Ernst Cassirer's Enlightenment: An Exchange with Robert Wokler

ErnstCassirer'sEnlightenment: AnExchangewithRobertWokler BRUCE MAZLISH Cassirer'sPhilosophyoftheEnlightenmentisaworkofintellectual history,conceivedphilosophically.Orratheroneshouldsayitisa laborinthehistoryofideas,forthismagisterialGermanthinkershowed littleornointerestinsocial,political,oreconomichistory.HisEnlighten- mentremainsintherealmofthemindanditsabstractions.Hisapproachas iswellknownhasfallenintodisrepute,oratleastdisregard,amongmany scholars.Hisbookseemsterriblyold-fashioned(itwasoriginallypublished in1932),almostofanotherworldandtimefromourown,withlittleof interestorpassionforustoday.OurownEnlightenmentismorelikelyto bepursued,forexample,alongthelinesoftwentieth-centurymediastud- ies,withRobertDamtontracingthetraderoutesofprintedbooks,examin- ingeighteenth-centurylibraries,andcountingthenumberofcopiesof VoltaireorRousseauthatcanbefoundinthem.Thusweareatleastas interestedinwhoreadwhatasweareinourownreadingofthetexts. Incidentally,IamnotimplyingthatDamton,forexample,hasnotreadthe textscloselybutratherthathisworkhassimplyaddedanotherkindof close reading.1 Whenwereadandcommentontextscloselytoday,asKeithBakerdoes sowellwithCondorcet,wesurroundthemwithampledataconcerning theirsocialsourcesandtheircontemporarypoliticalimplications.Often weplacethephilosophesinthecontextofspecializedstudiesinthehistory 349 350/MAZLISH ofnaturalscience—akindofhistorythatCassirerhimselfpioneeredinan earlyform—or,increasingly,intheemerginghistoryofthehumansciences .2TheworkofDamton,Baker,andnumerousothers,isofimmense importance,givingspecificitytotheEnlightenmentasarealityinthelives ofeighteenth-centuryindividualsandgroups.3WherewetendtosituateDiderot'sorNewton'sthoughtintheirpersonalbiographies,Cassirerisbycontrastlittleinterestedinbiographicaldetails.4Thisisnottosaythat Cassirerwasuninterestedinpersonalitybutratherthathisinterestwas chieflyintermsofthemindsthatentertainedtheideas.5Wherewetoday tendtoplacetheenlightenedthinkersinanAcadémiedesSciencesora RoyalSociety,orseektoobservethembehaverituallyinMasonicsociet- ies,orrelaxincafes,orbecomesubjecttothereaderlyexchangeofideas insalons,thesesocialandinstitutionalsettingsconcernedCassirervery little.OtherpossibleoversightsorslightingsbyCassirerwouldincludehis neglectofwomen,ofthegenderquestionmoregenerally,andofthenow popularnotionofcivilsocietyandthepublicsphere.Butsurelythiswould betocondemnhimanachronistically,foritwasonlywellafter1932that theexplosionalongtheselinesinhistoricalstudiesoftheEnlightenmentoccurred.Asbefittingatruephilosopher,albeitonewhoviewedphilosophyhis- torically,Cassirerinhisbookadheresausterelytoideasthemselves,largely ignoringtheirphenomenologicalcontext.Doestheresultantpuritycome closetoaridity,sothatThePhilosophyofEnlightenmentholdslittleof interesttous?OristhereacriticalperceptionembeddedinCassirer'swork, liabletobelostinourmoremundaneandearthypursuitofthecoreofthe Enlightenment?LetusseektorethinkCassirer'sEnlightenmentinthelight ofsuchquestions.Tohismind,amidstallthediversityofthephilosophesa unityrevealsitself.Ononelevel,thisisbecausetheywereallconcerned withthecentralproblemofknowledge.Theyaskedthebasicepistemologicalquestion —Whataretheconditionsunderwhichwecanknow?