Ernst Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms and its impact on the theory of psychopathology (original) (raw)
Related papers
After the turn of the millennium, with the crisis of psychopathology dragging on and desperate for new and original ideas, sign- and symbol related approaches have made their way back to the forefront of discussion. This approach is strengthened by the fact that not only Cassirer’s, but also Whitehead’s, Saussure’s, Piaget’s and Peirce’s (Smith 2001) findings - all of them founded on a mathematical-geometrical understanding of human interrelatedness and consciousness – have attracted researchers on an international scale. While present descriptive models produce ‘object-like’ diagnoses, as if they were able to retain their meaning independently of the patient’s changing context, psychopathology is in fact desperate for new concepts which reflect the complex interactions and ever changing frame-settings which are dominating the scene in human interrelations, and during its breakdown. Mathematically and ‘group-theory’ based concepts have much to contribute to these – more relational and process related – templates of diagnostics, drawing from a multi-layered, parallel and integrated idea of consciousness and they may well, in the near future, produce a convincing synergic effect within an on-going debate.
Semiotics in Psychiatry and Psychology
Bloomsbury Semiotics Vol.2, 2022
The international congress on 'The Symbolic Construction of Reality' in Tokyo (2016) came up with the following statement: The concept of 'symbol' is without doubt in the core of the theoretical framework of the human sciences. Its relevance is beyond question and a great variety of differing notions of the symbol were developed by social behaviorists, pragmatists, cultural anthropologists, psychoanalysts, literary theorists, philosophers of life, semioticians and many more. In order to highlight the significance of symbols for the constitution of human life, (the philosopher) Ernst Cassirer defined the human being as 'animal symbolicum' (Cassirer 1944), because he considered the concept of rationality as inadequate to describe human cultural forms and realities. Yet, it remains unclear how these theoretical positions are connected to each other and to what extent they can be combined with each other. Furthermore, a concise and systematic theoretical examination of the concept of symbol is rather underrepresented.
2020
The international congress on „The Symbolic Construction of Reality” (Tokio 2016) came up with the following statement: „The concept of ‚symbol’ is without doubt in the core of the theoretical framework of the human sciences. Its relevance is beyond question and a great variety of differing notions of the symbol were developed by social behaviorists, pragmatists, cultural anthropologists, psychoanalysts, literary theorists, philosophers of life, semioticians and many more. In order to highlight the significance of symbols for the constitution of human life, (the philosopher) Ernst Cassirer defined the human being as ‚animal symbolicum’, because he considered the concept of rationality as inadequate to describe human cultural forms and realities.Yet, it remains unclear how these theoretical positions are connected to each other and to what extent they can be combined with each other. Furthermore, a concise and systematic theoretical examination of the concept of symbol is rather underrepresented”
2018
In recent decades the importance of semiotic and symbolic research in relation to the make-up of consciousness and mental crisis has been ignored. Psychiatric research remains exclusively fixated on genetic links to schizophrenia or detectable changes in organic brain structure. The ongoing ICD and DSM saga with its mere descriptive approach to mental conditions is "blind" to the complexity of human interaction, to meaning, intentionality and resonance; to the constant change of basic pattern of behaviour, gestalt-building or the very specific "as-if" mentality of humans. The massive surge of scientific efforts in biosemiotics, neurosemiotics and psychosemiotics has past by most of the psychiatric establishment and its research units. Semiotic research claims that all life - beyond its physical and chemical remits - is guided and determined by sign and signal-processes. Semiotic research had one historical stronghold in the Soviet-Union and Russia, in the Baltic States and Scandinavia and has gained momentum in recent years through cooperation with biology, philosophy, linguistics and anthropology. It is now presenting concepts how the human biological brain may be linked to the outside world by re-framing the problem via pattern-building, laws of complementarity, gestalt and symbol-processes.
