Friedrich
Yüklə 1,41 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- BIBLIOGRAPHIE
BÜHLER’S AND CASSIRER’S SEMIOTIC CONCEPTIONS OF MAN 83
completed » if the level of pure expression is exceeded by attaining the level of representation (Cassirer, 1927, 102) 23 .
theory of language does not imply that he understood the sensual facets of the Ausdrucksaspekt in terms of an entirely non-symbolic form of meaning. On the contrary, he thought that the function of expression is just as much symbolic as the functions of representation and pure significance, for in his opinion, all of them are to be understood as definite modes of formation. Therefore, Cassirer’s notion of the symbol does not amount to representation alone. From his point of view, the symbol is not – as the third axiom of the
and communication, but rather a key element of any form of cognition and behaviour. Yet, Cassirer saw – quite similar to Bühler – his triad of expression, representation, and pure significance in terms of a teleological sequence. According to him, the transition from expression to representation and from representation to pure significance clearly illustrates a gradual progress of abstraction. Whereas the idea of expression refers to the most fundamental and essentially sense-orientated species of symbolism in which the sign is in no way as dematerialised and detached from its objects as is the case in Bühler’s theory of symbol and Cassirer’s notion of representation, the aspect of pure significance designates the most abstract level of cognition and signification since it is characterised by a purely relational and ideational connection with its objects and states of affairs. The sphere of pure significance, Cassirer writes, « is divided from the sphere of representation, because it has detached itself from the ground of intuitive formation in which representation is rooted and from which it forth and forth extracts its greatest powers » (ibid., 101). On the level of pure significance, he continues, the sign « floats in the free ether of pure thought » (ibid.), it « does not express and represent anything – it is a sign in terms of a purely abstract coordination » (ibid.). Of course, it is open to dispute whether the notion of pure significance is able to capture facts which are not already encompassed by Bühler’s
significance is more apt to embrace what he assumed to be especially characteristic for the symbolic capacity of scientific and speculative thought. Furthermore, he continuously conceded that the faculty of pure significance
23 « […] there can be no doubt about the extent to which language, from its primitive forms up to its highest stages, is based on pure expression and how strongly it is rooted in it. […] On the other hand, it cannot be questioned that this only touches on a single aspect and, so to speak, a single dimension of linguistic expression, and that language as a whole constitutes and completes itself only by going beyond this aspect. » (Cassirer, 1927, 102) Mark A. HALAWA 84
can never be established independent of the function of representation (which is – in turn – based on the aspect of expression itself). To his mind, the usage of purely relational (e.g., mathematical, logical, geometrical, etc.) signs inevitably requires the former ability to bring forth representative signs, for it is representation in general and language in particular which « was the first to open to man the way to scientific and speculative thought […] » (Cassirer, 2005, 277). The teleological character of the triad « expression – representation – pure significance » suggests that the study of the diverse outcomes of the symbolic foundation of human understanding finally leads to a cultural- philosophical reconstruction of those fundamental elements which are most dominant in man’s intellectual history. As Cassirer registers: « The surpassing of a particular [symbolic] form is made possible not by the vanishing, the total destruction, of this form but by its preservation within the continuity of consciousness as a whole; for what constitutes the unity and totality of the human spirit is precisely that it has no absolute past; it gathers up into itself what has passed and preserves it as present. » (Cassirer, 1966, 78, PSF 3, 92, PFS 3, 95)
Cassirer thought that it is impossible to efface residues of former symbolic forms. Furthermore, he argued that the innovation, reformation, and revolution of novel symbolically formed « world views » can only be accomplished against the background of prior symbol-bound understandings of the world. According to him, this principle of preservation especially prevents a complete fading of mythical thought. « [W]e shall not be able to believe », Cassirer writes, « that even so strange and paradoxical a structure as mythical perception is totally lost or superfluous within the general view of reality which the theoretical consciousness [the consciousness of representation and pure significance] projects » (ibid., PSF 3, 92f., PFS 3, 95). On the contrary, « [i]t is to be expected that the basic tendency that plainly dominates this perception will not be absolutely extinguished, however much it is crowded out and modified by other modes of being » (ibid.). From this it follows that even the most enlightened form of consciousness is unable to totally overcome the remains of mythical thought. In this respect, Cassirer slightly differs from Bühler, who argued that the attainment of the Darstellungsaspekt would ultimately consolidate the representational momentousness of the so-called principle of abstractive