— whetherintheareaofphilosophy,religion,psychology,orthesocialsci- ences.Asagoodneo-Kantian,Cassireralsotookthistobethecentral problemforhisownefforttoreconstructthepast.6Onanotherlevel,the perceivedunityisbecausethephilosopheswereallbreathingthesame spiritoftheage.Cassirer,influencedbythearthistoriansofhisowntime andbytheiremphasisonstyle,declaredinalaterworkthatthehistorian's taskwastouncover"thematerializationofthespiritofaformerage.He detectsthesamespiritinlawsandstatutes,inchartersandbillsofright,in socialinstitutionsandpoliticalconstitutions,inreligiousritesandceremo- nies."7Ofcourse,behindthearthistoriansofhisowntimestandsthepre- cedentofMontesquieu,whoisacentralfigureinCassirer'streatmentof theeighteenthcentury. ErnstCassirer'sEnlightenment:AnExchange/351 OnyetanotherandIbelieveadeeperlevel,whatmostfundamentally unifiestheEnlightenmentforCassirerisitspursuitofReason—inthesense ofreasonexaminingitself."Forthisage,"hewrote,thecentraltaskis "knowledgeofitsownactivity,intellectualself-examination."8Hereisthe trueso-calledProjectoftheEnlightenment.Henceitsgreatachievement inregardtothenaturalsciences,forexample—whatwehavecometocall the"ScientificRevolution"—isnotsomuchtocometoknownatureasto cometoknowourselves.AsCassirerremarks,"theknowledgeofnature doesnotsimplyleadusoutintotheworldofobjects;itservesratherasa mediuminwhichtheminddevelopsitsownself-knowledge."9 WhileIwouldagreeincallingthiscomingtoself-knowledgetheProject oftheEnlightenment,forCassirertheprojectfirstmanifesteditselfinthe Renaissance.Itwasthephilosophyoftheearliertimeandplacewhich tooktheleadindestroyingtheoldconceptionofnature.Renaissancethink- erssoughtthetrueessenceofnature,hewritesinThePhilosophyofthe Enlightenment,not"intherealmofthecreated(naturanaturata)butin thatofthecreativeprocess(naturanaturans)."10Essentially,forCassirer, theRenaissanceinquiresintonaturenotinordertostudyGod'screation buttoknowmoreabouthowMancreateshimself.Historywasalsoasub- jectofrenewedinquiryforRenaissancethinkers.ItisonlywiththeEn- lightenment,however,andespeciallywithVoltaire,Cassirerreminds us,thatthesubjectofhistoryshiftsfromcourtpoliticsandbattlestoamore fundamentalprocess—asCassirerputsit,"theprocessbywhichreason emergesempiricallyandbecomescomprehensibletoitself."11Itisthis EnlightenmentProjectthatbelongsaswelltoCassirer.12Hisgreatfour- volumeworkontheErkenntnisproblemisdevotedtothetask,asarefun- damentallyallofhislaterventuresintotheinvestigationofsymbolforma-tion.Itisespeciallyinthislatterregard,aconcernwiththeuseofsymbols,thatCassirermaybelinkedmostforcefullytocontemporaryculturalstud- ies.AsaspecialissueofthejournalRepresentationsaskedrecently: If,asErnstCassirerarguedmanyyearsago,thespecificityofthephilosophyoftheEnlightenmentistobefoundinitsmethod ,its'wayof thinking,'didtheadventofthisnewmethodofphilosophicalinquiryalso requiretheinventionofnewrepresentationalstrategiesandtechniques forthetransmissionandapprehensionofideas?13 Insuchacontemporaryyetcomprehensivespiritofintellectualinquiry, Cassirermaybeseenasservingasabridgetothenewsocialandcultural history.Inanycase,Cassirer'sspiritinThePhilosophyoftheEnlighten- mentiswhollyatonewiththeperiodhestudies,evenasheseekstoextend theworkingsofitsproject.Hisintenseidentificationwiththeworldofthe 352/MAZLISH philosophesgivesCassireraninsightthatrepresentsbothhisanditsper- manent,andperhapsevenparamount,achievement.Hepaysamethodologicalpriceforhisburstofillumination ,ofcourse,andinadditionto thosementionedearlierheisblindtoseveralotheraspectsoftheEnlight- enment.Letusfocusbrieflyonafewoftheseblindspots. OneconcernsmechanismandmaterialismintheEnlightenment.As Cassirernotes:"Itiscustomarytoconsiderthetumtowardmechanismand