Search results

1

Neopragmatism and the Question of Interdisciplinarity: The Case of Stanley Fish

100%

Małecki W.

Human Affairs

|

2009

|

vol. 19

|

issue 1

96-104

EN

The aim of the paper is to criticize Stanley Fish's views on interdisciplinarity (particularly as far as his account of interdisciplinarity in literary studies is concerned). The first part of the article consists of: (a) a summary of his critique of the so-called religion of interdisciplinarity; (b) a description of Fish's theory of disciplinarity that underlies this critique. In the second part of the article, I provide a criticism of Fish's theory. I begin by presenting some counterexamples to it. Then I attempt to demonstrate that Fish's views are self-refuting. Finally, I argue that besides these theoretical reasons, there is also a practical reason why Fish's position needs to be questioned.

2

Debata Fish – Dworkin jako przykład sporu o praktykę interpretacji prawa

89%

Pełka M.

Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej

|

2015

|

vol. 2(11)

86-105

PL

Celem artykułu jest krytyczna ocena teorii interpretacji stworzonych przez dwóch prominentnych filozofów – Stanleya Fisha i Ronalda Dworkina. Po opisie i rekonstrukcji ich poglądów, w tekście identyfikuje się problemy związane ze stanowiskiem, że w procesie stosowania prawa wszystko zależy od interpretacji. Krytyka ta oparta jest na uwadze Ludwiga Wittgensteina, że musi istnieć sposób uchwycenia znaczenia, który nie jest interpretacją, w przeciwnym bowiem razie zasadny staje się zarzut regresu w nieskończoność. Główną tezą artykułu jest twierdzenie, że choć teoria Dworkina nie jest wolna od wad, to jednak ma większą siłę eksplanacyjną niż propozycje jego oponenta.

EN

The aim of the article is to critically asses the theories of interpretation developed by two prominent philosophers, namely Stanley Fish and Ronald Dworkin. After first describing and reconstructing their ideas the paper then identifies problems concerning the stance according to which everything in applying law depends on interpretation. The critic is based on the Ludwig’s Wittgenstein remark that there must be grasping the rule (or more broadly a meaning of any word) which is not interpretation, otherwise we end up in regressus ad infinitum fallacy. Paper’s main claim is that although the theory of R. Dworkin is not fully free from defects it has nevertheless more explanation power than the opponent’s propositions.

3

Polskie literaturoznawstwo ujmowane przez pryzmat stanowiska Stanleya Fisha

87%

Tarkowski K.

Przestrzenie Teorii

|

2016

|

issue 25

349-360

EN

This review of Stanislaw Wojtowicz’s book, entitled Stanley Fish’s New Pragmatism and Polish Debates on Literary Studies after 1989, focuses on several selected issues. First of all, the text discusses Fish’s views on the (non) theory of interpretation and interdisciplinarity, as presented byWójtowicz. Secondly, the article weighs up the pros and cons of Fish’s anti-essentialist arguments for professional literary studies. Finally, the review presents a critique criticism of Polish attempts to change literary studies into cultural studies (taking feminist propositions into account).

4

The Formalist Roots of Stanley Fish’s and E. D. Hirsch’s Hermeneutics

75%

Stopel B.

Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies

|

2013

|

issue 22/1

19-33

EN

The paper investigates the extent to which Stanley Fish’s constructivism and E. D. Hirsch’s hermeneutics are similar in their assumptions and program. Although it is commonly accepted that they constitute polar opposites of literary theory, Fish and Hirsch are embedded in the theoretical discourse of New Criticism’s approach to literary studies and develop in a form of critique of the formalist stance. The problems they encounter and the way they approach literary texts are shaped by formalist assumptions that eventually lead to serious discrepancies between their postulated theory and practice. Both theories of interpretation seem to be operating within a similar framework of ideas which determines their understanding of the problems regarding literary studies as well as their solutions. What appears to be even more important is that the ‘‘textual” theoretical framework itself causes serious problems for both programmes of literary hermeneutics.

5

“C’est la vie, c’est la narration”: The Reader in Christine Brooke-Rose’sTexterminationand David Lodge’sSmall World

63%

Selejan C.

American, British and Canadian Studies Journal

|

2016

|

vol. 26

|

issue 1

52-71

EN

This article considers two metafictional academic novels from the reader’s point of view. It argues that this critical vantage point is suggested (if not imposed) by the fictional texts themselves. The theoretical texts informing this reading pertain either to reader response or to theories of metafiction, in an attempt to uncover conceptual commonalities between the two. Apart from a thematic focus on academic conferences as pilgrimages and the advocacy of reading as an ethically valuable activity, the two novels also share a propensity for intertextuality, a blurring of the boundaries between fictional and critical discourse, as well as a questioning of the borderline between fiction and reality. The reading of fiction is paralleled to the reading of (one’s own) life and self-reflexivity emerges as crucial to both types of literacy.

6

Zaskakujące pojęć wędrówki i związki. O kolektywie myślowym Ludwika Flecka i wspólnocie interpretacyjnej Stanleya Fisha

63%

Cyzman M.

Filozofia i nauka. Studia filozoficzne i interdyscyplinarne

|

2019

|

vol. 7/2

305-317

PL

Celem artykułu jest porównanie kolektywu myślowego i wspólnoty interpretacyjnej, dwu zaskakująco do siebie podobnych pojęć sformułowanych niezależnie przez Ludwika Flecka i Stanleya Fisha. We współczesnym dyskursie oba te pojęcia zwykło się utożsamiać, tymczasem dokładna analiza kontekstów użycia interesujących terminów poświadcza, że odpowiednikiem wspólnoty interpretacyjnej jest zarówno pojęcie kolektywu, jak i stylu myślowego, oba te terminy w rozważaniach Fisha ulegają bowiem kontaminacji. Dokładna repartycja pojęcia wspólnoty interpretacyjnej wydaje się istotna ze względu na częstość jego wykorzystywania w pracach z zakresu interpretacji i poznania literaturoznawczego. W artykule zostają także przedstawione ogólniejsze uwagi na temat funkcjonowania i możliwej genezy tego typu sobowtórów pojęciowych i ich roli w poznaniu naukowym.

EN

The aim of the article is to compare the thought collective and the interpretive community, two surprisingly similar notions formulated independently by Ludwik Fleck and Stanley Fish. In contemporary discourse, both concepts are used as synonims, while an accurate analysis of the contexts of the use of interesting terms proves that the equivalent of the interpretive community is rather thought collective, as well as the thought style, both of these concepts in the deliberations of Fish are subject to contamination. The exact repartition of the notion of interpretive community seems to be important due to the frequency of its use in works in the field of literary interpretation and cognition. The article also presents more general remarks on the functioning and possible origin of twin terms and their role in scientific cognition.

7

Surprising peregrinations and relationships of concepts. On the thought collective of Ludwik Fleck and the interpretive community of Stanley Fish

51%

Cyzmann M.

Filozofia i Nauka

|

2019

|

vol. 7

Refine search results

1 American, British and Canadian Studies Journal

1 Anglica. An International Journal of English Studies

1 Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej

1 Filozofia i Nauka

1 Filozofia i nauka. Studia filozoficzne i interdyscyplinarne

1 Human Affairs

1 Przestrzenie Teorii

2 2019

2 2016

1 2015

1 2013

1 2009

1 Cyzman M.

1 Cyzmann M.

1 Małecki W.

1 Pełka M.

1 Selejan C.

1 Stopel B.