Suchergebnisse

It is Aristotle to whom we owe the first philosophical theory of poetic art fully extant from antiquity. He recognized the origin of art and poetry in man's capacity for theory and his pleasure in it, for he considered imitation (mímēsis) as the beginning and basis of cognition. He understood imitation not as a mere act of copying but as the realization and re-implementation of a single person's general disposition to act, which is to say his or her disposition to turn towards the world aiming to seek pleasure or to avoid pain. The poet's task is to represent such a way of acting, real or fictitious, in some medium in a certain way. An orderly representation of this kind starts from an (again, real or fictitious) person's decision to prefer or avoid something. It closely follows this agent's 'quality' (poiótēs), which is to say his or her character. Thereby, the poet can achieve a congruence of all parts of the entire action with one another and with the whole. This is what, in Aristotle's view, is the poet's task. At the time of the reception of Aristotle's "Poetics" around 1500 AD, the understanding of poetry was widely shaped by Horace and Cicero and hence had a strongly rhetorical character. For Horace, it is true, the poet ought to be an imitator, as well, even though an 'erudite' imitator. In Horace's view, however, his knowledge regards the general manners of man. Therefore, the poet, gifted as such with 'prophetic eye' and 'wisdom,' has the ability to express this knowledge in vivid and concrete terms (communia proprie dicere). This knowledge, which men, parents, brothers, politicians, judges, military commanders, etc. use to act was considered to be learnable according to the rules of rhetoric, although it is only by the poet's individual talent that it can become art. It was believed that what Aristotle had called the 'probable' could be equated with this skill based on acquired experience and genius. As a consequence of this reinterpretation, Aristotelian probability, which makes a certain man talk ...

"Der Beitrag geht von der Beobachtung aus, dass gleichstellungspolitisch engagierte Genderexpertinnen, feministische Theoretikerinnen und die Frauen und Männer auf der Straße heute sehr Unterschiedliches über die Geschlechter wissen, und fragt danach, worauf diese Unterschiede im Geschlechterwissen zurückzuführen sind. Im Anschluss an wissenssoziologische Überlegungen wird eine 'Typologie des Geschlechterwissens' entwickelt, die den reflexiven Zusammenhang von Wissen und Handeln in den Mittelpunkt stellt und zeigt, dass den drei Wissenstypen unterschiedliche Konstellationen sozialer Praxis korrespondieren: Jede Spielart von Geschlechterwissen ermöglicht eine spezifische Form sozialen Handelns, weshalb sich die Akteurinnen nur ungern eines Besseren belehren lassen. Das stellt die Gleichstellungspolitik vor Herausforderungen, die bislang kaum bedacht worden sind." (Autorenreferat)

The article
is devoted to studying the perception of a literary text
(hereinafter referred to as LT), which is relevant for the current state of literature
research, as projected on the theoretical prerequisites of the domestic prehistory of
European receptive aesthetics. Russian philology has developed two approaches to
LT — the psychological ("Russian psychological school" by A.A. Potebnya and his
followers) and the purely formal ("Russian formal school" of the language — OPOYAZ) ones. Cognitive poetics as the mainstream modern fi eld of literature studies
combines these approaches in the light of the goals that it sets for itself: the study of
both the formal and semantic organization of the text and its understanding by the
reader. Th e focus of the study into a work of literature is its understanding, therefore,
the meaning of the text turns out to be a scientific priority, as well as the development
of algorithms for its reconstruction in the reader's perception. In this regard, the
terminological apparatus is of particular importance, assuming the differentiation
of the terms of the triad "apprehension-perception-reception". Studying reader's
perception particularly focuses on L.S. Vygotsky's concept of the influence of the
text's rhythm on reader.

Die Zunahme des Wissens ist sowohl Vorbedingung als auch integraler Bestandteil der Globalisierung selbst. Da die Globalisierung durch die zunehmende Vernetzung durch elektronische Kommunikationsmedien das Wissen um globale Zusammenhänge und damit die Globalisierung selbst nährt, könnte man auch von einer Reflexivität der Globalisierung sprechen. Die Globalisierung des Wissens als vorherrschende Produktivkraft schafft ähnlich wie der Kapitalismus distinkte Formen von Zentrum, Semiperipherie und Peripherie, auf welche das Wissen in Form einer Entwicklungs- und Strukturanpassungspolitik angewandt wird. In der epistemischen Kultur der Weltgesellschaft findet eine intensive Vermarktung von Wissen statt, wobei die Konfrontation zwischen globalisiertem Expertenwissen und kulturell differenziertem "lokalen" Wissen sowohl zu einer Zunahme von Komplexität als auch von "Nichtwissen" führt. (ICI2)

Dieses Themenheft diskutiert die Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Konzepts der "Wissenszirkulation" in der Geschichtswissenschaft. Die Wissensgeschichte versteht "Wissenszirkulation" als einen mehrdimensionalen Prozess, in dem Wissen zirkulär produziert, mobilisiert und transformiert wird. Der Ansatz ermöglicht somit, eine Vielfalt von Akteur*innen, Kontexten und Handlungsräumen sichtbar zu machen, die in das Bewegen von Wissen eingebunden sind, ohne dabei vorhandene Machtverhältnisse zu ignorieren. Unter Einbeziehung verschiedener Definitionen und methodischer Ansätze fragt der Band, inwiefern es gelingen kann, neben hegemonialen Praktiken der Repräsentation und Anerkennung auch Ermächtigungsstrategien und Handlungsfähigkeiten auszumachen, wenn Wissensproduktion als kommunikativer (Aus-)Handlungsprozess gefasst wird.

