Home > Positioning > Subjects > Symbolic forms

Symbolic forms

The philosophy of symbolic forms is Ernst Cassirer’s account of how the human mind makes its worlds. Its thesis is that we never meet reality bare: mind constitutes the world it inhabits through symbolic activity, and it does so not in one way but in several. Language, myth, art, religion, and science are each a distinct symbolic form — a distinct mode of giving experience shape and order, with its own internal logic, its own kind of objectivity, its own criteria of truth or rightness. None is reducible to another, and none is the single true picture of which the others are failures; each is a way of building a world. The human being, on this account, is less the rational animal than the animal symbolicum, the creature that lives among the symbols it creates.

The philosophy was a development of Kant by other means, grown from the neo-Kantian school at Marburg, and it gave rise to a tradition that outran its origin. Two heirs carried the idea in different directions: Susanne Langer turned it toward art and the life of feeling, and Nelson Goodman, working in a wholly different philosophical idiom, arrived at a neighbouring view of many world-versions while stripping away the framework Cassirer had built it on. The disputes around it — above all the confrontation with Heidegger at Davos in 1929 — are part of the subject, because each marks a pressure on what the symbolic-forms idea claims.

The thesis

Kant had asked how experience of nature is possible and found the answer in the constituting activity of the understanding: the mind does not copy a ready-made world but supplies the forms — space, time, the categories — through which a world can appear at all. Cassirer generalised the move. The categories that make scientific knowledge possible are not the only world-constituting forms; language constitutes a world, myth constitutes a world, art and religion each constitute a world, by their own formative principles. The question shifts from the conditions of knowledge to the conditions of meaning in all its kinds, and the answer is a structural pluralism: many forms, each constitutive, none sovereign. Cassirer worked this out across the three volumes of The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923–29), taking language, mythical thought, and scientific knowledge each as a distinct mode of objectification; the developed treatment of those volumes belongs to Cassirer’s own page. What defines the tradition is the thesis they share: to understand the human world is to understand the plurality of symbolic forms through which it is built, each on its own terms.

Sources: neo-Kantianism and Goethe

The philosophy grew from the Marburg school of neo-Kantianism, founded by Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp, which read Kant not as drawing limits to knowledge but as revealing the constitutive power of thought — and which Cassirer extended from the logic of science to the whole range of culture. His early Substance and Function (1910) had already traced how modern science moves from concepts of fixed substance to concepts of relation and function; the symbolic forms generalise that formative, relational activity beyond science.

A second source ran outside philosophy. Cassirer returned throughout his life to Goethe, whose morphology — the study of living form and its transformations — and whose idea of the Urphänomen, the archetypal phenomenon grasped within the appearances rather than behind them, gave him a model of a non-mechanistic understanding that finds the universal in and through the particular. Cassirer read Goethe’s archetypal phenomenon as a kind of symbolic intuition, and the morphological way of seeing — form as something perceived and formative, not imposed from outside — runs through the philosophy of symbolic forms.

The Davos debate

In March 1929, at a series of university lectures in the Swiss Alps, Cassirer met Heidegger in a confrontation later read as a parting of the ways for European philosophy. Cassirer defended the inheritance of the Enlightenment: culture, reason, and the creative work of the symbolic forms as the ground of human freedom — the human being as the maker of meaningful worlds. Heidegger answered that this whole programme, the transcendental constitution of experience through symbolic forms, stays within the Kantian frame of a subject set over against objects, and so cannot reach the more fundamental question of Being; finitude and anxiety, not cultural creation, are where philosophy must begin. The two were asking different questions and reached no resolution, but the debate marked the symbolic-forms philosophy with the objection that would follow it — that its forms are forms for a subject, and that this leaves something more basic unasked.

The afterlife: Langer and the symbolism of feeling

Susanne Langer carried the symbolic-forms idea into the territory Cassirer had left least developed: art. Where Cassirer had ranged language, myth, and science, Langer distinguished discursive symbolism — language, with its vocabulary and grammar — from the presentational symbolism of art, ritual, and myth, which is apprehended whole and cannot be translated into discursive terms. What presentational symbols articulate, she argued, is the life of feeling: a work of art is “the creation of forms symbolic of human feeling,” presenting the dynamic forms of emotion that words cannot state. In doing so she also levelled the hierarchy. Cassirer, for all his pluralism, had let science stand as the most developed form; Langer treated the symbolic forms as genuinely coequal, art no less a mode of meaning than science, and gave the whole structure an aesthetic centre Cassirer’s version lacked.

The afterlife: Goodman and worldmaking

Nelson Goodman reached a neighbouring destination from the opposite direction. Working within analytic philosophy and a strict nominalism, he argued in Languages of Art (1968) and Ways of Worldmaking (1978) that there is no one ready-made world but many world-versions, made and remade through symbol systems — a pluralism of constructed worlds that rhymes with Cassirer’s plurality of symbolic forms. But Goodman built it without the Kantian apparatus: no transcendental subject, no constitutive forms of experience, no developmental story, only symbol systems analysed by their formal features — density, repleteness, exemplification. The proximity and the distance together make Goodman the sharpest point of comparison for the tradition: he shows that something like the plurality of symbolic worlds can be had on nominalist terms, and in doing so raises the question of how much of Cassirer’s philosophy was carried by the neo-Kantian framework that Goodman discards.

Where symbolic forms stops

The tradition carries an unresolved tension at its core. Its pluralism is meant to be non-hierarchical — the forms are coequal, each answerable to its own criteria — yet Cassirer also presents them in a developmental sequence, from the expressive world of myth through language to the abstract objectivity of science, which invites the reading that science is the highest form after all and myth a stage outgrown. Whether the symbolic forms stand as equals or arrange themselves in an ascent is a question the tradition never settled, and its heirs divide on it: Langer levelled the hierarchy toward art, while the developmental reading pulls the other way.

The deeper boundary is the framework itself. The symbolic forms are constitutive of experience — conditions under which a world can appear to a subject — which roots the whole project in the transcendental tradition and exposes it to the objection Heidegger pressed at Davos: that forms for a subject leave the prior question of being untouched. The tradition’s two principal continuations are two ways of answering that strain. Langer sought to ground the forms below the subject, in feeling and ultimately in biological life; Goodman cut the transcendental subject away entirely and kept only the made world-versions. That the idea can be carried both downward into the organism and sideways into nominalism, with little of Cassirer’s neo-Kantian architecture surviving either passage, leaves open the question of whether “symbolic forms” names a single philosophy or a family of projects that share a thesis about plurality and disagree about everything that would ground it.

Persons

Cassirer · Langer · Goodman