Ernst Cassirer and Claude Lévi-Strauss. Two Approaches to the Study of Myth. / Ernst Cassirer et Claude Lévi-Strauss. Deux approches de l'étude du mythe - article ; n°1 ; vol.41, pg 25-36

Roger Silverstone.

Description

Archives des sciences sociales des religions - Année 1976 - Volume 41 - Numéro 1 - Pages 25-36
Cet article confronte la théorie du mythe d'Ernst Cassirer à celle de Claude Lévi-Strauss. Il cherche à démontrer que, en dépit de leurs préoccupations différentes, le philosophe s'intéressant au mythe en tant qu'aspect de l'activité de la pensée humaine et l'anthropologue voyant dans les mythes un aspect de la pensée sur l'activité humaine se rencontrent sur plusieurs points. En particulier, cette étude comparative fait ressortir l'unité qui leur sert à tous deux de point de départ et qui permet au philosophe de construire l'homme et à l'anthropologue de le disséquer.
12 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Sujets

• Philosophie et théologie

Informations

• Publié par: Archives-des-sciences-sociales-des-religions
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1976
• Nombre de lectures: 61
• Langue: Français
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Roger Silverstone
Ernst Cassirer and Claude Lévi-Strauss. Two Approaches to the
Study of Myth. / Ernst Cassirer et Claude Lévi-Strauss. Deux
approches de l'étude du mythe
In: Archives des sciences sociales des religions. N. 41, 1976. pp. 25-36.
Résumé
Cet article confronte la théorie du mythe d'Ernst Cassirer à celle de Claude Lévi-Strauss. Il cherche à démontrer que, en dépit de
leurs préoccupations différentes, le philosophe s'intéressant au mythe en tant qu'aspect de l'activité de la pensée humaine et
l'anthropologue voyant dans les mythes un aspect de la pensée sur l'activité humaine se rencontrent sur plusieurs points. En
particulier, cette étude comparative fait ressortir l'unité qui leur sert à tous deux de point de départ et qui permet au philosophe de
construire l'homme et à l'anthropologue de le disséquer.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Silverstone Roger. Ernst Cassirer and Claude Lévi-Strauss. Two Approaches to the Study of Myth. / Ernst Cassirer et Claude
Lévi-Strauss. Deux approches de l'étude du mythe. In: Archives des sciences sociales des religions. N. 41, 1976. pp. 25-36.
doi : 10.3406/assr.1976.2084
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/assr_0335-5985_1976_num_41_1_2084Sc soc des Rel. 41 1976 25-36 Arch
Roger SlLVERSTONE
ERNST CASSIRER AND CLAUDE VI-STRAUSS
Two Approaches to the Study of Myth
Cet article confronte la théorie du mythe Ernst Cassirer
celle de Claude Lévi-Strauss Il cherche démontrer que
en dépit de leurs préoccupations différentes le philosophe
intéressant au mythe en tant aspect de activité de la
pensée humaine et anthropologue voyant dans les mythes
un aspect de la pensée sur activité humaine se rencontrent
sur plusieurs points En particulier cette étude comparative
fait ressortir unité qui leur sert tous deux de point de départ
et qui permet au philosophe de construire homme et
anthropologue de le disséquer
The study of myth for both Cassirer and Lévi-Strauss is key to the
understanding of man and his culture for both myth is symbolic
It mediates in the space between mind and reality between the and the
experienced world Both seek to explore and define this space
But if the space is the same for both then their routes are different
sometimes crossing sometimes diverging predominantly moving in opposite
directions Above all this is result of their different ambitions one man
is more of philosopher than an anthropologist the other more of an
anthropologist than philosopher Cassirer is concerned with mind
the universal spirit from which he starts and where via its cultural
manifestations he hopes to finish He follows the clearly spiral path
defined by the dialectic objective is also the mind of man
and also its universality but he begins firmly in the empirical world
with cultures not culture and his path is neither so elegant so simple or
indeed so probable Within the basic mind-symbol-reality structure
Cassirer seeks the dynamics that depend on the activity of mind and
which include reality Lévi-Strauss the forms that mind has already
created and which might lead to its understanding While the one stresses
process the other stresses form and while one stresses affective power
the other stresses rational intellect However these oppositions are by no
means perfect it is question of emphasis only and the purpose of
comparing them is not just to reveal their differences and similarities
but also in doing that to throw some further light on their common object
25 ARCHIVES DE SCIENCES SOCIALES DES RELIGIONS
critical philosophy is grounded firmly in what he takes to
be the failure of both empiricism and idealism adequately to connect the
spiritual function with the sensory material The former he suggests
posits concept of the given particular but not the universal while the
latter acknowledges both but fails to designate the medium through which
