Talk:Ernst Cassirer

message: Ernst Cassirer and Theoretical Biology: Closer than you Think a paper that accepts neo-kantianism in cassirer's roots.
http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/issues/v30/30n4.Panofsky.htm  another paper referencing his roots.
You can use scholar.google.com or the philosopher's index to verify upwards of 200+ papers agreeing with the idea that cassirer had neo-kantian roots.   It is not widely disputed.  --Buridan 15:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone disagrees with you, noone here ever did. Any Neo-kantianism dispute must have been a complete misunderstanding... Nixdorf 21:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: neo-kantianism

message: I rewrote the intro.  For reference this is the old version:
 
--Vector4F 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Rewrite 

message: I do not think that situating Cassirer against Heidegger, especially in the space of a single paragrah that is not even original to the writer of the article, is a very helpful introduction to the thought of either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.20.253.246 (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heidegger 

message: As anyone can see, this article is very poor so far. I've check the other Wikipedias and found that the English article is one of the weakest among the major European languages. We desperately need people to translate the content from the other pages (especially German and French) in order to make the English one less of a joke.-- Howdoesitflee (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations desperately needed! 

message: I don't mind Howdoesitflee deleting 'Unsurprisingly' from my sentence: "[Unsurprisingly] Cassirer found that Einstein's theory gave overwhelming support...." Hopefully the reader will recognize that in the first few years [AND LATER] thinkers appropriated Einstein's theory to fit whatever preconceptions they had. We all interpret new knowledge into the framework of our current "knowledge."
Fortune432 (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The word sounded like editorializing and thus prompted me to remove it. Also, and though I'm assuming no bad faith from your part, you might want to cool down a bit... Remember that no one owns the article, and that your contributions are liable to be edited and modified—and they most certainly will be! Now, that said, I believe you've made an interesting and valid point about the scientific community's reaction toward Einstein's theory; unfortunately, I'm not as hopeful as you may be about the readers' ability to recognize the point you've made. Well, unless "the reader" is specifically me and not a general expression...? Cheers.• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ {KLAT} • 22:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor Edit

message: The sentence
"..Cassirer owes much to Kant's transcendental idealism, which claimed that the actual world cannot be known, but that the human view on reality is shaped by our means of perceiving it." 
is wrong about Kant's transcendental idealism; for it does not even make claims about the actual world. Its claims concern pure reason. 
Transcendental idealism is a theoretical foundation for Kant's argument that the actual world can be empirically known. Kant is, in fact, an empirical realist. 
Therefore, I'll remove the misleading part. 
Kopare (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy of Symbolic Forms

message: There is said in the article:
"Mazlish (2000) however notes that Cassirer in his "The Philosophy of the Enlightenment" (1932) focuses exclusively on ideas, ignoring the political and social context in which they were produced."
What is "Mazlish (2000)? I do not find it under "further reading". --13Peewit (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you mean this essay: Bruce Mazlish, "Ernst Cassirer's Enlightenment: An Exchange with Robert Wokler" in Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture, Volume 29, 2000, p. 349 -359? --13Peewit (talk) 09:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mazlish 

message: The subtitle is Ernst Cassirer & Hannah Arendt. There are two chapters on Cassirer. I agree with the earlier comment that this is an entirely unsatisfactory article but I do not have the expertise to extend it. Cassirer was a key figure in pre-war German philosophy but there is far too little here to help understand what he was on about.82.153.92.70 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ned Curthoys: The Legacy of liberal Judaism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ernst Cassirer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060429125409/http://www.cis.arts.gla.ac.uk/cassirerproject.htm to http://www.cis.arts.gla.ac.uk/cassirerproject.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Cassier and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at  until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cassier" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I note that the final source listed in the 'further reading' section (Hardy, Anton G. "Symbol Philosophy and the Opening into Consciousness and Creativity" (2014)) is a self-published manuscript. Is this considered a reputable source? At the very least it won't have been peer-reviewed. (Apologies, I'm not really au fait with Wikipedia's policies but I thought I'd flag this.) 88.128.88.39 (talk) 16:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Reading: reputable source?