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

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  monsters
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
Filoteknos
|
2022
|
issue 12
101-114
EN
The subject of this article is an analysis of literary images of ghosts and monsters present in Croatian children’s literature, especially in the books of Dubravka Ugre- šić and Stanislav Marijanović. Particular attention was paid to the aspect of otherness and strangeness. The presented research problem concerns mainly how the mentioned authors arouse children’s curiosity towards diversity, teach the acceptance of the fact of being different, intrigue, encourage reflection and disbelief in harmful stereotypes.
EN
The article Are There Monsters in Dorota Wieczorek’s Strachopolis? analyzes selected elements of the topos of fear in the aponymous IBBY-awarded children’s novel. The author is interested in the contemporary version of the topoi of fear embedded in the landscape of globalized existence affected by the phenomenon of supermarketization and consumerism. In the article, the topic of fear highlighted by Wieczorek, is reinterpreted through the prism of a number of sociological theories, notably, Marc Augé’s concept of non-places, Zygmunt Bauman’s postmodern construct of “liquid life”, and Jeffrey J. Cohen’s cultural theory of monster. In Wieczorek’s novel, “monster” is a social metaphor for the excluded whom Bauman has called homo sacer. Their societal degradation in the fairy-tale futuristic metropolis is conditioned upon the post-panopticon power, exercised as persecution of the “Other’s” ethnic and gender identity. The excluded are thus outsiders, if not the discarded “social pariahs”. Besides presenting the sociological and cultural theme of the monstrum, the article further discusses the strategy of carnivalization put forward by Bachtin. This shift leads to the victory of the Others-Monsters as subjects within the liquid modernity. It makes the novel intriguing both on the textual and didactic plane.
EN
In the paper author refers to the passage from The Prince of Niccolò Machiavelli, in which the famous Florentine says that there are two kinds of combat: one with laws, the other with force. Author defend the claim that by writing this, Machiavelli opened up a new and still unused way of thinking about nature-culture relationship. A follower of this way of thinking withdraws from saying that nature is surpassed by culture, or that nature is nothing else but a subject of an on-going human speculation, and rebuts the sole hypothesis that what there is, is nothing but nature. Modern Western culture entrusted its key opposition to the nature-culture relationship. By and large, political philosophy is a story about surpassing the nature in order to establish a state under the rule of law. According to Machiavelli, the juxtaposition of nature and culture, the narrative on surpassing by politics the laws of nature, just as well as the narrative on us being stuck in it, are all utterly wrong. Accepting the ambiguity of the opposition between nature and culture and assuming that the social contract is indeed fictitious, author would like to question Machiavelli about his vision of subjectivity and politics in a world where “natural objects” appear to be socialized, and “cultural subjects” appear to be dissocial. In the way author puts the question: does Machiavelli recommend monstrosity by writing stories in praise of monstrosity as it may well seem?
PL
Postawione w tytule pytanie jest skrótowym ujęciem kwestii miejsca kobiety – jak również, bardziej ogólnie, płci żeńskiej – w Arystotelesowskiej biologii rozrodu i rozwoju, przedstawionej w dziele O rodzeniu się zwierząt (De generatione animalium). Ożywioną dyskusję na ten temat wywołały w ostatnich dziesięcioleciach publikacje feministycznych badaczek myśli Arystotelesa, oskarżających filozofa o to, że w swoich pracach, nawet z zakresu biologii, nie kierował się obiektywną obserwacją faktów, lecz podporządkowywał swoje rozumowanie i wyciągane wnioski „męskiemu szowinizmowi” i typowej dla jego epoki mizogynii. W swoim artykule staram się wykazać, że choć Stagiryta bez wątpienia podzielał wiele poglądów typowych dla współczesnego mu społeczeństwa, jego opinie na temat płci żeńskiej pozostają przede wszystkim pod wpływem jego teorii filozoficznych. Osobniki żeńskie, które w swoich pismach biologicznych łączy z pojęciami materii i braku, nie są więc „potworami” – porażką celowości – lecz uosobieniem jednej z pierwszych zasad, których równowaga zapewnia trwanie widzialnego wszechświata; jako takie zaś są nie tylko koniecznym rezultatem działania przyczyny materialnej, ale również celowej.
EN
In recent years there have been published many critical feminist studies of Aristotle, especially concerning philosopher’s views on females. According to feminist scholars Aristotle’s claims about female sex, even in his biological writings, are the result not of honest science, but of “male bias” and misogynist ideology typical of ancient Greek men: the female is for Stagirite a“deficient male,” a teleological failure, a kind of “monster” whose birth results from pure material necessity. In this paper I admit that Aristotle’s account of the female sex provides some kind of rationalization of Greek social attitudes, but I also try to argue that his conclusions about females are, above all, influenced by his philosophical theories. In may opinion, the female, which in Aristotle’s biological writings—particularly in his embryology—is related to the matter and privation, is not a “monster,” but embodies one of the principles maintaining the existence of the whole universe, and, as such, is necessary not only accidentally, but also teleologically.
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.