Call for Abstracts for an Edited Volume. Deadline: September 25, 2023

The second part of the article is devoted to the phenomenon of surprise, which is significant for studying the reader's perception of a literary text (CT) and for understanding estrangement (ostranneniе) not only as a literary device, but also as a certain state of the reader's consciousness. In the ambiguous interpretation of this state of the human psyche, taken in the status of both basic emotion and intellectual assessment, by modern psychology, there is no contradiction, since an attempt to understand the world is accompanied by the experience of an intentional object, if it does not begin with it. However, the new, the unknown, being the objectcause of surprise as an intellectual-cognitive state of consciousness, induces opposite emotional reactions in different people - like (acceptance up to delight) and hostility (rejection up to irritation). It is these emotional epiphenomena of surprise that can serve as an argument for distinguishing within the considered intellectual state «surprise+», when the new causes emotional acceptance and intellectual interest, and «surprise-», when the new causes such emotional rejection that leaves no room for the cognitive aspirations of the mind. Speech examples of the emotional ambivalence of surprise are presented both in Russian and in other languages. Particular attention is paid to the connection between the concept of 'surprise' and the concept of 'estrangement' (ostranneniе), as well as their connection with the author's position. Th e formation of the text also has a cognitive-aesthetic reason, which consists in the author's understanding of life through surprise in its two forms - acceptance and rejection (as a rule, in their complex interweaving), and a formalaesthetic goal, confirmed by draft s. The study of the material made it possible to come to the conclusion that the surprise of the author (in any of the author's artistic incarnations) with his diametrically opposed epiphenomena is the reason for the estrangement as a verbal-compositional embodiment of this mode of consciousness in CT. At the same time, «surprise-» dominates and the method of estrangement adequate to it in the linguistic embodiment given within the framework of this type of surprise.

The second part of the article is devoted to the phenomenon of surprise,
which is significant for studying the reader's perception of a literary text (CT) and
for understanding estrangement (ostrannenie) not only as a literary device, but also
as a certain state of the reader's consciousness. In the ambiguous interpretation of
this state of the human psyche, taken in the status of both basic emotion and intellectual assessment, by modern psychology, there is no contradiction, since an attempt
to understand the world is accompanied by the experience of an intentional object,
if it does not begin with it. However, the new, the unknown, being the object-cause
of surprise as an intellectual-cognitive state of consciousness, induces opposite
emotional reactions in different people — like (acceptance up to delight) and hostility (rejection up to irritation). It is these emotional epiphenomena of surprise that
can serve as an argument for distinguishing within the considered intellectual state
«surprise+», when the new causes emotional acceptance and intellectual interest,
and «surprise–», when the new causes such emotional rejection that leaves no room
for the cognitive aspirations of the mind. Speech examples of the emotional ambivalence of surprise are presented both in Russian and in other languages. Particular attention is paid to the connection between the concept of 'surprise' and the
concept of 'estrangement' (ostrannenie), as well as their connection with the author's
position. The formation of the text also has a cognitive-aesthetic reason, which
consists in the author's understanding of life through surprise in its two forms —
acceptance and rejection (as a rule, in their complex interweaving), and a formal-aesthetic goal, confirmed by draft s. The study of the material made it possible to come
to the conclusion that the surprise of the author (in any of the author's artistic incarnations) with his diametrically opposed epiphenomena is the reason for the estrangement as a verbal-compositional embodiment of this mode of consciousness
in CT. At the same time, «surprise–» dominates and the method of estrangement
adequate to it in the linguistic embodiment given within the framework of this type
of surprise.

"Die Differenzierung des Wissens ist ein struktureller Aspekt der gesellschaftlichen Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Dabei ist diese Differenzierung des Wissens als legitimierungsoffen anzusehen; einer Legitimierung, die ihrerseits im Zusammenhang steht mit der gesellschaftlichen Institutionalisierung von Wissensformen, deren Trägergruppen und ihrer sozialen Positionierung sowie der damit für sie jeweils verbundenen Deutungsmacht. Entsprechend kann soziologisch die Zunahme und der 'produktive' Bedeutungszugewinn bestimmter Wissensformen nicht einfach gleichgesetzt werden mit der Legitimierung dieser oder anderer Wissensformen. Bedeutsam für diese Prozesse ist zudem der strukturtheoretische Zusammenhang, dass die Legitimierung von Wissen zu ihrer Kehrseite immer die Illegitimisierung des darin nicht eingeschlossenen Wissens hat. Und so ist es gerade die Zunahme der Bedeutung von 'Wissen' in der sog. 'Wissensgesellschaft' und ihren Differenzierungsstrukturen, die zugleich zu einer strukturellen 'Entwertung' von 'Wissen' führt. Diese Entwertungsprozesse verweisen nicht zuletzt zwei sozio-strukturelle Rahmenbedingungen der Fragestellung im Kontext sog. 'Wissensgesellschaften': einmal auf die relativ hohe Kontinuität der gesellschaftlichen Schichtungsstruktur, zum anderen auf das fortschreitende Aufbrechen kulturell homogener Sozialräume. Zugespitzt formuliert bedeutet das, dass die faktisch konstatierbare Ent-Standardisierung des Wissens zu einer erheblichen Aufwertung nicht-offizieller 'Arenen' des Wissens und Lernens führt. Insgesamt haben die Verfasser es deshalb - entgegen der mit dem Etikett 'Wissensgesellschaft' verbundenen Prophezeiungen - mit ungleichheits-verstärkenden Effekten der Zunahme, Pluralisierung und damit Ent-Standardisierung des für bestimmte Positionen als relevant angesehenen Zugangswissens zu tun, die die (schichtspezifischen) Logiken des Wissens- und Bildungserwerbs zumindest kontinuieren, wenn nicht verstärken." (Autorenreferat)