Thaumàzein, 2018
The analysis of mental disorders necessarily requires careful and multilayered reflection. Psychiatry is indeed focused on complex phenomena and symptoms that can be only partly traced back to merely quantitative objectifiable data. This is the reason why we witness a growing methodological and conceptual “mutual enlightenment” between philosophy and psychiatry. Whereas philosophy offers notions that can help to take into account also the qualitative aspects and the lived experiences of pathologies, clinical psychiatry seems to represent one of the most relevant practical fields for philosophy to test its explanatory capacity in relation to its many important issues. The history of phenomenological psychopathology, in particular, shows that philosophers have demonstrated a keen interest in the practical consequences of these issues in the field of clinical psychopathology. It is important to note that, in diagnosing and analyzing some disorders as well as in providing therapeutic instructions, psychiatry turns to concepts that have a pronounced philosophical relevance. Human being, person, self, intersubjectivity, common sense, lived body (Leib) and inanimate body (Körper) are but some of the concepts employed to comprehend several psychopathologies – for instance, those entailing profound emotional and intersubjective disabilities such as schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder and depression. These notions have been the object of lively philosophical discussions. It is therefore quite difficult to imagine, for example, that the connections between time, body and otherness which emerge in certain psychopathologies could be analyzed in complete detachment from the philosophical debate over these issues or without asking whether there is any relationship between mental disorders and the peculiarity of human existence. Considering these convergences, this special issue offers to its readers a series of contributions that investigate the possible relationships between specific psychopathological symptoms and some crucial philosophical issues from various viewpoints. Joel Krueger and Michelle Maiese argue that the notion of “mental institutions” – discussed in recent debates about extended cognition – can help better understand the origin and character of social impairments in autism, and also help illuminate the extent to which some mechanisms of autistic dysfunction extend across both internal and external factors (i.e., they do not just reside within an individual’s head). In his two papers, John Cutting explores the modus vivendi of schizophrenia and that of depression in relation to Max Scheler's phenomenology. Guido Cusinato develops a critical reflection on Cutting’s proposal, highlighting the intersubjective and enactive dimension of valueception impairments. Underlying this discussion between Cutting and Cusinato there is a different way of interpreting the relationship between the modus vivendi of schizophrenia and Scheler’s phenomenological reduction. The next issue of the journal will include Cutting’s response to Cusinato’s observations. Guilherme Messas and Melissa Tamelini analyze two concepts of a philosophical origin – that of dialectics and that of essence – which, in their strict application to psychopathology, could be of considerable value for diagnostic purposes and for the introduction and follow-up of therapeutic strategies. Lucas Bloc and Virginia Moirera propose an outline of clinical phenomenology for eating disorders inspired by Merleau-Ponty’s philosophical phenomenology. Francesca Brencio explores the “pathic” dimension of existence, which is the capacity of both being affected and being situated within moods and atmospheres. The broader purpose of her paper is to show how the “pathic” dimension of existence is related to psychopathology and clinical practice, for example in affective disorders and schizophrenia. Valeria Bizzari draws attention to the interaffective and intersubjective dimensions of Asperger’s subjects. Finally, Gilberto di Petta and Mario Rossi Monti highlight the importance of the debate on these issues that took place in Italy, retracing the history of the Italian Society for Phenomenological Psychopathology and the School of Phenomenological-Dynamic Psychotherapy. There will be a further issue of the journal on this topic. All together, these papers aim to promote a closer comparison and collaboration between psychiatry and philosophy, going beyond a reductive and merely symptomatological conception of mental illness and widening the horizon so as to research areas that so far have remained on the margins of phenomenological psychopathology, such as the dimensions concerning value and affectivity. John Cutting and Guido Cusinato
Towards a synthesis of Psychiatry and Semiotics. Para uma síntese entre Psiquiatria e Semiótica.
Psicopatologia Fenomenologica Contemporanea, 2017
Recent biosemiotic research highlights the fact that "human individuation is (...) a double-tracked process, consisting in an incessant reconciliation or negotiation between the virtual reality that we have constructed in our minds and mind-independent reality as it impresses itself upon our lives. Human life cannot therefore be defined by its uniqueness as a particular genetic combination, but must instead be defined by its uniqueness as a temporal outcome of semiotic individuation" (Hoffmeyer, 2015b). Semiotic individuation was at the core of Ernst Cassirer's "Philosophy of Symbolic Forms" (1923/25/29). His unique approach to view 'symbolic formations' like magic, myth, religion, law, science, the arts and others as universal 'mediators' within the variable and developing levels of human worldmaking (which define the make-up of language and consciousness) was to philosophically anticipate the very idea which biosemiotic research is confirming today. A synthesis of psycho/biosemiotics and Cassirer's symbol-theories can open up an entirely different approach to human interaction and consciousness, thus setting a different compass point for our theoretical attitude to psychopathology. This may help in opening up those hidden fundaments and secretly determining factors within the puzzling and contradictory phenomenology of psychiatric symptoms. Resumo: A pesquisa recente em biossemiótica realça o facto de que " a individuação humana é (...) um processo que assenta em duas trajetórias, consistindo numa incessante reconciliação ou negociação entre a realidade virtual que nós construímos nas nossas mentes e a realidade independente da mente à medida que se inscreve nas nossas existências. A vida humana não pode, por conseguinte, ser definida pela sua unicidade como uma combinação genética particular, mas deve, em vez disso, ser definida pela sua unicidade enquanto produto
