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

Refine search results

Journals help

  1. 2 Studia Gdańskie

Authors help

  1. 2 Paulin M.

Years help

  1. 2 2013

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
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Fallibilismus als Anwalt der Opfer Der kritische Schlüssel René Girards und seine Parallelen im kritischen Rationalismus

100%
Paulin M.
Studia Gdańskie
|
2013
|
issue 32
15-38
DE
Die mimetische Theorie René Girards mit ihrem Instrumentar zur Opferkritik einerseits und die von Karl Popper entwickelte Methodologie des kritischen Rationalismus, welche im heutigen wissenschaftstheoretischen und erkenntnistheoretischen Diskurs fak tisch als allgemein akzeptiert gelten kann, andererseits weisen eine große systematische Affinität zueinander auf. Dies weist dieser Beitrag zunächst mit einer Analyse des Girard’schen Wissenschaftsverständnisses nach. Da nach werden typische Missverständnisse und Engführungen der beiden Ansätze in ihrer Analogie betrachtet und ihr Zustandekommen aus der mimetischen Perspektive heraus erklärt. Dabei zeigt sich, dass auch die Mimetische Theorie einen – recht verstandenen – Fallibilismus impliziert, der theoretisch wie auch ethisch‑praktisch motiviert ist.
EN
Providing a critical instrument to identify structures of victimization, René Girard’s program is in fact very affine to Critical Rationalism methodology as developed by Charles Popper and widely assented in contemporary epistemology. In order to proof this thesis, in a first step, Girard’s understanding of epistemology is reconstructed. His occasionally very strict objection to any form of relativism thereby is shown to be due to an obviously polemic context. In claiming his theory to be scientific, Girard indeed knows very well that it is the specification of science to approach things not apodicti cally, but hypothetically, and he clearly assents this principle. In a second step, typical misunderstandings of both the Mimetic Theory and Poppers fallibilism are analysed and parallelized. They properly consist in an exaggeration of some aspects, while com plementary aspects are suppressed. With the Mimetic Theory, just this uneven exag geration can be explained as happening precisely in constellations of rivalry, as among the „hostile brothers”, and yet as happening unintentionally and therefore being so hard to detect. Therefore, the claim of showing this connection, as raised by the Mimetic Theory, itself cannot be presented in an apodictic manner because it so would force the counterpart into rivalry about the alleged truth, which would so again deform it, NB on both sides of the disputation. Besides this rather „ethical” reason, there also is a strongly „epistemic” reason why Mimetic Theory and the uncovering of scapegoat mechanism should consider themselves to be hypothetical and fallible: Without a continuous rising of this self‑critical attitude, the self‑vindicatory and self‑enclosing spell of myth would have never been broken.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Apologie Pawel Fjodorowitsch Karamasows. Schuld bei Dostojewskij und seinen Interpreten

100%
Paulin M.
Studia Gdańskie
|
2013
|
issue 32
91-107
DE
In einer gängigen Interpretation des Romans „Die Brüder Karamasow” wird die Verantwortung für den Vatermord in unterschiedliche Komponenten zerlegt, deren jede in der Gestalt eines der vier Brüder allegorisch auskomponiert sei. Die „Komponente Smerdjakow” liege dabei als bloße physische Ausführung des Verbrechens außerhalb der Sphäre ethischer Betrachtung. Damit wird Smerdjakow aber noch in der Interpretation einmal mehr in seinem Menschsein verkannt. Eine durch Girard geschulte Lektüre zeigt hingegen, wie gekonnt Dostojewskij – ob intuitiv oder mit Absicht – diesen Charakter mit Kriterien der Opferselektion ausstattet und ihn so der Leserschaft als Sündenbock regelrecht anbietet.
EN
In a common interpretation of Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamasov, Dmitri Karamasov is held guilty of murdering his father in a moral sense, while the character of Smerdyakov is put beyond the range of ethic consideration as he is seen as an allegory of the merely executing factor of the act of violence. Hence, his suicide is read as a proof that the evil itself doesn’t take over responsibility; in face of the accusation it fades away, leaving the charge of responsibility to the human moral subject. Dostoyevsky, however, seems not wanting to stress such a kind of moral hero that, in this interpretation, could be seen in Dmitri. With introducing Alexey in his preamble, he is in fact presenting us a „weak” hero, leading us to another understanding of the story. Yet Alexey is still not the weakest. It is Smerdyakov. What this article pleads for is that Smerdyakov is systematically made a scapegoat, as Dostoyevsky is illustrating in several pertinent scenes. It is only coherent that interpreters, while completely ignoring this fact, continue this scapegoating in dehumanising him by taking off him of all ethic consideration, reducing him to a personification of a merely mechanic component. By contrast, this is an apology for Smerdyakov as a human being. And as a son of Fyodor and brother of Alexey, Dmitri and Ivan.
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.