Listening to Anima Mundi: The Organic Metaphor in the Cosmoecological Perspective

This paper is an attempt to revise an organic epistemological approach toward nature. The sources for such a view are found in the metaphor of the Earth as a living organism, which can be traced even to ancient Greek philosophy. Drawing on the notion of cosmoecology and the Gaia-Uranus Hypothesis, we re-think and supplement the holistic perspective in environmental ethics by emphasizing the role of the embodied of nature, and by turning our attention back “from the heavens to earth”.

Metafora transcendentalna jako zgłębienie rzeczywistości

The article concerns the crucial role of language in the creation of the character’s identity. This issue is analysed by the author on the basis of the Russian writer Tatiana Tolstoj’s short stories. In the works of T. Tolstoj the idiosyncratic language of the character, full of surprising metaphors, repetitions and syntactic innovations creates the prose style named ornamental prose by H. Goscilo. According to the author of the article, the metaphor plays a special role in Tolstoj’s short stories. The short story becomes subordinate to one superior metaphor accompanied by a number of subsidiary metaphors. By means of applying the metaphor that transcendents the reality, Tolstoj’s realistic prose becomes deeply emotional and presents unexpected and unknown aspects of Russian reality.

Metaphorizing the Holocaust: The Ethics for Comparison

This paper focuses on the ethics of metaphor and other forms of comparison that invoke National Socialism and the Holocaust. It seeks to answer the question: Are there criteria on the basis of which we can judge whether metaphors and associated tropes “use” the Holocaust appropriately? In analyzing the thrust and workings of such comparisons, the paper also seeks to identify and clarify the terminology and concepts that allow productive discussion. In line with its conception of metaphor that is also rhetorical praxis, the paper focuses on specific controversies involving the metaphorization of the Holocaust, primarily in Germany and Austria. The paper develops its argument through the following process. First, it examines the rhetorical/political contexts in which claims of the Holocaust’s comparability (or incomparability) have been raised. Second, it presents a review (and view) of the nature of metaphor, metonymy, and synecdoche. It applies this framework to (a) comparisons of Saddam Hussein with Hitler in Germany in 1991; (b) the controversies surrounding the 2004 poster exhibition “The Holocaust on Your Plate” in Germany and Austria, with particular emphasis on the arguments and decisions in cases before the courts in those countries; and (c) the invocation of “Auschwitz” as metonym and synecdoche. These examples provide the basis for a discussion of the ethics of comparison. In its third and final section the paper argues that metaphor is by nature duplicitous, but that ethical practice involving Holocaust comparisons is possible if one is self-aware and sensitive to the necessity of seeing the “other” as oneself. The ethical framework proposed by the paper provides the basis for evaluationg the specific cases adduced.

Poziom autonarracyjności wypowiedzi i użyteczność wybranych sposobów ich generowania

Autonarracja (jako relacjonowanie własnego doświadczenia) jest dla psychologa istotnym źródłem informacji diagnostycznych, ponieważ w autonarracji odzwierciedla się indywidualny sposób nadawania znaczenia rzeczywistości (wewnętrznej i zewnętrznej), który konstytuuje poczucie tożsamości. Wydaje się ważne określenie użyteczności metod (instrukcji) wywoływania autonarracji pod względem ich potencjału w zakresie stymulowania wypowiedzi o wysokim poziomie narracyjności. Istnieją czynniki (intrapersonalne i sytuacyjne), które mogą modyfikować efekty instrukcji autonarracyjnych. Jednym z intrapersonalnych czynników jest tzw. inklinacja narracyjna – dyspozycyjna tendencja do opowiadania o sobie w konwencji opowieści. W referowanych badaniach podjęto się próby określania poziomu narracyjności w tekstach, zebranych za pomocą trzech różnych instrukcji autonarracyjnych w wywiadach (1. pytania otwartego, 2. rozmowy o przyniesionej fotografii, 3. metafory życia jako książki) od osób o różnym poziomie inklinacji autonarracyjnej. Teksty poddano ilościowej analizie treści w celu określenia wskaźników oraz poziomu narracyjności. Badania między innymi sugerują, że psycholog stosujący instrukcje autonarracyjne, nie powinien abstrahować od wpływu inklinacji narracyjnej na użyteczność instrukcji generowania autonarracji.