Towards a Synthesis of Psychiatry and Semiotics
Recent biosemiotic research highlights the fact that "human individuation is (...) a double-tracked process, consisting in an incessant reconciliation or negotiation between the virtual reality that we have constructed in our minds and mind-independent reality as it impresses itself upon our lives. Human life cannot therefore be defined by its uniqueness as a particular genetic combination, but must instead be defined by its uniqueness as a temporal outcome of semiotic individuation." (Hoffmeyer, 2015)* Semiotic individuation was at the core of Ernst Cassirer's "Philosophy of Symbolic Forms" (1925/27/29)**. His unique approach to view 'symbolic formations' like magic, myth, religion, law, science, the arts and others as universal 'mediators' within the variable and developing levels of human worldmaking (which define the make-up of language and consciousness) was to philosophically anticipate the very idea which biosemiotic research is confirming today. A synthesis of psycho/biosemiotics and Cassirer's symbol-theories can open up an entirely different approach to human interaction and consciousness, thus setting a different compass point for our theoretical attitude to psychopathology. This may help in opening up those hidden fundaments and secretly determining factors within the puzzling and contradictory phenomenology of psychiatric symptoms. Título da Apresentação: " Para uma Síntese entre Psiquiatria e Semiótica " Resumo: A pesquisa recente em biossemiótica realça o facto de que " a individuação humana é (...) um processo que assenta em duas trajectórias, consistindo numa incessante reconciliação ou negociação entre a realidade virtual que nós construímos nas nossas mentes e a realidade independente da mente à medida que se inscreve nas nossas existências. A vida humana não pode, por conseguinte, ser definida pela sua unicidade como uma combinação genética particular, mas deve, em vez disso, ser definida pela sua unicidade enquanto produto temporal da individuação semiótica " (Hoffmeyer, 2015). A individuação semiótica encontrava-se no âmago da " Filosofia das Formas Simbólicas " de Ernst Cassirer (1925/27/29). A sua abordagem única para compreender 'formações simbólicas' como a magia, o mito, a religião, o direito, a ciência, as artes e outras enquanto 'mediadores' universais no interior dos níveis variáveis e em contínuo desenvolvimento da actividade humana de construção de mundos (que definem a tessitura da linguagem e da consciência) estava em condições de antecipar filosoficamente a ideia mesma que a investigação em biossemiótica hoje confirma. Uma síntese entre psico/biossemiótica e as teorias do símbolo de Cassirer pode inaugurar uma abordagem inteiramente diferente à interacção humana e à consciência, fornecendo deste modo uma orientação distinta para a nossa atitudeteórica relativamente à psicopatologia. Isto pode ajudar a revelar os fundamentos e factores secretamente determinantes no interior da intrigante e contraditória fenomenologia dos sintomas psiquiátricos.
Seeing beyond diseases and disorders: Symptom complexes as manifestations of mental constituents
Frontiers in Psychiatry, 2018
Many psychopathologists have approached symptom complexes without prejudging them as physical deficits or diseases, an approach suitable to connections with normal mind, to a broad dimensional and anthropological view of mental disorders. It contrasts with the prevailing orientation in psychiatry toward the medical model of delimited diseases. Discussions of this order centered on symptom complexes gained special prominence in psychiatry between the early 20th century through Alfred Hoche and World War II through Carl Schneider. Their works, in addition to the work of other authors of that period, are considered. The late Kraepelin conceded the possibility that affective and schizophrenicmanifestations do not represent disease processes but rather represent areas of human personality. Seeing mind or persons is a paradigmatic different perspective than seeing diseases. Re-emerge in this comprehensive or integrationist context the notion of unitary psychosis and philosophical questions as the mind-body problem; as background there was a process metaphysics. The possibility of human experience in a phenomenological sense is considered, and a matrix of symptom or function complexes is related to it. Examples of past unitary models of mental disorders with their neurophysiologic explanations are given, as well as an analogy to current biological aspects of the endogenous in chronobiology. The question or hypothesis arises whether mental symptom complexes are manifestations of mind constituents or functions that make human experience and mind possible. The present work is a conceptual analysis that indicates a positive answer to this question. The expectation is to emphasize the perspectives of investigation in psychopathology and sciences of mind fostered by this view of symptom complexes.
2013 sees the centenary of Jaspers' foundation of psychopathology as a science in its own right. The general sense of the General Psychopathology and its specifi c contribution are discussed. In particular, the lecture focuses on three major contributions: the methodological import (Jaspers perspectivism), the importance to study subjective experiences scientifi cally (Jaspers' phenomenology), and the concept of understanding. Three psychiatrists with partly different theoretical background discuss with the members of the Roman Circle of Psychopathology questions like: the specifi c historical and theoretical features of early Twentieth Century culture, science and psychiatry in Germany; Jaspers' relationship with other great thinkers of his time (Freud, Husserl, Heidegger, Kretschmer); the reception of the General Psychopathology in different countries; and the importance and limitations of Jaspers' approach for nowadays psychopathology.