Cultural symbolization
The small book Kulturelle Symbolisierung (KS) is a first published in 1927 under the original title Symbolism. Its Meaning and Effect published work by the British philosopher and mathematician Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947). It has its origins in three lectures that Whitehead had given in April 1927 as Barbour-Page Lectures at the University of Virginia . The work is attributable to Whitehead's late philosophy, which found its full formulation in the writings Process and Reality and Adventure of Ideas . Thematically, cultural symbolization is an examination of the question of the meaning of symbols for human thought and action as well as the elaboration of a theory of perception that critically examines the traditional philosophy of empiricism and idealism .
Classification in the overall work
Cultural symbolization emerged as a further step in the development of Whitehead's process-philosophical metaphysics after Science and the Modern World (1925) and How Does Religion Come About ? and shortly before he gave his Gifford Lectures in 1927/28 , which he published as his main philosophical work in process and reality . It is unclear whether Cultural Symbolization is a preliminary study of process and reality or a separate elaboration of materials that Whitehead had prepared with regard to the Gifford Lectures. In any case, the basis of his work are thoughts that can already be found in his writings on natural philosophy from the early 1920s. In particular, Whitehead had already dealt with the subject in the essay Uniformity and Contingency , which is based on a lecture given to the Aristotelian Society in 1922 and in which he critically examined Hume and his student Russell's view of the induction problem. Whitehead has adopted essential considerations from cultural symbolization , especially from the theory of perception, according to process and reality . The culture philosophically relevant considerations on the importance of symbols in the company Whitehead until later in the book adventure of ideas received (1933).
content
Conceptual basics
In the beginning, Whitehead developed the conceptual bases of his concept of symbolization in human perception . The background is his idea that everything real in the world consists of a multitude of interwoven and interacting processes, the basic elements of which extend down to the subatomic particles . In this sense, the world is not made up of things or matter , but of microscopic elementary events that become and pass away. Human perception, on the other hand, takes place on a macroscopic level in which the elementary events are already condensed into contexts. When people speak of things, they are already abstractions . Above all, Whitehead criticized the fact that the idea of isolatable things and substances is static. The real world, on the other hand, is a continuous development of elementary processes that emerge from the events that have just passed and are therefore in constant relation to one another.
The reality is the humans and other animals mediated by perceptual experience, which mainly include more sophisticated organisms are capable. In these experiences, figures are formed that represent an original symbol for people, which he only assigns a meaning in the process of perception , into which his emotions and previous ideas enter. A chair is initially nothing more than a colored form, the function of which is only derived when perceiving it. A higher, but indispensable level of symbolization for humans is the language in which the meaning of the experience is marked. One level above are the symbols that have a meaning in social coexistence. These include orders and decorations, certain formalized actions or architecture, such as B. monumental church buildings. Because symbols are derived from perception, they are fundamentally fallible. Whitehead advocated a consistent fallibilism . The error in human thinking does not lie in the direct experience of perception, but in the interpretive symbolization.
On the basis of the introductory considerations, Whitehead formulated a formal definition of symbolization:
- “The human mind works symbolically when some components of its experience evoke awareness, assumptions, emotions, and uses of other components of its experience. The first set of components are the symbols , and the latter set form the meaning of the symbols. The organic functioning on the basis of which a transition from symbol to meaning takes place is called symbolic reference . "(KS 67-68)
All human symbolizations consist in this concatenation of the symbolic reference, which is based on perceptual experiences and is generated by the nature of the perceiver as an active synthetic element. "An actual event arises as a bringing together of different perceptions, different feelings, different intentions and different other activities, which emerge from those primary perceptions, in a real context." (KS 68) The speech about the active contribution of an actual entity contains the idea, that this generates itself. This conception of the ability to develop an inner activity of its own accord is the basis for the ascription of moral responsibility.
