187

5. “Finitude” (Cassirer)

To be sure — a problem, but the decisive question is in fact: why? and how!

To philosophize only in this way concerning finitude, because at one time or another it emerges in the moment as a kind of hangover, but this is certainly no philosophical motivation.

It looks like Cassirer had the central theme and yet completely passed it by!

6. Cassirer (Universal)

Cassirer adheres to his wonderful principle — compliance with Intention (“finitude”? Yes and no!): Question of Being and question concerning man, so that even this becomes problematic — thus the whole problem of consciousness is in motion; Marburg [School]: Intuition and Thinking, even the third!

No! Neither this problem nor the entire interpretation of this question has been understood and assessed. In its place: objections from various sides that have awkward or fallacious aspects but that are all in part correct. Cassirer completely misunderstands that what is decisive for interpretation is the working-out of a problem, and indeed that this problem must first be made visible, and that this comes about through recollection of Kant. In this way an interpretation was demanded. This determines the historical objectivity. A Kant in-itself — which presumably “does not concern” us, or is indeterminate in all respects (Ebbinghaus) — is a fundamental misunderstanding.

But Cassirer also works with the hidden idea of a correct interpretation of this sort.

7. On Cassirer

Agreed: not to cover the entire scope of the problematic (17). Also the intention was never this: to interpret just a part, but instead from one [part], even from the grounding problem, [the intention is] to reveal in Kant the “problem of metaphysics,” and precisely on the basis of the “part,” which was prevented by its customary interpretation as simply “theory of knowledge.”

In this part, the perspective should be pursued in the direction of the problem of metaphysics, which even Kant fundamentally changed — the basis and location for this change.