluding others. Ernst Cassirer is among the few philosophers who have attempted to defend Rousseau＇s claim to consistency. Despite its broad influence, Cassirer＇s interpretation has remained largely unchallenged. The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it aims to show that Cassirer＇s interpretation undermines （1） the important role Rousseau assigns to pity in both the state of nature and civil society and （2） the significant role the general will plays in his political theory. Secondly, it proposes an alternative interpretation that succeeds in uniting Rousseau＇s opus.展开更多
文摘This paper examines the expression of being from the syntactic perspective in the framework of Cassirer＇s philosophy of language in his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. It first introduces the debate about the validity of the question of being between the logical and ontological perspectives, represented by J. S. Mill＇s attempt to annul the question and Heidegger＇s counter argument. It then moves to the syntactic perspective by using Aquinas＇ statement that in every apprehension being should be present, and then reconsiders the function of copula in a sentence. The main part of this article follows Cassirer＇s argument by picking up the so-called ＂war of the giants＂ between the Heraclitean flux and the Parmenidean immovable being in the context of language in Plato＇s three dialogues, namely Cratylus, Theaetetus, and Sophist. It then moves on to Cassirer＇s Kantian scheme of analysis to handle the Platonic question, and argues that words and sentences are different moments of unit formation in our consciousness. It concludes with Cassirer＇s argument of the priority of sentence over words, and that the concentration merely on the copula is a limited approach to the question. The purpose of this paper is to show Cassirer＇s contribution to the problem of being by shifting the attention from semantics to the syntax and by breaking new ground from neo-Kantianism, and offers an approach to understand the role of language in our knowledge of the objective world which is neither purely nominal nor realist.
文摘The term“philosophy of mythology”is not a newly-coined terminology.It has been used by Schelling1,a German philosopher of the 19th century,as the title of his masterpiece.Ernst Cassirer,a famous German philosopher of the 20th century also used it in the chapter heading of the introduction of Symbolic Forms of Philosophy Volume 2.2 However,a review of the books on mythology or philosophy in China reveals the concept of philosophy of mythology is still unfamiliar to the Chinese academic circles since the books mentioned above of both Schelling and Cassirer have not been translated into Chinese.So there is a necessity to clarify the title of this book.
文摘Several of Rousseau＇s critics begin with the presupposition that his writings are inconsistent or incoherent ann proceed to locate the ＂essence＂ of his philosophy in some of his writings while excluding others. Ernst Cassirer is among the few philosophers who have attempted to defend Rousseau＇s claim to consistency. Despite its broad influence, Cassirer＇s interpretation has remained largely unchallenged. The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it aims to show that Cassirer＇s interpretation undermines （1） the important role Rousseau assigns to pity in both the state of nature and civil society and （2） the significant role the general will plays in his political theory. Secondly, it proposes an alternative interpretation that succeeds in uniting Rousseau＇s opus.