defines that – within the scope of a full-fledged language – it is not « the entire wealth of the properties of the sensual thing […] » which « enter[s] into the semantic function » of the sign, but rather « only this or that abstract factor [which] is relevant for its calling to function as a sign » (all citations
BÜHLER’S AND CASSIRER’S SEMIOTIC CONCEPTIONS OF MAN 85
taken from ibid., 52, ST, 44, TL, 127-128). Accordingly, the representative, dematerialised, or abstract sign is expected to finally free the human use of signs from those sense-oriented and matter-bound forms of signification – in Bühler’s words: « [f]rom the mistake of the material fallacy on the one hand and from magical theories on the other hand » (ibid., 54, ST, 46f., TL, 131) – which, according to Cassirer, can never be fully overcome. Both scholars, of course, estimated the significance of mythical and purely abstract thought differently for good reasons. Even though Bühler’s and Cassirer’s reflections exhibit various obvious similarities (which prima- rily concern their respective notions about the specificity and functionality of language), one should always take note of the fact that, all in all, the two pursued different theoretical goals. Being a theorist of language in the first place, Bühler implements biological, anthropological, and semiotic insights first and foremost for the sake of constructing a general theory of language which he thought to be inextricably linked with a general theory of commu- nication. Cassirer, however, did not only strive for a general theory of language; what he was engaged with is the attempt to present symbolism in its various forms as both a key element and a key problem of philosophical thought. It goes without saying that the preceding remarks are overly fragmentary. Still, the present essay tried to demonstrate that a thorough reading of Bühler’s and Cassirer’s thought may show how far semiotics can be fruitfully intertwined with anthropology. Probably one of the most interesting and promising aspects which is worth being subjected to further comparative investigations is to be found in Cassirer’s posthumous works. In a manuscript, which probably served as a preparatory work for the planned fourth volume of his Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Cassirer notes that Bühler’s « division of ‘language’ into three basic aspects – expression, evocation, representation – […] refers to the three classes of basis phe- nomena » (Cassirer, 1996, 152) which Cassirer designated as « feeling» , « willing », and « thinking » (cf. ibid.) and, furthermore, distinguished to be « ‘prior’ to all thought and inference and […] the basis of both » (ibid., 137). 24
the drawing of yet another analogy which is otherwise not immediately comprehensible: As John Michael Krois posits, Cassirer’s basis phenomena and Charles Sanders Peirce’s famous three-part list of categories absolutely correspond with each other (cf. Krois, 2004). Now, if Krois’s observation is
24 Krois says that Cassirer’s basis phenomena are widely « unknown because Cassirer’s writings on the subject, written in the late 1930s and early 1940s, have only recently become available » (Krois, 2004, 20). Thus, the impact of the idea of basis phenomena on Cassirer’s philosophy as well as its relation to other philosophical doctrines is still open for a multitude of thorough investigations. Mark A. HALAWA 86
correct, one would be entitled to argue that Bühler’s threefold division of language corresponds with Peirce’s three categories as well. However, I believe that all of the suggested conclusions by analogy require further inspections. Peirce’s categories are presented as logical or phenomenological categories which are – at least in part – operative prior to specific social, intentional, interactive, and communicative variables. Thus, Peirce’s list of categories does certainly not comprise what is at stake in Bühler’s axiomatics. Since Cassirer explicitly related his three basis phenomena to Bühler’s notion of language, it may not be promising to equate either conception with Peirce’s much less preconditional account of human understanding. But this aspect, of course, touches upon a rather new and different topic which needs to be discussed in another essay.
BIBLIOGRAPHIE BENETKA G. (1995), Psychologie in Wien. Sozial- und Theoriegeschichte des Wiener Psychologischen Instituts 1922-1938, Wien, WUV. BÜHLER C. (1984), “Karl Bühler. Eine biographische Skizze”, in Eschbach A. (ed.): Bühler Studien, Band 1, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 25-30. BÜHLER K. (1907), “Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge I: Über Gedanken”, Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 9, 297- 365.
BÜHLER K. (1908a), “Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge II: Über Gedankenzusammenhänge”, Archiv für die gesamte Psy- chologie, 12, 1-23. BÜHLER K. (1908b), “Tatsachen und Probleme zu einer Psychologie der Denkvorgänge III: Über Gedankenerinnerungen”, Archiv für die gesamte Psy-
BÜHLER K. (1913), Die Gestaltwahrnehmungen. Experimentelle Untersuchungen zur psychologischen und ästhetischen Analyse der Raum und Zeitanschauung, Stuttgart, Spemann. BÜHLER K. (1918), Die geistige Entwicklung des Kindes, Jena, Gustav Fischer. BÜHLER K. (1931), “Phonetik und Phonologie“, Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 4, 22-53. BÜHLER K. (1933), “Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften”, Kant-Studien, 38, 19-90. BÜHLER K. (1934), Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache, Jena, Gustav Fischer. BÜHLER K. (1960), Das Gestaltprinzip im Leben des Menschen und der Tiere, Bern and Stuttgart, Huber.
