Beyond Objectiveness: Non-dualism and Fiction
Marzenna Cyzman
Log in to download the full text for free
> Citation
> Similar
> References
> Add Comment
Abstract
Context: Traditional research on the fiction/non-fiction distinction is the fruit of an essentialist methodology in which the procedures of ontologizing and textualizing are assumed as obligatory. Ontologizing and textualizing form the basic discursive technique, in which analyses are focused on the object as the semantic centre. Theory of literary fiction – deeply rooted in Alexius Meinong’s theory of non-existent objects – is object-orientated and, as a result, is always ontologically involved/engaged. Problem: The re-description of the fundamental literary problems as a kind of epistemological experiment for which non-dualizing philosophy is a foundation. Considerations are aimed at providing answers/solutions to the three following issues: 1. Is it possible to connect non-dualism with a literary discourse about literary fiction? 2. What difference does the non-dualizing perspective make in comparison to a philologically-orientated discourse? 3. What difference does the non-dualizing perspective make in comparison to the constructivist approach to the problem of fiction? Approach: Mitterer’s non-dualism is considered from both the context of ontologically-orientated discourse about fiction and literary research and the context of constructivist discourse about fiction. Results: Mitterer’s non-dualizing conception may be considered a foundation of a radical non-essentialist way of thinking about literary fiction. As a result, the philologically-orientated research on literary text, focused on the explanation of its semantics, would rather move towards a culturally-, pragmatically-, and/or sociologically- orientated type of discourse. The notion of (literary) fiction should be reformulated as follows: fiction is not the reason for interpretation; fiction is the result of interpretation because the description comes from the object of speech (from-object-cognition). Implications: This is only an introduction to the project of a potential non-ontologizing discourse about literary fiction. Therefore it should be developed and discussed as the option for the dualizing type of the discourse as it still stirs up a lot of controversies.
Key words: Non-ontologizing, non-dualizing, description, non-existent object, fiction/non-fiction, from-object-cognition
Citation
Cyzman M. (2013) Beyond objectiveness: Non-dualism and fiction. Constructivist Foundations 8(2): 173-182. http://constructivist.info/8/2/173
Export article citation data:
Plain Text ·
BibTex ·
EndNote ·
Reference Manager (RIS)
Similar articles
References
Bińczyk E. (2007) Obraz, który nas zniewala. Współczesne ujęcia języka wobec esencjalizmu i problemu referencji [A picture that captivates us. Contemporary conceptions of a language towards essentialism and the problem of reference]. Universitas, Kraków.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bowie M. (1987) Freud, Proust and Lacan: Theory as fiction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Cyzman M. (2009) Nazwy własne w dziele literackim z perspektywy jego ontologii [Proper names in a literary work from the perspective of its ontology]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, Toruń.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Domosławski A. (2010) Kapuściński. Non-Fiction. Świat Książki, Warszawa.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Erlich V. (1969) Russian formalism: History – doctrine. Mouton, The Hague.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Findlay J. (1963) Meinong’s theory of objects and values. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fish S. (1980) Interpreting the variorum. In: Tompkins J. P. (ed.) Reader-response criticism. From formalism to post-structuralism. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fish S. (1980) What makes an interpretation acceptable. In: Fish S. (ed.) Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge: 338–46
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fleck L. (1960) Powstanie i rozwój faktu naukowego. Wprowadzenie do nauki o stylu myślowym i kolektywie myślowym. Translated by M. Tuszkiewicz, Wydawnictwo Lubelskie, Lublin. Originally published as: Fleck L. (1935) Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Benno Schwabe & Co. Reprinted in 1980 by Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Głowiński M., Okopień-Sławińska A. & Sławiński J. (1962) Zarys teorii literatury [Outline of the theory of literature]. Państwowe Zakłady Wydawnictw Szkolnych, Warszawa.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Heidegger M. (1953) Being and time. Translated by J. Stambaugh. State University of New York Press, Albany. originally published in 1927.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Ingarden R. (1960) O dziele literackim. Badania z pogranicza ontologii, teorii języka i filozofii literatury, z niemieckiego przeł. M. Turowicz, Warszawa. Originally published as: Ingarden R. (1931) Das literarische Kunstwerk. Eine Untersuchung aus dem Grenzgebiet der Ontologie. Logik und Literaturwissenschaft. Niemeyer, Halle.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kapuściński R. (2009) Cesarz. Spółdzielnia Wydawnicza “Czytelnik,” Warszawa.