Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

Czy sir Tomasz More nadal odmawia?

100%

STOFF A.

Ethos. Kwartalnik Instytutu Jana Pawła II KUL

2014

vol. 27

issue 3 (107)

The author of the essay refers to a short story Sir Tomasz More odmawia [“Sir Thomas More Still Refuses”] by Hanna Malewska and to the figure of Sir Thomas More in order to demonstrate the universality of the problem of the freedom of conscience and adherence to one’s conscience. The author points to the special meaning of the text in question during the communist rule in Poland, when Polish citizens were frequently confronted with situations in which they needed to unanimously confirm the truth they had recognized in conscience despite the fact that the attitude of adherence to one’s conscience involved negative consequences. Due to the significance of Malewska’s short story its succeeding editions usually followed the breakthroughs in the after-war history of Poland. However, the author emphasizes that the “problem of Sir Thomas More,” that is the problem of witness-bearing and testimony, remains a universal issue in any circumstances, however well today’s reality may be masking it. Summarized by Dorota Chabrajska

Autor nawiązuje do opowiadania Hanny Malewskiej Sir Tomasz More odmawia i postaci sir Thomasa More’a, aby ukazać uniwersalność problemu wolności sumienia i wierności sumieniu. Autor wskazuje na szczególny sens tego tekstu w okresie PRL-u, kiedy Polacy niejednokrotnie znajdowali się w sytuacjach wymagających jednoznacznego opowiedzenia się za prawdą rozpoznaną w sumieniu, mając jednocześnie świadomość, że za swoje decyzje będą zmuszeni ponieść konsekwencje. Ze względu na ten właśnie fakt kolejne wydania opowiadania Malewskiej związane były z historycznymi przełomami w powojennej historii Polski. Autor podkreśla jednak, że „problem sir Thomasa More’a”, czyli problem świadectwa, pozostaje problemem uniwersalnym w każdych okolicznościach, jakkolwiek dzisiejsza rzeczywistość może sprawnie go maskować.

Karnawalizacja kultury: walka śmiechu z radością

100%

STOFF A.

Ethos. Kwartalnik Instytutu Jana Pawła II KUL

2011

vol. 24

issue 1 2(93 94)

A current tendency in the research on culture is to approvingly explain the concept of carinval as denoting a phenomenon which consists in contesting the already existing and «official» forms of art and custom. Carnivalization is in turn seen as the way to accomplish this end. As a consequence of such a research perspective, however, laughter may be confused with the joy that results from human interaction with the world. This possibility becomes all the more real, since the concept of carnivalization, originally perceived by Bachtin as transposing carnival into the language of literature, may be referred to all kinds of art and to all realms of culture. It was precisely Bachtin who considered laughter as the main tool of carnivalization. Unlike other theorists, he believed that laughter is used in order to deprecate what is universally approved of, to deprive what is respected of its gravity, and to radically overturn the existing hierarchy of values; while all these functions of laughter make it possible for human beings to retain at least remnants of their individual freedom in the outside world considered as oppressive. Since carnival – being by nature parasitic and possible only in so far as it stays in contrast to other forms of culture prior to it and higher than it – uses laughter in a purely instrumental way, it expresses a different attitude towards the world than the one presumed by joy. Carnival laughter is destructive, while joy has a constructive power, being born from an affirmative attitude towards being as such. In the case of laughter a merely superficial involvement is needed, while joy is capable of reorganizing the deepest human dispositions, making the human being capable of more meaningful and fruitful actions. The duration of laughter is determined by the appearance of the actual stimuli that generate it, while joy is a spiritual state that affects human actions. Against the appearances, laughter isolates the laughing ones and sets them against others, while joy exhibits a community building force. The factors that cause laughter need constant diversification and intensification, which is why the carnivalization of culture consists largely in the pursuit for new means of expression. The danger of replacing joy with laughter results from the adoption of an attitude to the reality which is radically different from the one that used to bring most brilliant results in the past. A potentially grave menace resulting from the dissemination of pro−carnival attitudes is that joy will be suppressed in our culture, or even that the ability to experience it and the need to aspire to it will be extinguished. Translated by Dorota Chabrajska

Refine search results

2 Ethos. Kwartalnik Instytutu Jana Pawła II KUL

2 STOFF A.

1 2014

1 2011

Search results

Czy sir Tomasz More nadal odmawia?

Karnawalizacja kultury: walka śmiechu z radością