Show Less

Philosophical Profiles in the Theory of Communication

With a Foreword by Richard J. Bernstein and an Afterword by John Durham Peters

Edited By Jason Hannan

Philosophical Profiles in the Theory of Communication is the first book to draw systematic attention to the theme of communication in twentieth-century academic philosophy. It covers a broad range of philosophical perspectives on communication, including those from analytic philosophy, pragmatism, critical theory, phenomenology, hermeneutics, feminism, psychoanalysis, systems theory, and more. What emerges is a vital, long-neglected story about the theme of communication in late modern academic philosophy. Each chapter features a «profile» of a particular philosophical figure, with a brief intellectual biography, an overview of that figure’s contribution to communication theory, and a critical assessment of the significance of that contribution. The clear and accessible organization of the volume makes it ideal for courses in both philosophy and communication studies.


Show Summary Details
Restricted access

6 Ernst Cassirer: Communication, Rhetoric, and Symbolic Form THOMAS A. DISCENNA 159


6 Ernst Cassirer Communication, Rhetoric, and Symbolic Form THOMAS A. DISCENNA ________________________________________ The philosopher Ernst Cassirer stands as one of the most neglected figures of the latter part of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. As S. G. Lofts explains, “A thoroughly central figure in the neo-Kantian movement and the pre–World War II philosophical scene, Ernst Cassirer was quickly displaced to the margins of philosophy after his death in 1945. Today the name of Cassirer is seldom, if ever, mentioned in lectures on, or introductions to the history of philosophy.”1 The reasons for this displacement are manifold. A number of scholars have identified a shift in culture and the vagaries of fashion as the reason for Cassirer’s neglect by contemporary scholars. Hazard Adams, reflecting on Cassirer’s lack of influence on literary studies, argues, It can be said on the whole that in academic literary fashion three things are true that bear on Cassirer’s present reputation: 1.) many academic critics are not very happy about commitment to any philosophical position, especially Americans, who would rather use things than embrace them, turning commitment to method; 2.) Cassirer seemed to lose to Heidegger sometime in the sixties; and 3.) post-structuralism would regard Cassirer as someone who never managed to come to a true apprecia- tion of difference.2 Edward Skidelsky is even more blunt concerning Cassirer’s irrelevance to contemporary philosophy, arguing, “It was not just that many aspects of his system had fallen into disrepair, but that the whole thing was no longer 160...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.