Symbolic forms

Cassirer and Santayana

pp. 76-83

in: Andrew J. Reck, Harold N. Lee, Louise N. Roberts, James K. Feibleman, Edward Ballard, Studies in recent philosophy, Berlin, Springer, 1963

Abstract

No contribution whatever towards advancing our knowledge with regard to any particular theory of symbolic forms will be attempted in the following pages. Instead, departing from a few definitions acceptable though probably not sufficient to most philosophers, a minimal case for the symbolic character of knowledge will be made and distinguished from the maximal or wider thesis of "symbolic forms" as represented by Cassirer. Santayana's contribution to the study of symbolic forms will appear as midway between the extremes. "Precisely because of his hypertrophied disinterestedness and his strange lack of ordinary commitments, Santayana was left free, while still living within our civilization, to examine its controlling symbols and myths…" thus making "a possibly unique contribution to what may well turn out to be the major intellectual achievement of our age, the philosophy of symbolic forms… In this respect, only Cassirer, who possessed a profounder erudition but lacked Santayana's sensitivity, can be compared to him." ¹ While, in the end, we shall not be able to accept this characterization by Aiken without qualification, our present purpose is not to argue but to give a fairly straightforward presentation of the "symbolic form" issue.