Antyk w prozie J. R. R. Tolkiena

Tolkien’s oeuvre and its problematic relationships with classical tradition serve in my paper as an illustration of the diverse approaches, methods, and styles of lecture concerning the nature of literary allusivity. As a point of departure in the paper has been taken the reflection on the common phrase about “antiquity in something” deployed broadly in the reception studies. T he questions raised here are as follows: what does precisely “in” mean in that metaphor? O r, to put it in more general terms, when an allusion to another text can be treated as an inherent part of interpretation? Answer to these questions was possible due to U mberto E co’s statements in the well-known dispute relating to the interpretation and overinterpretation; in conclusion I was trying to show that his criterion of textual economy in interpretation justifies somehow (as I believe) the new look on the essential T olkien’s symbol, i.e. the ring of power, as a symbol of the R oman imperial rule. This means (in the context of the translatio imperii and cultural change from pagan to Christian empire) that The Lord of the Rings can be seen in a way as a novelistic version of Augustine’s The City of God.

Filozofia antyczna wobec problemu interpretacji. Rozwój alegorezy od przedsokratyków do Arystotelesa

The present work examines the beginnings of ancient hermeneutics. More specifically, it discusses the connection between the rise of the practice of allegoresis, on the one hand, and the emergence of the first theory of figurative language, on the other. Thus, this book investigates the specific historical and cultural circumstances that enabled the ancient Greeks not only to discover the possibility of allegorical interpretation, but also to treat figurative language as a philosophical problem. By posing difficulties in understanding the enigmatic sense of various esoteric doctrines, poems, oracles and riddles, figurative language created the context for theoretical reflection on the meaning of these “messages”. Hence, ancient interpreters began to ponder over the nature and functions of figurative (“enigmatic”) language as well as over the techniques of its proper use and interpretation. Although the practice of allegorical interpretation was closely linked to the development of the whole of ancient philosophy, the present work covers only the period from the 6th to the 4th century B.C. It concentrates, then, on the philosophical and cultural consequences of allegoresis in the classical age. The main thesis advocated here has it that the ancient Greeks were in-clined to regard allegory as a cognitive problem rather than merely as a stylistic or a literary one. When searching for the hidden meanings of various esoteric doc-trines, poems, oracles and riddles, ancient interpreters of these “messages” assumed allegory to be the only tool suitable for articulating certain matters. In other words, it was their belief that the use of figurative language resulted from the necessity of expressing things that were otherwise inexpressible. The present work has been organized in the following manner. The first part contains historical and philological discussions that provide the point of departure for more philosophical considerations. This part consists of two introductory chapters. Chapter one situates the practice of allegorical interpretation at the borderline of two different traditions: the rhetorical-grammatical and the hermeneutical. In order to clearly differentiate between the two, chapter one distinguishes between allegory and allegoresis, on the one hand, and allegoresis and exegesis, on the other. While pointing to the conventionality (and even arbitrariness) of such distinctions, the chapter argues, nevertheless, for their heuristic usefulness. The remaining part of chapter one focuses on a historical and philological reconstruction of the most important conceptual tools of ancient hermeneutics. Discussing the semantics of such terms as allēgoría, hypónoia, ainigma and symbolon proves important for at least two crucial reasons. Firstly, it reveals the mutual affinity between allegoresis and divination, i.e., practices that are inherently connected with the need to discover the latent meaning of the “message” in question (whether poem or oracle). Secondly, these philological analyses bring to light the specificity of the ancient understanding of such concepts as allegory or symbol. It goes without saying that antiquity employed these terms in a manner quite disparate from modernity. Chapter one concludes with a discussion of ancient views on the cognitive value of figurative (“enigmatic”) language. Chapter two focuses on the role that allegoresis played in the process of transforming mythos into logos. It is suggested here that it was the practice of allegorical interpretation that made it possible to preserve the traditional myths as an important point of reference for the whole of ancient philosophy. Thus, chapter two argues that the existence of a clear opposition between mythos into logos in Preplatonic philosophy is highly questionable in light of the indisputable fact that the Presocratics, Sophists and Cynics were profoundly convinced about the cognitive value of mythos (this conviction was also shared by Plato and Aristotle, but their attitude towards myth was more complex). Consequently, chapter two argues that in Preplatonic philosophy, myth played a function analogous to the concepts discussed in chapter one (i.e., hidden meanings, enigmas and symbols), for in all these cases, ancient interpreters found tools for conveying issues that were otherwise difficult to convey. Chapter two concludes with a classification of various types of allegoresis. Whilst chapters one and two serve as a historical and philological introduction, the second part of this book concentrates on the close relationship between the development of allegoresis, on the one hand, and the flowering of philosophy, on the other. Thus, chapter three discusses the crucial role that allegorical interpretation came to play in Preplatonic philosophy, chapter four deals with Plato’s highly complex and ambivalent attitude to allegoresis, and chapter five has been devoted to Aristotle’s original approach to the practice of allegorical interpretation. It is evident that allegoresis was of paramount importance for the ancient thinkers, irrespective of whether they would value it positively (Preplatonic philosophers and Aristotle) or negatively (Plato). Beginning with the 6th century B.C., the ancient practice of allegorical interpretation is motivated by two distinct interests. On the one hand, the practice of allegorical interpretation reflects the more or less “conservative” attachment to the authority of the poet (whether Homer, Hesiod or Orpheus). The purpose of this apologetic allegoresis is to exonerate poetry from the charges leveled at it by the first philosophers and, though to a lesser degree, historians. Generally, these allegorists seek to save the traditional paideia that builds on the works of the poets. On the other hand, the practice of allegorical interpretation reflects also the more or less “progressive” desire to make original use of the authority of the poet (whether Homer, Hesiod or Orpheus) so as to promote a given philosophical doctrine. The objective of this instrumental allegoresis is to exculpate philosophy from the accusations brought against it by the more conservative circles. Needless to say, these allegorists significantly contribute to the process of the gradual replacing of the mythical view of the world with its more philosophical explanation. The present book suggests that it is the philosophy of Aristotle that should be regarded as a sort of acme in the development of ancient hermeneutics. The reasons for this are twofold. On the one hand, the Stagirite positively values the practice of allegoresis, rehabilitating, thus, the tradition of Preplatonic philosophy against Plato. And, on the other hand, Aristotle initiates the theoretical reflection on figurative (“enigmatic”) language. Hence, in Aristotle we encounter not only the practice of allegoresis, but also the theory of allegory (although the philosopher does not use the term allēgoría). With the situation being as it is, the significance of Aristotle’s work cannot be overestimated. First of all, the Stagirite introduces the concept of metaphor into the then philosophical considerations. From that moment onwards, the phenomenon of figurative language becomes an important philosophical issue. After Aristo-tle, the preponderance of thinkers would feel obliged to specify the rules for the appropriate use of figurative language and the techniques of its correct interpretation. Furthermore, Aristotle ascribes to metaphor (and to various other “excellent” sayings) the function of increasing and enhancing our knowledge. Thus, according to the Stagirite, figurative language is not only an ornamental device, but it can also have a significant explanatory power. Finally, Aristotle observes that figurative expressions cause words to become ambiguous. In this context, the philosopher notices that ambiguity can enrich the language of a poet, but it can also hinder a dialectical discussion. Accordingly, Aristotle is inclined to value polysemy either positively or negatively. Importantly, however, the Stagirite is perfectly aware of the fact that in natural languages ambiguity is unavoidable. This is why Aristotle initiates a syste-matic reflection on the phenomenon of ambiguity and distinguishes its various kinds. In Aristotle, ambiguity is, then, both a problem that needs to be identified and a tool that can help in elucidating intricate philosophical issues. This unique approach to ambiguity and figurative (“enigmatic”) language enabled Aristotle to formulate invaluable intuitions that still await appropriate recognition.

