“And He Taught Adam All the Names”

“And He taught Adam all the names” (Al-Baqarah, 31)

The existence of a system of communication among animals themselves may, at first glance, appear to call into question Ernst Cassirer’s assertion that symbolism is unique to human beings. It is true that animals, like humans, possess a communicative-emotional language; however, the source of symbolism in human language is not this communicative-emotional language, but rather the propositional language that exists independently of it. To understand this, it is necessary to distinguish between a sign and a symbol.

“Symbols cannot be reduced to signs. Signs and symbols belong to two distinct universes of discourse. A sign is a part of the world of physical existence, whereas a symbol belongs to the human world of meaning. Signs are ‘functional,’ while symbols are ‘meaning-giving.’ Signs possess a kind of physical or material existence, whereas symbols possess only functional value. In short, animals have a practical intuition or intelligence of their own; however, only human beings have been able to develop a symbolic imagination and intelligence. Owing to the fact that everything has a name, universal applicability is one of the greatest privileges of human symbolism. But this is not its only privilege… A symbol is not only universal but also exceedingly variable.” [1]

Everything Human Beings Produce Through Symbolization Is Culture

Human beings are, fundamentally, symbolizing beings (animal symbolicum). Through this activity of symbolization, human beings are able to transform their natural environment and, through this transformation, bring culture into being. For Cassirer, who tended to regard every kind of change human beings bring about in nature as part of “culture,” language, myth, religion, science, art, ethics, and history—all of these were various links in the chain of culture brought to light by humanity’s symbolic activity. “Human culture is divided into various activities that proceed along separate lines and pursue distinct ends. In language, religion, art, and science, human beings do nothing other than construct their own world. This is a symbolic world that enables human beings to understand and interpret their distinctive experiences, to articulate and organize them, and to unify and universalize them.” [2].

These symbolic activities of human beings are not isolated or random creations; they are held together by a common bond. Yet Cassirer maintains that this common bond should not be sought in a natural faculty or in a concept such as instinct, which serves no purpose other than attempting to explain the indefinite by means of something even more indefinite. According to him, however, this common origin cannot be revealed through psychological, sociological, or historical inquiry; only a philosophical synthesis can provide it. “A philosophy of culture begins with the assumption that the human world of culture is not merely a collection of scattered and isolated facts. It seeks to understand these facts as a system, as an organic whole.” [3]

Contrary to what the term might initially suggest, Cassirer’s philosophy of humanity is by no means “culturalist.” In the sense that “culture” is the general name for the material and spiritual reproduction of life carried out by the human being as a symbolic being, it is not a distinguishing characteristic that defines a society or a community, but rather a universal attribute of humanity itself. Consequently, science, religion, mythology, art, and philosophy—all forms of knowledge produced by the human mind—fall within the scope of “culture” in Cassirer’s thought.

According to Cassirer, all elements of culture—and among them science, religion, mythology, art, and philosophy—possess their own distinctive forms: “They all move in different directions and adhere to different principles. But this multiplicity and diversity do not signify discord or incompatibility. All these functions perfect and complement one another. Each opens up a new horizon before us and reveals a new aspect of humanity. In other words, everything that appears to be incompatible is, in fact, in harmony with itself; contradictions do not mutually exclude one another; on the contrary, they depend upon one another; this is the harmony within contradictions” [4].

Yet these forms follow an evolutionary and dynamic course within themselves as a result of the continuous struggle between tradition and novelty, between imitation and creativity; it is this struggle that also determines the form assumed by the essential structures of individual cultural forms. For example, the prohibitions imposed upon human life by primitive mythology and religious thought gradually dissolve through this struggle, giving way to a new and dynamic religion directed toward maturity and freedom. Likewise, according to Cassirer, science is the final stage in humanity’s intellectual development; it is the highest achievement of culture, emerging very late and incapable of developing without specific conditions [5]. At this point, what philosophy can do, rather than tilting at windmills, is to strive—side by side with science, art, and religion—to expand the sphere of human freedom, fully aware that it can never abolish the other elements of culture.

Psychiatry Is the Branch of Medicine That Deals with Symbolization

I believe that the attentive reader will have recognized the connection between what we call “symbolization” and the ideas of Descartes, whose thought we have long invoked while emphasizing the neglected importance of this domain. In our view, symbolization is not only the most distinctive feature that differentiates the human mind from other living beings, but also, as Descartes persistently maintained, proof that the “mental” is an immaterial and entirely separate substance that can never be reduced to the material realm nor be exhaustively explained by it.

It will likewise be apparent that Ernst Cassirer’s philosophical anthropology, which conceives of the human being as a symbolizing being, is bound to have, in one way or another, an influence on psychiatry, a science within medicine that is primarily concerned with the symbolic aspect of the human being. In fact, we believe that it may shed light on the resolution of many problems arising from the great impasse known as the mind (soul)–brain (body) problem. The most important of these concerns the scientific nature of psychiatry.

Previously, most notably in The Psychiatry of Existence [6], we attempted to analyze the scientific status of medicine and psychiatry under the inspiration of Paul Ricoeur. We also believe that there exists a possibility of collaboration between this endeavor and Cassirer’s philosophical anthropology in the sense that they may support one another and reinforce their respective influences. This possibility exists as a firmly established intellectual foundation within the striking similarity between the modes of thought of Ricoeur and Cassirer, which may appear unrelated at first glance. Perhaps for this reason, Ricoeur is explicitly regarded as a follower of Cassirer in certain studies devoted to the symbol [7].

Ernst Cassirer’s philosophical anthropology can not only facilitate an understanding of the “mixed discourse” inherent in the scientific nature of medicine and psychiatry, but also invalidate distinctions such as “biological psychiatry” and “social psychiatry,” which arise from unnecessary competition among the products of human symbolism—such as science, religion, philosophy, and art—by allowing for the “local autonomy of knowledge” and preventing such rivalry from taking hold [8].

In the next article, we shall attempt to explore a way of approaching the “human” of psychiatry and psychotherapy in the light shed by Cassirer’s perspective, in order to prepare the ground for this possibility of collaboration.

[1] An Essay on Man, p. 47.

[2] Ibid., pp. 90–92.

[3] Ibid., p. 257.

[4] Ibid., p. 264.

[5] Ibid., p. 241.

[6] E. Göka, The Psychiatry of Existence, Ankara, 1997 (Revised and Expanded Second Edition, 2020), Vadi Publications.

[7] L. Jadot, “From the Symbol in Psychoanalysis to the Anthropology of the Imaginary,” in Jung in Modern Perspectives: The Master and Legacy, ed. R.K. Papadopoulos and G. Saayman, London: Unity Press, 1991, pp. 109–118.

[8] E. Göka, “An Opportunity to Overcome the Dilemma Between Biological Psychiatry and Social Psychiatry: Hermeneutic (Interpretive) Psychiatry,” Kriz Journal, Vol. 2 (1998), pp. 209–213.