There is a relationship between symbol and meaning that is ambiguous. Often times a written word represents a spoken word. A certain word can be written in the Latin script or in shorthand . But it can be that a written word has an independent, immediate meaning. Think of the Chinese script , which has the same meaning in different languages. Does the word tree symbolize the tree in nature or vice versa? Usually the former is the case. Whitehead points out that, on the other hand, a certain object can also generate a linguistic meaning, such as the tree can convey to the poet the idea of his poetry. Research into the behavior of an animal is necessary in order to give meaning to the concept of the animal. What is meaning and what is symbol depends "on the particular constitutions of the act of experience." (KS 72)
Presentational immediacy
In the process of apprehending reality, Whitehead distinguished two non-independent modes of perceptual experience. The first mode he called "presentational immediacy". “This type is the experience of the immediate world around us, a world that is endowed with certain sensory data through the direct states of important parts of our body . [...] For humans, this type of experience is very lively and particularly precise in its display of spatial regions and relationships within the present world. "(KS 73)
In the mode of presentational immediacy, the subject grasps a (processual) object as it is. This object has a certain shape and properties that cannot be separated from it. Such properties exist as pure possibilities, but in reality only appear inseparable from the object being viewed. In the perceptual experience, a white wall is not a wall and also white, but always as a whole a white wall. “We don't perceive disembodied color or disembodied expansion. Rather, we perceive the color and the expanse of the wall . The fact of experience is the color behind on the wall for us . "(KS 74/75)
Presentational immediacy is a present moment in which the properties of an object require a simultaneous perceiver in order to be the properties that they are in the perception. The properties are a relation between two simultaneous and thus independent events. Consciousness is not a prerequisite for perceptual experience. Rather, a certain perceptual experience becomes conscious when it receives a certain amount of attention.
In addition to the mode of "presentational immediacy", Whitehead describes the mode of perception of "causal effectiveness" (see below). Both are interdependent and together provide the information that is processed in the "symbolic reference". “The result of the symbolic reference is what the actual world is for us: that given in our experience that produces feelings, emotions, satisfaction and actions and that, if our thinking is added in the form of conceptual analysis, ultimately the subject of conscious knowledge is. ”(KS 78) Because the symbolic reference is a synthetic way of interpreting information of perception, this is where the causes of the errors lie.
In the presentational immediacy, the "sensory perception [...] detached from time, the world shows itself as a community of actual things that are actual in the same sense as we ourselves are" (KS 80/81) certain qualities that result from the relation between the perceiver and the perceived according to a spatial scheme, and which one can only talk about if one abstracts from both. Perception is a transition from one there to one here, because "the perspectives of the sensory data produced by the spatial relations are the specific relations through which the external simultaneous things are part of our experience to this extent." (KS 81/82) Perception in the mode of presentational immediacy always happens from the perspective of the perceiving organism.
With this characterization, Whitehead agrees with Husserl 's concept of intentionality . The given is never fully grasped by a perception, but as an abstraction in the manner relevant to the perceiving organism and in an intensity determined by it. "Abstraction is nature's mode of interaction and not just a spiritual one. Thinking, when it abstracts, follows nature - or rather: it shows itself as a part of nature." (KS 85) In perception, the perceived event is in the unity of experience is taken up, it is "objectified". Every moment of objectification is the result of its story: "The person-in-a-moment concentrates in himself the color of his own past, and he is its result." (KS 86)
Whitehead referred to Santayana's refutation of Hume's skepticism in Skepticism and Animal Faith , emphasizing his realism as "a position of direct experience of the outside world". (KS 87) In summary, he stated:
- "If one consistently represents such a direct individual experience, one is led in the philosophical construction to understand the world as an interplay of functional activity, on the basis of which every concrete individual thing arises from its specific relationship to the realized world of other concrete individuals, at least in the extent to which the world has passed and is fixed. "(KS 88)
Causal effectiveness
The second mode of perception, the “causal effectiveness”, has mostly been overlooked, or at least neglected, in the history of philosophy, according to Whitehead. In order to demonstrate this, he took a critical look at Hume and Kant . His own conception can best be compared with Leibniz , who differentiated between the clear and self-confident “ apperception ” and the dark, fuzzy and vague “ perception ”. Similarly, with Whitehead, the perception in the form of causal effectiveness is unexpected and vague, but "interesting" because it is determined by becoming.
Whitehead's criticism is based on the concept of time in Hume and Kant and their schools, which in his view contradicts experience. For Hume, causality is not observable, just a habit of observing successive events over and over again. For Kant, causality is a form of thought, a category given a priori in the mind . If either Hume or Kant give an appropriate conception of the status of causal effectiveness, it should follow from this that our conscious conception of causal effectiveness to a certain extent depends on the liveliness of thinking or the liveliness of the purely intuitive differentiation of the sensory data in the moment in question depends. ”(KS 99) But that contradicts experience. For Whitehead, the reason for this wrong description of perception is what he sees as a “naive” conception of time as a simple linear sequence of independent events. In reality, the events are rather in a process of transition from state to state, "whereby the later state shows a conformity with the previous state." Abstraction. Every act of the past affects the acts that follow it and are thus connected to it.