BÜHLER’S AND CASSIRER’S SEMIOTIC CONCEPTIONS OF MAN 87
BÜHLER K. (1990), Theory of Language. The Representational Function of Language, edited by Achim Eschbach, translated by Donald Fraser Goodwin, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. BÜHLER K. (2000), Die Krise der Psychologie, edited by Achim Eschbach and Jens Kapitzky, Weilerswist, Velbrück. BÜHLER K. (2009), Théorie du langage, la fonction représentationnelle, Préface de Jacques Bouveresse, Présentation par Janette Friedrich, Traduction, notes et glossaire par Didier Samain, Marseille, Agone. CASSIRER E. (1923), “Der Begriff der symbolischen Form im Aufbau der Geisteswissenschaften”, in id. (1969), Wesen und Wirkung des Symbolbegriffs, fourth edition, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 169-200. CASSIRER E. (1927), “Das Symbolproblem und seine Stellung im System der Philosophie”, in id. (2009), Schriften zur Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, edited by Marion Lauschke, Hamburg, Meiner, 93-122. CASSIRER E. (1944), An Essay on Man. An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture, New Haven and London, Yale University Press. CASSIRER E. (1946), The Myth of the State, New Haven and London, Yale University Press. CASSIRER E. (1966), The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Volume Three: The Phenomenology of Knowledge, sixth edition, translated by Ralph Manheim, introductory note by Charles W. Hendel, New Haven and London, Yale University Press. CASSIRER E. (1968), The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Volume Two: Mythical Thought, sixth edition, translated by Ralph Manheim, with contributions by Charles W. Hendel, New Haven and London, Yale University Press. CASSIRER, E. (1972), La philosophie des formes symboliques. 1. Le langage, Paris, Minuit.
CASSIRER, E. (1972), La philosophie des formes symboliques. 2. La pensée mythique, Paris, Minuit. CASSIRER, E. (1972), La philosophie des formes symboliques. 3. La phénomé- nologie de la connaissance, Paris, Minuit. CASSIRER E. (1975), The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Volume One: Language, eighth edition, translated by Ralph Manheim, preface and introduction by Charles W. Hendel, New Haven and London, Yale University Press. CASSIRER E. (1994 [1923]), Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. 1: Die
CASSIRER E. (1994 [1925]), Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. 2: Das mythische Denken, Berlin, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. CASSIRER E. (1994 [1929]), Philosophie der symbolischen Formen. 3: Phäno- menologie der Erkenntnis, Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. CASSIRER E. (1995), Zur Metaphysik der symbolischen Formen (= Ernst Cassirer. Nachgelassene Manuskripte und Texte, Vol. 1), edited by John Michael Krois, Hamburg, Felix Meiner Verlag. Mark A. HALAWA 88
CASSIRER E. (1996), The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Volume Four: The Metaphysics of Symbolic Forms. Including the Text of Cassirer’s manuscript on Basis Phenomena, edited by John Michael Krois and Donald Phillip Verne, translated by John Michael Krois, New Haven and London, Yale University Press. CASSIRER E. (2005), Nachgelassene Manuskripte und Texte, Band 6: Vorlesungen und Studien zur philosophischen Anthropologie, edited by Gerald Hartung und Herbert Kopp-Obertsebrink, Hamburg, Meiner. CASSIRER T. (2003), Mein Leben mit Ernst Cassirer, Hamburg, Meiner. ESCHBACH A. (1983), “Einige kritische Notizen zur neuesten Bühler-Forschung”, Historiographia Linguistica, 10, 1-2, 149-158. ESCHBACH A. (1990), “Editor’s Introduction – Karl Bühler: Sematologist”, in Bühler K., Theory of Language. The Representational Function of Language, translated by Donald Fraser Goodwin, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, xiii-xliii. ESCHBACH A., KAPITZKY J. (2000), “Nachwort”, in Bühler, K., Die Krise der Psychologie, edited by Achim Eschbach & Jens Kapitzky, Weilerswist, Velbrück, 243-252. GÖLLER T. (1988), “Zur Frage nach der Auszeichnung der Sprache in Cassirers
(eds.), Über Ernst Cassirers Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 137-155. HENDEL C. W. (1955), “Introduction”, in CASSIRER E. (1955), The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Volume One: Language, translated by Ralph Manheim, preface and introduction by Charles W. Hendel, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1-65. KOERNER K. (1984), “Karl Bühlers Sprachtheorie und Ferdinand de Saussures Cours”, in Eschbach A. (ed.), Bühler Studien, Band 2, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 89-115. KROIS J. M. (1988), “Problematik, Eigenart und Aktualität der Cassirerschen Philosophie der symbolischen Formen”, in Braun H.-J., Holzhey H., Orth E. W. (eds.), Über Ernst Cassirers Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 15-44. KROIS J. M. (2004), “More than a Linguistic Turn in Philosophy: the Semiotic Programs of Peirce and Cassirer”, Sats – Nordic Journal of Philosophy, 5, 14-33. SCHLIEBEN-LANGE B. (1997), “Ernst Cassirer und Karl Bühler”, in Hassler M., Wertheimer J. (eds.), Der Exodus aus Nazideutschland und die Folgen. Jüdische Wissenschaftler im Exil, Tübingen, Attempto, 274-285. UNGEHEUER G. (1967), “Die kybernetische Grundlage der Sprachtheorie von Karl Bühler”, Kodikas/Code – Ars Semeiotica. An International Journal of
VELTRUSK! J. (1984), “Bühlers Organon-Modell und die Semiotik der Kunst”, in Eschbach A. (ed.), Bühler Studien, Band 1, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 161- 205. Yüklə 1,41 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|