Między językiem a światem. O poezji Krystyny Miłobędzkiej

Wydział Filologii Polskiej i Klasycznej: Instytut Filologii Polskiej

Kim jestem? Kim się staję? Od praktyki do teorii

W artykule w zakresie metody teologiczno-fundamentalnej przedstawione zostały następujące główne zagadnienia. 1. Konspekt edukacyjno-psychologicznych warsztatów, 2. Uzasadnienie metodyczne i metodologiczne przyjętej konstrukcji. W konspekcie szczegółowo opisane zostały kolejne kroki, które powinien podjąć prowadzący z pewnymi sugestiami ku czemu dane działania prowadzą. Szerzej zostały podane wnioski, do których prowadzący powinien podprowadzić uczestników warsztatów w obszarze teologii fundamentalnej – jako pomoc w poszukiwaniach celu, całości i sensu – wykorzystano elementy psychologii, filozofii, teologii duchowości. Procedura ćwiczeń przeprowadza uczestnika od pytań o samego siebie do pytań o siebie poprzez relacje z drugim, tak by uświadomić mu możliwość kontaktu z Drugim. W dalszej części przedstawienia opisano próbę odpowiedzi na pytanie „Co było potrzebne, od strony metody, by ten konspekt mógł powstać?” Koniecznym było skonstruowanie swoistej metafory i opracowano narrację, które razem stały się hipotezą wyjaśniającą obejmującą szerokie spektrum badanych relacji, pomiędzy konspektem i procesem jego powstawania a jego twórcą, procesem przeprowadzonych warsztatów a czytelnikiem, prowadzącym warsztaty a uczestnikiem. Na zakończenie przedstawiono ewaluację przeprowadzonych warsztatów.