Kulturwissenschaft in Dark Times: Ernst Cassirer

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

^1. Matherne offers a summary of Cassirer’s interest in the Renaissance in Cassirer, 8–9. On Cassirer’s relations with Kristeller, see Matherne, 251 n. 15. On the Warburg Institute, see Matherne, Cassirer, 6–8. Habermas also discussed Cassirer’s connection to the Warburg Institute in Habermas, “The Liberating Power of Symbols.”

^2. Matherne aptly demonstrates the importance of Hegel in Cassirer’s thinking, in Cassirer, 22–23.

^3. See also Matherne, “Marburg Neo-Kantianism as Philosophy of Culture,” 201–31.

^4. Cited in Regina Weber, “From the Cusanus Edition to the Corpus Platonicum Medii Aevi, 145.

^5. Cassirer wrote of the Enlightenment approach to history as the “conquest of the historical world” with considerable sympathy in The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, 197–233.

^6. Ibid., 360.

^7. Cassirer called this combination of ideas “inscrutable” in Kant’s Life and Thought, 261–62.

^8. Klibansky, Le philosophe et a mémoire du siècle, 74; Cassirer, The Individual and the Cosmos, 7–72. See also Cassirer, “The Meaning of the Problem of Language,” 238–53.

^9. Gay, Weimar Culture, 32–33.

^10. Gay likewise examined the Enlightenment in The Enlightenment: An Interpretation.

^11. Levine, Dreamland of Humanists, 199–203.

^12. For Gundolf on the history of ideas, see Helbing and Bock, “Friedrich Gundolf,” 66; and on “beauty and truth,” 69. For Kantorowicz’s Kaiser Friedrich II and the “new style Geisteswissenschaft,” see Malkiel, “Ernst H. Kantorowicz,” 185–87; see also Gay, Weimar Culture, 49–50.

^13. Raymond Klibansky, “Le notion de Kulturwissenschaft,” 144–46. Revue d’art canadienne / Canadian Art Review 27 (2000): 144–6. See also Moore, “Raymond Klibansky and the Platonic Tradition,” 319–46.

^14. Oexle, “Geschichte als historische Kulturwissenschaft,” 14–40. See note 17.

^15. Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy; and the discussion in Moore, Nicholas of Cusa and the Kairos of Modernity,43–45. See also Gilbert, History: Politics or Culture, 46–92.

^16. Cassirer, The Individual and the Cosmos, 55. See also Moore, Nicholas of Cusa and the Kairos of Modernity.

^17. Oexle, “Geschichte als historische Kulturwissenschaft,” 25. See also Gubser, The Far Reaches, 57–58; and Verene, “Cassirer’s Metaphysics,” 98.

^18. Cassirer, “The Philosophy of History,” 137.

^19. Hamlin, “Ernst Cassirer’s Concept of Kulturwissenschaft, 21–41.

^20. Liebeschütz, “Aby Warburg,” 225–36; and Gilbert, “From Art History to the History of Civilization,” 381–91.

^21. Saxl, “Ernst Cassirer,” 47–51. On the organization of the Warburg Library, see Steinberg, “Law of the Good Neighbor,” 128–33.

^22. Nicely recounted in Manguel, The Library at Night, 198–99.

^23. Cassirer, Grundprobleme der Kulturphilosophie.

^24. Klibansky, Le philosophe et a mémoire, 35.

^25. See Aby Warburg: Bilderatlas Mnemosyne.

^26. Cassirer, Individuum und Cosmos. See also Moore, “Epilogue: Ernst Cassirer and Renaissance Cultural Studies,” 485–506; and Schwartz, “Ernst Cassirer on Nicholas of Cusa,” 17–39.

^27. Moore, Nicholas of Cusa and the Kairos of Modernity, 54–60.

^28. This work is now available in the great Hamburger Ausgabe of Cassirer’s writings, Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie, vol. 1.

^29. Cassirer, “Geschichte der philosophischen Anthropologie.”

^30. Cassirer, Individual and the Cosmos, 15.

^31. Klibansky, The Continuity of the Platonic Tradition.

^32. Despoix and Tomm, eds., Raymond Klibansky and the Warburg Library Network.

^33. Oexle, “Geschichte als historische Kulturwissenschaft,” 18–20.

^34. Brient, “Hans Blumenberg and Hannah Arendt,” 515.

^35. Mommsen, Political and Social Theory of Max Weber, 23.

^36. Cassirer, Grundprobleme der Kulturphilosophie, 128.

^37. On Cassirer’s reaction to Heidegger’s concept of human “thrownness,” see Matherne, Cassirer, 209.

^38. Willey, Back to Kant.