Komparatystyka na rozdrożu?

The author of the article attempts to present the situation of comparative studies as a field of research and a way of thinking about the contemporary world on the basis of the analyses presented in Comparative Literature at a Crossroads? in the monographic issue of “Comparative Studies” 2006. Much attention is paid to the phenomenon of the crisis of comparative studies connected with a noticeable reluctance towards great theoretical models shared by many researchers, the extensiveness of the topic area and resulting methodological problems but also the fact that comparatists abandon the studies of other languages. This results in a need of searching for a satisfactory definition of this field of study, its scope of research and applicable research methods. Among the specific issues raised in the article there is, e.g. the case of world literature seen in the context of the classical contradiction between cultural hegemony and cultural pluralism. Moreover, an interesting review of the picture of the Polish culture from the perspective of postcolonial theories and intracultural differences is presented.

ΑΝΑΛΥΣΙΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΑ ΣΧΗΜΑΤΑ. Restoring Aristotle’s Lost Diagrams of the Syllogistic Figures

The article examines the relevance of Aristotle’s analysis that concerns the syllogistic figures. On the assumption that Aristotle’s analytics was inspired by the method of geometric analysis, we show how Aristotle used the three terms (letters), when he formulated the three syllogistic figures. So far it has not been appropriately recognized that the three terms — the major, the middle and the minor one — were viewed by Aristotle syntactically and predicatively in the form of diagrams. Many scholars have misunderstood Aristotle in that in the second and third figure the middle term is outside and that in the second figure the major term is next to the middle one, whereas in the third figure it is further from it. By means of diagrams, we have elucidated how this perfectly accords with Aristotle's planar and graphic arrangement. In the light of these diagrams, one can appropriately capture the definition of syllogism as a predicative set of terms. Irrespective of the tricky question concerning the abbreviations that Aristotle himself used with reference to these types of predication, the reconstructed figures allow us better to comprehend the reductions of syllogism to the first figure. We assume that the figures of syllogism are analogous to the figures of categorical predication, i.e., they are specific syntactic and semantic models. Aristotle demanded certain logical and methodological competence within analytics, which reflects his great commitment and contribution to the field.