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Latour B. (2004) Politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Translated by C. Porter. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA. Originally published as: Latour B. (1999) Politiques de la nature. Editions La Decouverte, Paris.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lewiński D. (2004) Strukturalistyczna wyobraźnia metateoretyczna: o procesach paradygmatyzacji w polskiej nauce o literaturze po 1958 roku [Metatheoretical structuralist imagination: On the processes of the paradigmatization in Polish literary research after 1958]. Universitas, Kraków.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Markiewicz H. (1976) Fikcja w dziele literackim a jego zawartość poznawcza [Fiction in a literary work and its cognitive contents]. Główne problemy wiedzy o literaturze, Krakow: 118–147.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mitterer J. (1996) Tamta strona filozofii. Przeciwko dualistycznej zasadzie poznania, przeł. M. Łukasiewicz, Oficyna Naukowa, Warszawa. Originally published as: Mitterer J. (1992) Das Jenseits der Philosophie. Wider das dualistische Erkenntnisprinzip. Passagen, Vienna.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Originally published in 1983. English translation: Kapuściński R. (2006) The Emperor: Downfall of an Autocrat. Translated by W. R. Brand and Katarzyna Mroczkowska-Brand. Penguin Classics, London.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Parsons T. (1975) A Meinongian analysis of fictional objects. Grazer Philosophische Studien 1: 73–86.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Paśniczek J. (1984) Logika fikcji. Esej o pewnej logice typu meinongowskiego [The logic of fiction. On a logic of the meinongian type]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Paśniczek J. (1988) Meinongowska wersja logiki klasycznej. Jej związki z filozofią języka, poznania, bytu i fikcji [A Meinongian version of classical logic. Its connections with philosophy of language, cognition, ontology and fiction]. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, Lublin.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Paśniczek J. (1994) Ways of reference to Meinongian objects. Ontological commitments of Meinongian theories. Logic and Logical Philosophy 2: 69–86.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Pelc J. (1960) O wartości logicznej i charakterze asertywnym zdań w dziele literackim. Część I: Wartość logiczna a charakter asertywny zdania (zdanie a sąd) [On the logical value and assertive character of the sentences in a literary work] Estetyka 1: 97–128, 399–402.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Pietras A. (2011) Nie-dualizująca filozofia Josefa Mitterera jako współczesna wersja heglizmu [The non-dualizing philosophy of Josef Mitterer as the contemporary version of Hegelianism]. Słupskie Studia Filozoficzne 10: 15–27.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rorty R. (1994) Is there a problem about fictional discourse? In: Rorty R. (ed.) Consequences of Pragmatism (Essays: 1972–1980) University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 111–138.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rorty R. (1994) Philosophy as a kind of writing: An essay on Derrida. In: Rorty R. (ed.) Consequences of pragmatism (Essays: 1972–1980) University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: 90–109.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Russell B. (1908) Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types. American Journal of Mathematics 30(3): 222–262.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Schmidt S. J. (1984) The fiction is that reality exists. A constructivist model of reality, fiction and literature. Poetics Today 9(2): 253–274.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Schmidt S. J. (1986) Interpretacja – fikcyjność – fikcjonalność, in: Współczesna myśl literaturoznawcza w Republice Federalnej Niemiec, Antologia, ed. H. Orłowski, Czytelnik, Warszawa: 130–147. Originally published as Schmidt S. J. (1975) Interpretation als literaturwissenschaftliches Problem. In: Schmidt S. J. (ed.) Literaturwissenschaft als argumentierende Wissenschaft. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Munich: 164–190.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Szajnert D. (2011) Intencja autora i interpretacja – między inwencją a atencją. Teksty i parateksty [The author’s intention and interpretation – between invention and attention. Texts and paratexts].Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Tarski A. (1944) The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4(3): 341– 376.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Walton K. (1990) Mimesis as make-believe. On the foundation of the representational arts. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
White H. (1973) Metahistory. The historical imagination in nineteenth-century Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Wittgenstein L. (1953) Philosophical investigations. Blackwell, Oxford.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Łebkowska A. (2001) Między teoriami a fikcją literacką [Between theories and literary fiction]. Universitas, Kraków.
▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Comments: 0
To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.