materialismascharacteristicofthephilosophyofnatureoftheeighteenth century,andinsodoingitisoftenbelievedthatthebasictrendoftheFrench spirithasbeenexhaustivelycharacterized."Thenhavingcorrectlyrejected suchaone-sidedview,Cassirerembracesanequallyone-sidedposition. Heannounces,inwhatIconsidertobeanextraordinarystatement,that"in truththismaterialism,asitappearsinHolbach'sSystemofNatureand Lamettrie'sManaMachine(L'hommemachine),isanisolatedphenomenonofnocharacteristicsignificance ."Inconcludinghedeclaresthat"the scientificsentimentsoftheEncyclopaedistsarenotrepresentedbyHolbach andLamettrie,butbyd'Alembert.Andinthelatterwefindthevehement renunciationofmechanismandmaterialism."14 WhateverthejusticeofCassirer'sremarksonHolbachandLamettrie, hisgeneraldeprecationofmechanismandmaterialismisnotwarranted. Heseemstoforgetthatd'Alembert'sco-workerontheEncyclopédiewas Diderot,adeclaredmaterialist,whoinhis"D'Alembert'sDream"(actu- allywrittenabout1762,althoughnotpublisheduntil1830),answered d'Alembert'squerythat"ifyousaythatconsciousnessisauniversaland essentialattributeofmatter,thenyouwillhavetoadmitthatstonescan think,"withthelaconicreply,"andwhynot?"15AlsooverlookedbyCassirer isthefactthatbehindalltheEncyclopedistsstoodeitherDescartesorNew- ton.Despitehisfamousdualism,theFrenchmanwasbothamechanistand materialist—LaMettrierepresentsCartesianthoughtcarriedtoitsfurthest logicalconclusion—-andthegreatEnglishscientistwascertainlyamecha- nistifnotamaterialist.Infact,thematerialist/mechaniststrainofEnlight- enmentthoughtpredominatedintheeighteenthcentury,andhasservedas theheritageinspiringmuchofthethinkingsubsequentlyconnectedwith inquiriesintothenatureofconsciousness.Similarly,thelinefromDescartes' reflectionsonautomata,andtheactualconstructionsofVaucasson,Droz, andothers,leadsdirectlytopresent-dayconcernswithrobotsandartificial intelligence.16 Cassirer'sownidealismispartofwhatcauseshimtoundervaluethe roleofmechanismandmaterialismintheEnlightenment.Italsoleadshim fundamentallytomisperceivethenatureofthespiritofthetimes,whichis notsomuchauniversalizingsymbolicformasamilieuwithwarringbe- ErnstCassirer'sEnlightenment:AnExchange/353 liefsandperspectives.Inhisbettermoments,Cassirerrecognizedthat"mere geometry"vs.a"dynamicphilosophyofnature,""mechanism"versus"or- ganism,"andothersuchoppositescomprisedthe"fundamentalopposi- tion"withwhichtheeighteenthcenturywrestled.17Buthisdesireforunity causedCassirertotrytoresolvethesedichotomiesratherthantounder- standthatitisexactlythetensionamongthemthatconstitutesanyunity thatwecanimposeonthem.Itisthedebateordiscourseonjustthese mattersthatistheirreduciblecoreoftheEnlightenment. Justbeforelosingsightofwherehisrecognitionleads,infact,Cassirer himselfrecognizesthatmechanismandorganismarenotstarkopposites butinteractivewaysofseekingtounderstandnature.AndagainitisDiderot, acknowledgedbyCassirertobeontheedgeoftransformism,whoshows howthetwoarecombined,andwhointuitsthenotionofevolution.More generally,itisthemechanisticaspectofnaturethathelpstoinspireDar- win,whenattheendoftheOriginofSpecies,heinstancesNewton'sgreat theoreticalachievement,goingontoprofferasimilarover-archingtheory concerningthe"economyofnature."18 ThewordeconomyshouldremindusthatCassirersimplyignoresthe wholeoftheScottishEnlightenment,withitsconcernforeconomicsand sociology.Shockingly,theindextoThePhilosophyoftheEnlightenment showsnoentryforAdamSmith,justasingleentryforAdamFerguson (actuallyreferringtotheappearanceofhisnameinalist),and,notunex- pectedly,absolutelynothingonJohnMillar.EvenifTheWealthofNationscanbeignoredassomehowtoomaterialistic,surelythesamecannotbe saidforSmith'sTheoryofMoralSentiments.Appearingin1759,Smith's TheoryofMoralSentimentswasamainstayofdiscussionsinmoralphi- losophyofthetime—andyetitfindsnoplacewhatsoeverinCassirer's Enlightenment.19Onemightsimplyarguethat,well,eventhemostcom- prehensiveindividualstudycannotcovereverything.Butevenifonecould forgiveCassirerforignoringScottishdevelopments—andmuchoftheschol- arshipontheScottishEnlightenmentpostdatesthe1932publicationofThe PhilosophyoftheEnlightenment—thereisstillQuesnayandthePhysiocrats/ EconomistsinFrance,atopicrestingwellwithinthetimeperiodstudied byCassirer.Norisitenoughtosaythatsuchworkisnotproperlyphilo- sophical.WhatevertheexcusesforCassirer,hisomissionsareboundto leaveuswithaveryone-sidedandthereforeperhapsdistortedpictureof theEnlightenment. Infact,theverydatingoftheEnlightenmentisamattermainlyofseek- ingtoimposeaunityuponit,ratherthanseeingitasaprocesswhichneed notrespectrigidtimedefinitions.Ironically,Cassirerbetraysherehisown specialinsightintotheProjectoftheEnlightenment—itsceaselessquest 354/MAZLISH forreasoncomingtounderstanditselfsomehowhistoricallyrealized.Hence heunderstandswhathecallsHerder's"metaphysicsofhistory,"coming undertheinfluenceofHamann,topart"companywithhisage."Though CassirerrecognizesthatHerder's"breakwithhisagewasnotabrupt,"and infactwas"oneofthegreatestintellectualtriumphsofthephilosophyof theEnlightenment,"theimplicationisthatheisnotoftheEnlightenment butsomehowalientoit.20Itcannotbesimplyamatterofdates,forHerder iswritingwellbeforeCondorcetchronologically,andCondorcetisawidely acknowledgedEnlightenmentfigure,evenifheisalsoonewhomayad- mittedlybewritingtheEnlightenmentswansong.BeforeHerderthereare, inadditiontoHamann,bothVicoandLeibniz,eachofthembeautifully dealtwithbyCassirer.Wecometorecognizethatwearereadingalonga contiuumafterall.TheironyofCassirer'sworkontheEnlightenmentis thathehimselfestablishestheverygroundsonwhichwecanseebothhis artificaldivisionsandhisownlimitations. Onlywithallthissaidandnoticedcanwethenproceedtoreaffirm Cassirer'scentralvisionconcerningtheEnlightenment,whichagainisthat itsprojectisoneofreason'sself-realization.Hereisavisionthatalltoo readilycanbelostsightofinourmorecontemporaryemphasesoninstitu- tionalsettings,thetradeinbooks,andsocialandeconomichistory.Insuch acontext,Cassirer'svisionisstillaneededone,especiallywhenmodified andexpanded.AndIwouldsuggestthatmuchinthewayofsuchworkhas alreadybeendone,andbyanotherGermanscholar,HansBlumenberg.I instanceBlumenbergbecause,asonemodernscholarputsit,heis"akind ofCassirerforourtime,"bothmensharingthesame"ambition,style,in- terestsandapproach."21Andasanotherscholaradds,hisworkembodies "inanewformtheEnlightenment'svisionofphilosophyasaliberating forceontheworld."22Thusheservesasbothacontinuationofandacor- rectivetoCassirer'svision.23WhileBlumenberghasnotwrittenabook treatingspecificallyoftheEnlightenment,hisstudiesTheLegitimacyof theModernAge(1966)andTheGenesisoftheCopernicanWorld(1975), arebrilliantcontributionstoourunderstandingoftheperiod.UnlikeCassirer, Blumenberggroundshispresentationinmedievalphilosophy,andshows howitentersatalmosteverytumintothecomingofmodernity.Hehasa keensenseaswellofthetensionsofdiscourse,ofhowunintendedintellec- tualresultsfollowfromphilosophicalcontention.WhereCassirerseesthe