169

If the power and uncommonness of the divine primarily and thoroughly dominates mythical Dasein, then the basic comportment to actuality can never be a mere intuition but is rather in like manner an actualizing that takes on the form of cult and rite. All mythical narration is always only a derivative report of sacred dealings. In these sacred dealings, in contrast, mythical Dasein presents itself immediately. The earlier the cult takes shape, the more sacrifice assumes a central position. Sacrifice is indeed a renunciation, but at the same time it is still a dealing that is enacted by oneself which prepares the way for a certain release from the exclusive power of magical forces. Therein, however, the free power of Dasein is exposed and at the same time the cleft between the human and the divine widens, so as to demand at a higher level a renewed overcoming.

In this way, myth becomes visible as a unified autonomous formative power. Mythic shapes display an inner dialectic in which earlier forms are expanded and transformed but not simply rejected. The mythical “process” carries itself out in Dasein itself without reflection. When this process has run through its possibilities, it itself comes up against its own overcoming. Cassirer seeks to show this dialectic in the different positions that myth assumes toward its own world-image (p. 290) [Symbolic Forms, p. 235].

This brief account has to forego even a slight treatment of the rich ethnological and religious historical material that grounds Cassirer’s interpretation of myth and that he works into the individual analyses with his unique talent for perspicacious and apt presentation. In making available to the author its extensive and rare collections, as well as and especially the use of its entire facilities, the Warburg library in Hamburg provided exceptional assistance in the work (Foreword, p. xiii) [Symbolic Forms, p. xviii]. Among the analyses of mythical phenomena, especially noteworthy are those dealing with the function of the tool in the unveiling of Object-world, and those dealing with sacrifice (p. 273ff.) [Symbolic Forms, p. 221ff.].

Our approach to the philosophy of myth outlined here must pursue three points. First, it must be asked: What does this interpretation achieve for the grounding and guiding of the positive sciences of mythical Dasein (ethnology and the history of religion)? Then it becomes necessary to examine the foundations and methodological principles that support the philosophical analysis of the essence of myth. And finally, the basic question arises concerning the constitutive function of myth in human Dasein and in the all of beings as such.

With regard to the first question, Cassirer’s work proves itself to be a fruitful success. It brings the problematic of the positive research into myth to a fundamentally higher level by carrying out in a variety of ways the demonstration that myth can never be “explained” by having recourse to determinate spheres of Objects within the mythical world. The critique that is directed in this way against the naturalistic, totemistic, animistic, and sociological attempts at explanation is thoroughly unambiguous and devastating. This critique, for its part, is grounded in the anticipatory determination of myth as one functional form [Funktionsform] of spirit, having its own laws. If this conception of myth can prevail in empirical research, then secure guidance has been gained both for the initial appropriation and interpretation of newly discovered material as well as for the elaboration and exploration of already established results.

Yet if this interpretation of myth is to be judged not only with regard to what it achieves as a guide in the positive sciences but also with regard to its own philosophical content, then the following questions arise: is the predetermination of myth as a functional form of creative consciousness adequately grounded on its own terms? Where are the foundations for such an admittedly unavoidable grounding to be found? Are the foundations themselves sufficiently secured and elaborated? Cassirer’s grounding of his guiding predetermination of myth as a creative force [bildender Kraft] of spirit (“symbolic form”) is essentially an appeal to Kant’s “Copernican revolution,” according to which all “actuality” is to be considered as a formation of productive consciousness.