“We need to look at the immediate present in relation to the immediate past. Here the overwhelming conformation of the fact that is being realized in the present action is found to the previous closed fact. ”(KS 100) Perception in the mode of causal effectiveness is not limited to higher organisms. It is also present in the flower that leans towards the sun. “The primitive element in our external experience is the perception of the conformation of realities in the environment. We adapt to our bodily organs and to the vague world that lies beyond them. ”(KS 102) The causal effectiveness is closely connected with emotions, which the conscious presentational immediacy directed towards one's own perspective in push the background. "Anger, hatred, fear, panic fear, attraction, love, hunger, zeal, intense enjoyment are feelings and emotions that are closely connected with the primitive functioning of" withdrawing from "and" expanding towards "" (KS 104 ) This expresses the feeling that is always present in the experience that the present is inextricably linked to the past. In modern philosophical thought, according to Whitehead, this insight is reflected in pragmatism . The aspect of utility emphasized by these philosophers is determined by the principle of conformation. (KS 105)
If the modes of perception are related, causal effectiveness initially dominates, while presentational immediacy only gradually gains importance. However, both forms overlap and have a common influence on the symbolic reference in which they merge. In addition to the sensory data, the integration into the spatiotemporal system of the perceiving organism plays an essential role for both modes of perception. "The projection of our sensory impressions is nothing more than the illustration of the world in partial harmony with the systematic spatiotemporal scheme to which these reactions adapt." (KS 117)
Social function of symbols
Symbolizations serve as orientation in the world. The meaning of the symbols changes over time. Once created, symbols can stand in the way of progress. In addition, symbolizations tend to grow wild. “A continuous process of pruning and adapting to a future, which always needs new forms of expression, is a necessary task in every society.” (KS 120) But the existence and emergence of new symbols is inevitable.
Language also has a special function as a carrier of symbols in a social context. Language is not only used for information and the exchange of meanings, but also shapes cultural identities through its own symbolism. Whitehead referred to his own example of the language differences between England and America.
The persistence of symbols serves to stabilize society. Reason, which Whitehead compared in this connection with gravitational force as the weakest of natural forces , often fails because of this . (KS 128) “Indeed, the symbol evokes loyalties to vaguely imagined ideas that are fundamental to our spiritual natures. The result is that our natures are excited to suspend all antagonistic impulses so that the symbol induces the necessary reaction in action. ”(KS 133)
Symbolic action differs from instinctive or reflex action in that it is not only oriented towards the causal effectiveness that dominates the instincts, but also relies on the presentational immediacy as the basis of analytical reflection. “No elaborate community of elaborate organisms could exist if their symbol systems were not generally successful.” (KS 145/146) However, it is crucial for success that a society is able to adapt its symbol system to the new conditions.
reception
As a result, the font Cultural Symbolization received little attention. There are two main reasons for this: On the one hand, it is only an overview-like presentation that hardly offers any starting points for further consideration in theories of semiotics . On the other hand, Whitehead presented his theory of perception again only a little later in the much more important work Process and Reality , so that the reception concentrates on this work. Whitehead had an immediate effect on Susanne K. Langer , who wrote her first writings on symbol theory as his pupil.
Since Whitehead has not yet used the strict conceptual system of process and reality in Cultural Symbolization , but the process philosophy always resonates in the background of the considerations, this relatively small font is well suited as an introduction to Whitehead's philosophy. In the German edition (2000) the detailed introduction of the translator helps.
expenditure
- Symbolism, Its Meaning and Effect. [Macmillan, New York 1927] Fordham University Press, New York 1985 ( online ).
- Cultural symbolization. translated and introduced by Rolf Lachmann, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt 2000.
literature
- Michael Hampe : Alfred North Whitehead. CH Beck, Munich 1998, ISBN 3-406-41947-X .
- Michael Hauskeller: Alfred North Whitehead as an introduction. Junius, Hamburg 1994, ISBN 3-88506-895-8 .
- Rolf Lachmann: Alfred North Whitehead's natural philosophical conception of symbolization. Journal for philosophical research, 54 (2/2000), pp. 196-217.
Individual evidence
- ^ HN Lee: Causal Efficacy and Continuity in Whitehead's Philosophy. In: Tulane Studies in Philosophy 10 (1061), 62
- ^ LS Ford: The Emergence of Whitehead's Metaphysics. New York 1984, 181
- ^ Alfred North Whitehead: Uniformity and Contingency. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 23 (1922-1923), reprinted in: Alfred North Whitehead: Essays in Science and Philosophy. Rider and Company, London 1948, 100-111.
- ^ Rolf Lachmann: Alfred North Whitehead's natural philosophical conception of symbolization. Journal for Philosophical Research, 54 (2/2000), 196-217.
- ↑ In the translation, the text without an introduction is 88 pages
- ^ Rolf Lachmann: Introduction, in: Cultural symbolization. Pp. 7-55.