philosophersfollowingoneanotherinlogicalorder,orwhentheydiffer doingsoinlogicalfashion,Blumenbergisfarmoreawareofthemessiness ofactualintellectualdevelopment.Andalthoughhealsoisnotparticularly interestedinthematerialistlineofthinking,orintheinceptionofeco- ErnstCassirer'sEnlightenment:AnExchange/355 nomicorsociologicaltheory,BlumenbergislikeCassirercentrallycon- cernedwiththeprojectoftheEnlightenment.Whatwemustfirstnotice, however,isthatforBlumenbergtheEnlightenmentispartofalargermove- ment,modernity.Andwithinmodernity,thereisspaceforanti-philosophe positionstobeconsideredseriously,fortheynolessthanthephilosophes formpartofthedialecticofmodernity. Onesuchanti-philosphepositionarguesthatmodernityanditscentral ideaofprogressismerelyasecularformofreligion,anideaunthinkable withoutChristianity.24Blumenbergvehementlydeniesthisinterpretation. Instead,heassertsthatmodernitycomesfromhumanity'sexperienceof autonomy,fromwhenceitgivesafuturetoitself.AsBlumenbergseesit, modernityresultsfromaself-renewingassertionofself,seenas"anexis- tentialprogram,accordingtowhichmanpositshisexistenceinahistorical situationandindicatestohimselfhowheisgoingtodealwiththereality surroundinghimandwhatusehewillmakeofthepossibilitiesthatare opentohim."25Blumenberggroundshisthesis,inshort,onaformofphilosophicalanthropology .Heseesthehumanspeciesascomingdownfrom thetreesandfacingtheabsolutismofreality,ashecallsit,thatis,theneed toactintheworldasacreaturenolongerguidedbymereinstinct.Now humansmustusereason,atfirstveryprimitivereason,tosurviveintheir environment.Increasingly,thatreasontakessymbolicandculturalform. HenceforBlumenbergthehumanprojectispresentfromtheinitialevolu- tionarystep.BythetimeoftheEnlightenmentandmodernity,reasonhas becomeconsciousofitsself-realizingnature.Butthisisnottheplaceto saymoreabouttheproject,andIhaveinstancedBlumenbergmainlyto showhowhisemphasisonanevolutionaryperspectivecanopenupforus awiderviewoftheEnlightenmentanditsprogressiveproject.Suchaview isuncongenialtoCassirerwithhisdepreciationofmaterialism,andwith hisshortsightedviewofitsintimateconnection,orlackofconnection, withorganicism. ItwasneverthelessCassirerwhofirstbroughtseriousattentiontothe EnlightenmentProject,andwhoisincidentallyacknowledgedby Blumenbergasoneofhismajorinspirations.ThePhilosophyoftheEn- lightenmentisnotarelicofanoutdated,idealistictreatmentoftheperiod anditsphilosophy.Withallitsomissions,limitationsandold-fashioned stressonthepowerofideastreatedmoreorlessinavacuum,Cassirer's bookhastheinestimablevirtueofneverlosingsightoftheforestforthe trees.ToconcludeourrethinkingofCassirer'sEnlightenment,wemaysaythatitisonlybyunderstandingthemajorprojectofthephilosophescor- rectly—andsurelyCassireraccomplishesthisbroadgoal—thatwecan 356/MAZLISH evaluatethecontinuingprojectoftheEnlightenmenttoday.Whatcouldbe morecontemporary?WhateverdusthassettledonourcopiesofThePhilosophyoftheEnlightenmentneedstobeblownaway .Inthiswaytheorigi- nalandenduringfreshnessofCassirer'sworkmaycontinuetocirculate aroundourownmindsaswecopewithnewversionsofreasoncomingto knowitself. NOTES 1.Infact,DarntonisanadmirerofCassirer.Asheremarksinhisreviewof PeterGay'ssecondvolumeofTheEnlightenment:AnInterpretation(NewYork, 1969)—andonemustnotethatGayhimselfworkedinthetraditionofCassirer— 'ThehistoryoftheEnlightenmenthasalwaysbeenaloftyaffair—atendencythat willnotberegrettedbyanyonewhohasscaleditspeakswithCassirer"(TheKiss ofLamourette:ReflectionsinCulturalHistory[NewYork:WWNorton,1990...