The Reality of Symbols
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Reality of Symbols Edgar Wind as a Philosopher of Human-Thing Entanglement Koenraad Vos 1 2 The Reality of Symbols Edgar Wind as a Philosopher of Human-Thing Entanglement K.A.G. Vos S1451227 [email protected] Supervisor: prof. dr. C.A. van Eck Second reader: dr. L. Iribarren Baralt Arts and culture (research) 2015-2016 3 4 Table of Contents Preface 9 Introduction: the Problem of Human-Thing Entanglement 12 §1. Humanism, Knowledge, and Freedom. The Intellectual Context of Edgar Wind’s Philosophy 20 1.1. Introduction: Working with Two Cultures 20 1.2. A Short Biographical Note 21 1.3. The Ghost of Davos: Cassirer, Heidegger, and Wind 24 1.4. Culture and Humanism 27 1.5. The Problem of Freedom 30 1.6. The Status of Scientific Knowledge 32 1.7. Conclusion 34 §2. Between Entanglement and Detachment. Wind’s Theory of the Symbol 36 2.1. Introduction: “a deplorable lapse into empiricism” 36 2.2. Preliminary Remarks on Wind, Warburg, and the Development of Ideas 39 2.3. Against Autonomy: Kulturwissenschaft, Formalism and Geistesgeschichte 40 2.4. Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s Symbolic Theory and Robert Vischer’s Empathy Theory 44 2.4.1. Einfühlung Between Coalescence and Projection 45 2.4.2. Friedrich Theodor Vischer’s ‘Das Symbol’ 47 2.5. The Polarity of the Symbol 51 2.6. Einfühlung, Causality and Freedom 56 2.7. Epilogue: Denkraum and Continuity 61 §3. An Investigation From Within. Wind’s theory of the experiment 65 3.1. Introduction: Towards a Resolution of the Cosmological Antinomies 65 3.2. ‘Some Points of Contact between History and Natural Science’ 69 3.2.1. ‘Document and Instrument’ 70 3.2.2. ‘The Intrusion of the Observer’ 74 3.2.3. ‘The Self-Transformation of Man’ 82 3.3. The Antinomies and Understanding Nature 83 3.3.1. The First Antinomy: The Principle of Internal Delimitation 84 5 3.3.2. The Second Antinomy: Fundamental Uncertainty 88 3.3.3. The Third Antinomy: Configurative Time and Statistical Law 91 3.3.4. The Fourth Antinomy: The Modality of Events 99 3.4 Epilogue: Meaning in the World 102 Conclusion 105 Bibliography 113 6 7 “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.” – John Donne, Meditation XVII 8 Preface This thesis grew from my time at Leiden University between 2013 and 2016. I am proud to say it can truly be considered the result of my encounters there. In my first semester I took part in two seminars that set the tone: one on the emerging field of new materialism in literary criticism and philosophy, the other on the art historian Aby Warburg (1866-1929) and the context of his work. Where contemporary philosophers are engaged in debates about the active force of materials and objects, things that have long been considered the passive backdrop for action, Warburg infused art history with an attention to the living force of images – albeit without anyone really realising the latter for apparently over half a century. The intriguing parallel between these two topics led me to start wondering what would happen if they were to collide. This thesis is an attempt at such a collision and perhaps the result is rather accidental when compared to the plans I drew up when I first started on the project. Somewhere in the wreckage are the remains of the question what the ideas of new materialism – whatever that may be – would mean for the practice of art history today. I do not know if I got any closer to an answer to that question. In fact, it would probably be correct to say that this thesis is not concerned with doing art history in any direct sense. Rather it has turned into a study of the philosophical problems associated with the material turn by historiographical means. The present study is definitely a testament to the relevance and richness of the thought that was developed by Warburg and by one of his close colleagues in the late 1920s, Edgar Wind (1900-1971). It is peculiar that I cannot recall the precise moment I became aware of his work as a philosopher. It seems this project has already taken so long that its origins have been lost in the mists of time. This length of time is also why I cannot end this preface without thanking the continent around me. Of course all the intellectual work involved would not have been possible without my supervisor Caroline van Eck. However, above all I truly value her continuing kindness and encouragement, despite my frustratingly