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)

: 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)

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)

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)

Der Artikel setzt sich mit Cassirers Erklärung für die durch die Relativitätstheorie aufgestellten philosophischen Probleme auseinander. Die Hauptfrage richtet sich darauf, wie Cassirer als Neukantianer auf Einsteins Entdeckungen antwortet. Das Problem, das hierbei aufkommt, ist die Präsupposition von der aprioristischen Natur der euklidischen Geometrie. Cassirers Antwort liegt in der Begründung, dass Kants Philosophie ausreichend breit angelegt sei, um auch nicht-euklidische Geometrien in die Determinierung der physikalischen Welt mit einzubeziehen. Er tut es, indem er aufweist, dass Kant, auch wenn er sie (...) für Formen der reinen Intuition hielt, Zeit und Raum mit bestimmten theoretischen Faktoren, mit Erkenntnisregeln in Verbindung brachte. Der Raum als reine Koexistenzform und die Zeit als reine Sukzessionsform implizieren keine besonderen Messrelationen, und es wäre folglich falsch, eine aprioristische Natur der Euklid’schen Geometrie anzunehmen. Die Art der Anwendung verschiedener Geometrien bei der Determinierung der physikalischen Welt wird erklärt in Anlehnung an Kleins Geometrieansatz, bei dem geometrische Eigenschaften vor dem Hintergrund einer bestimmten Gruppe von Transformationen als invariant bleibende angesehen werden. Das Konzept der Gruppe stellt das eigentliche Konzept a priori dar. Die Gruppentheorie spielt sogar eine größere Rolle sowohl in physikalischen Theorien als auch in Cassirers Epistemologie. Denn mit der Relativitätstheorie wird offenkundig, dass physikalische Theorien gegenüber einer Transformationsgruppe Invarianztheorien sind. Cassirer behauptet, dass die allgemeine Lehre von der Unveränderlichkeit bestimmter Werte in irgendeiner Form in jeglicher Theorie der Natur zurückkehren müsse, weil sie zur logischen und epistemologischen Natur einer solchen Theorie gehöre. (shrink)