Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Schelerova kritika fenomenologického pojetí předmětného apriori u E. Husserla

100%
Zhang W.
Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)
|
2012
|
vol. 60
|
issue 2
205-218
EN
Scheler’s critique of Kant and his concept of a priori does, on the one hand, show a notable debt to Husserl, although Scheler adds to and deepens Husserl’s critique. On the other hand, however, Scheler also criticises Husserl’s own understanding of the concept of a priori. The material a priori as an ideal object in Husserl is, above all, connected with the so-called “Bolzanian turn”. Scheler’s critique of Husserl is rendered more profound as he increasingly penetrates the depth of the relation between Bolzano and Husserl. According to Scheler Husserl does not subscribe to soulless Platonism, allow he always conducts himself in a Platonist way. He subscribes instead to neo-Platonism, or rather to logical Platonism. Because the phenomenological reduction in Husserl is not, according to Scheler, conducted in a “pure” way, Husserl’s phenomenological experience (categorical intuition) is problematic. More exactly the relation between categorical and sensory intuition is problematic. Scheler’s ultimate goal is to ensure a primary status for categorical intuition and its contents (material a priori), as well as for the moral view and its correlates (material values), and last, but not least, for the phenomenologically material value ethics.
CS
Schelerova kritika Kanta a jeho pojmu apriori na jedné straně v mnohém navazuje na Husserla, avšak Scheller Husserlovu kritiku ještě doplňuje a prohlubuje. Na druhé straně však Scheler kritizuje i Husserlovo chápání pojmu „apriori“. Materiální apriori jakožto ideální předmět je u Husserla spojeno především s takzvaným „bozanovským obratem“. Schelerova kritika Husserla se prohlubuje spolu s tím, jak stále hlouběji proniká do vztahu mezi Bolzanem a Husserlem. Podle Schelera Husserl nepodléhá bezduchému platonismu, přesto však postupuje vždy „platonisticky“, podléhá totiž „neoplatonismu“, resp. logickému platonismu. Protože fenomenologická redukce není u Husserla podle Schelerova názoru prováděna „čistě“, je Husserlova fenomenologická zkušenost (kategoriální názor) problematická, přesněji řečeno, problematický je vztah mezi kategoriálním názorem a smyslovým názorem. Konečným Schelerovým cílem je zajistit primární postavení pro kategoriální názor a jeho obsahy (materiální apriori), právě tak jako pro mravní náhled a jeho koreláty (materiální hodnoty) a v neposlední řadě pro fenomenologicky materiální hodnotovou etiku.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Development of Marxist Shakespearean Criticism in China

100%
Zhang W.
Multicultural Shakespeare: Translation, Appropriation and Performance
|
2019
|
vol. 20
|
issue 35
99-113
EN
Chinese Shakespearean criticism from Marxist perspectives is highly original in Chinese Shakespeare studies. Scholars such as Mao Dun, Yang Hui, Zhao Li, Fang Ping, Yang Zhouhan, Bian Zhilin, Meng Xianqiang, Sun Jiaxiu, Zhang Siyang and Wang Yuanhua adopt the basic principles and methods of Marxism to elaborate on Shakespeare’s works and have made great achievements. With ideas changed in different political climates, they have engaged in Shakespeare studies for over eight decades since the 1930s. At the beginning of the revolutionary age, they advocated revolutionary literature, followed Russian Shakespearean criticism from the Marxist perspective, and established the mode of class analysis and highlighted realism. Before and after the Cultural Revolution, they were concerned about class, reality and people. They also showed the “left-wing” inclination, taking literature as a tool to serve politics. Since the 1980s, they have been free from politics and entered the pure academic realm, analysing Shakespearean dramas with Marxist aesthetic theories and transforming from sociological criticism to literary criticism.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.