they can be represented He goes on to say that if we start not with
abstract postulates but from the concrete basic form of spiritual life this
dualistic antithesis is resolved The illusion of an original division between
the intelligible and the sensuous between idea and phenomenon
vanishes True we still remain in world of images but these are not
images which reproduce self-subsistent world of things they are
image-worlds whose principle and origin are to be sought in the autono
mous creation of the spirit Through them alone we see what we call
reality and in them alone we possess it for the highest objective truth
that is accessible to the spirit is ultimately the form of its own activity
Cassirer 1953 pp 110-111 my italics)
The most profound feature of philosophy is the determination
of the image worlds the self-contained dynamic and potent unities that
both define the essence of man and are defined by him These image
worlds expressed in the symbolic forms of language myth religion art and
science define and create their own reality Within them is expressed
the power generated by the working of imagination power that
incorporates not just the vitality of the rational but also moral and
aesthetic vitality It is this power and the tensions that are generated by
and within it that lies at the heart of what Cassirer takes to be the
symbolic
thought then proceeds from the initial postulate of the
functional unity of man the unity of function inherent in the world of
his symbolic creations to various symbolic forms which express that
world His method follows accordingly to seek the formal and functional
unity underlying these apparently diverse symbolisms And it is in the
establishment of this relationship that perhaps the two theories are
closest For when Lévi-Strauss writes in Structural Anthropology of the
virtues of comparative structural analysis he says We shall be in
position to understand basic similarities between forms of social life
such as language art law and religion that on the surface seem to differ
greatly At the same time we shall have the hope of overcoming the
opposition between the collective nature of culture and its manifestations
in the individual since the so-called collective consciousness would in
the final analysis become no more than the expression on the level of
individual thought and behaviour of certain time and space modalities
of the universal laws which make up the unconscious activity of the
mind Lévi-Strauss 1968 65 However for Lévi-Strauss this is more
hope than promise and this is so because he nails his flag firmly to the
mast of ethnology to the prior study of the empirical ethnological
facts In the Raw and the Cooked he defines the relationship of philosopher
to ethnologist as he sees it precisely Instead of assuming universal
form of human understanding he the ethnologist prefers to study
empirically collective forms of understanding whose properties have been
solidified as it were and are revealed to him in countless concrete
representational systems Lévi-Strauss 1969 11 And the ethnologist
del oerately chooses the most divergent systems so that the methodological
rules he will have to evolve in order to translate these terms of his own
system and vice versa will reveal pattern of basic and universal laws
26 STUDY OF MYTH THE
ibid. So it might be possible to say that for Lévi-Strauss the symbol is
cultural whereas for Cassirer the reverse is true culture is symbolic
The paradox that among others we shall come to is that while
Cassirer keeping close to the constancy of mind and searching for
unity finds that unity forever and profoundly changing Lévi-Strauss
clinging to the variations in culture seeks unity of mind that the ravages
of history can never finally destroy unity is dynamic and
creative and is to be found in the symbolic itself unity is
ultimately static and is to be found in the physiological determinants of
thought
Cassirer therefore defines the space for the symbolic within which
myth is to be placed In so doing he provides an enabling philosophy
for the work of Lévi-Strauss which both highlights it and indicates its
limits The difference between the two approaches to myth is then only
superflcially product of the philosophy-ethnology opposition which
defines the context of their work Beneath this there lie two separate
though interdependent targets Cassirer seeks the mind which creates
the myth the spirit in all its power Lévi-Strauss seeks the message in
all its communicated complexity The unitary power of mind in the one
opposes the tension of meaning and object in the other
In Totemism and in The Savage Mind Lévi-Strauss is especially
concerned to de-institutionalize totemism to reduce its specificity and to
incorporate it into system of thought in which it is perhaps no more
than the most obvious example Lévi-Strauss 1969a passim 1966b 76
But this system of thought is not introspective it does not exist primarily
to commune with itself in an ideal world of mind nor to
d