slow progress over the past one and a half year. The phrase “I could not have done it without you” turns up an awful lot in acknowledgements like this. And so I do not hope the clichéd nature of this expression suggests that I am being disingenuous when I say that I could not have done this without Suzette van Haaren. I realise I have asked a lot of her. I could also not skip thanking my parents and their unwavering support. In addition I want to thank Ranoe Sewrattan, Lucas Derks, Annemieke Lensink, Sanne Coopmans and many others for the good conversations we were able to have and my fellow students, especially those who were with 9 me in the thesis seminar, Paris seminar, and ‘graduation support group’. Lastly I hope my friends forgive me for the seemingly negligible amount of attention I have given them during this period. I intend to make up for it. 10 11 Introduction: the Problem of Human-Thing Entanglement “It is an old puzzle where to draw the line between man and the objects of his environment. His head, we dare say, quite certainly belongs to him; without it, he would lose his 'identity'. But how about his hair? And if we let him have that, how about his hat? If his hat is taken away, or its shape is altered, is not the entire form of the man altered as well? A man accustomed to walking with a stick becomes another man if this stick is taken from him. His gait changes, his gestures, possibly the whole of his constitution.”1 Human beings are surrounded with stuff, things, materials. We form intimate relations with things; we grow accustomed to them; they change us. Even as I write this, the way I am and the way I do, the way I give meaning to marks on a screen – all those things are habitually changed by the things around me. In this digital age of smart devices this is perhaps more obvious than ever before, but the example above shows that the proposition that humans are determined by the material world that surrounds them is not only applicable to the contemporary era. Our current times, however, have come up with a specific name for this idea: human-thing entanglement.2 That is not to say this is a problem that we have only become aware of in the past thirty years. The above quotation by the art historian and philosopher Edgar Wind (1900-1971), whose work is the subject of this thesis, is a clear testament to this. However, the so-called material turn in the humanities and the social sciences has recently placed it at the centre of a great deal of scholarly interest.3 In the process a new range of problems has arisen. For example, almost 70 years after Wind the archaeologist Lambros Malafouris, with reference to Gregory Bateson’s example of a blind man’s stick, put the question in terms quite similar to those of Wind: “Where do we draw, and on what basis can we draw, a delimiting line across the extended cognitive system which determines the blind man’s locomotion?”4 Malafouris’ answer is typical of the many different branches of the material turn in its attempt at overcoming some form of the Cartesian dualism between mind and 1 Wind 1963 (1936), p. 263. 2 See Hodder 2016 for a recent example. 3 For a detailed overview of the material turn in archaeology and anthropology see Hicks, 2010, pp. 25-98; for an overview of different perspectives on materiality from an art historical perspectives see Rosler, Walker Bynum, Eaton, et al. 2013, pp. 10-37 and especially the note by Michael Ann Holly and its accompanying illustration. 4 Malafouris,2004, p. 58; Bateson 1973, p. 318. 12 matter, which also comes in other flavours such as subject/object. He argues that the conceptual gap between cognition and the material culture posed by the question should not necessarily be bridged, but rather that we should see mind and matter as continuous in some way. As such, the material turn’s most fundamental philosophical momentum is concerned with the age-old problem of the relation between mind and world, which it has reformulated under the header of ‘human-thing entanglement.’ The idea that there is a gap between mind and matter goes back not only to René Descartes (1596-1650), but perhaps more importantly to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who – and this is of course to put it in the most crude terms possible – proposed that we have an autonomous intellect that gives shape to the external world by means of its own capacities without ever encountering any physical object in itself.