170

To begin with, there are good reasons to doubt whether the interpretation carried out by Cassirer and, in general, by neo-Kantian epistemology, of what Kant means by the “Copernican revolution” gets at the kernel of the transcendental problematic as an ontological problematic in its essential possibilities. But leaving that aside: can the critique of pure reason simply be “extended” to a “critique of culture”? Is it in fact so certain or is it not rather completely in question as to whether in the first place the foundations for Kant’s ownmost transcendental interpretation of “nature” have been explicitly elaborated and grounded? How do things stand with regard to the overall unavoidable ontological elaboration of the constitution and way of Being of what is named, vaguely enough, sometimes “consciousness,” sometimes “life,” sometimes “spirit,” sometimes “reason”? To be sure, before it becomes a question of the possible use of Kant in the sense of “extending” his problem, it is first of all necessary to clarify the basic and problematic demands harbored in the assumption that myth is a functional form of “spirit.” Only from here can it be decided whether and to what extent an appropriation of the questions or schemata posed by Kant is intrinsically possible and justified.

The interpretation of the essence of myth as a possibility of human Dasein remains random and directionless as long as it cannot be grounded in a radical ontology of Dasein in light of the problem of Being in general. The basic problems that arise here cannot be discussed in this context. Let it suffice if we can bring to light, through an immanent critique of Cassirer’s interpretation of myth, several of the main problems in their unavoidability, so as thereby to provide a philosophical refinement and clarification of the task posed by Cassirer. Cassirer himself stressed (Foreword, p. xiii) that his investigation was to be “merely a first beginning.”

The preoccupation with the neo-Kantian problem of consciousness is of such little help that it actually prevents gaining a grasp on the central problem. This is already evident in the arrangement of the work. Instead of taking up the interpretation of mythical Dasein in terms of a central characterization of the constitution of the Being of this being, Cassirer begins with an analysis of the mythical consciousness of objects, the form of its thought and the form of its intuition. Cassirer does indeed see clearly that the forms of thought and intuition must be traced back to the mythical “form of life” as the “spiritually primordial” (p. 89ff.) [Symbolic Forms, p. 69ff.]. But the explicit and systematic elucidation of the origin of the forms of thought and intuition from out of the “form of life” is nevertheless not carried through. That these original connections do not come to light, and that indeed the problem itself of the possible inner link between the forms of life, of thought, and of intuition is not even posed, demonstrates the indefiniteness of the systematic place of mana-representation to which Cassirer inevitably returns in his treatment of all essential mythical phenomena. The mana-representation is not dealt with among the forms of thought, and yet it is also not developed as a form of intuition. It is thematically discussed in the transition from the form of thought to the form of intuition under the title “The Basic Opposition.” This is more an expression of a predicament than it is the presentation of the structural determination of this “representation” from out of the whole structure of mythical Dasein as such. At the same time, however, the mana-representation is repeatedly designated as the “fundamental form of thought.” And Cassirer’s analysis of the mana-representation does indeed have a certain importance over and against the conventional interpretation, to the extent that he does not grasp the mana as a being among other beings but instead sees in it the “how” of everything that is mythically actual, namely, the Being of these beings. Only then, however, does the central problem emerge, insofar as it must be asked: is this fundamental “representation” simply present at hand in mythical Dasein, or does it belong to the ontological constitution of mythical Dasein? And if this latter, as what? In the mana-representation, what becomes evident is nothing other than the understanding of Being that belongs to every Dasein as such. This undergoes specific transformations according to each basic way of Dasein’s Being — in this case, the mythical — and it illuminates in advance thought and intuition. This insight, however, leads to the further question: which is the basic way of Being of mythical “life,” such that within this life precisely the mana-representation can function as the leading and illuminating understanding of Being? The possible answer to this question presupposes, to be sure, an anticipatory elaboration of the basic ontological constitution of Dasein as such. If this basic constitution lies in the “care” that is to be understood ontologically [cf. Sein und Zeit. Jahrb. f. Philos. u. phänomenolog. Forschung vol. VIII (1927), pp. 180-230], then it becomes clear that mythical Dasein is primarily determined through “thrownness.” We can give here only a preliminary indication of the manner in which a grounded articulation moves from “thrownness” to the ontological structure of mythical Dasein.