Law and Literature – a Meaningful Connection

The connection between law and (imaginative) literature can still affect surprisingly. The theme of the present article is to summarize some of the basic features of the movement, which is called „Law and Literature” and to suggest some starting-points with which it is associated. These starting points include, for instance linguistic conception of law, narratology in law or the relations between law and culture. The article offers an overview of the classical approaches connecting law and literature and mentions the reasons for this connection: e.g. cultivation of law and lawyers, improvement of judicial decisions or improvement of legal interpretation. Some of the findings resulting from the joint of law and literature can be used in practice and goes beyond „mere” theory. The article is to be seen as an introduction to the movement of „Law and Literature”, presentation of ideas on which this movement is based and offering the possibility of its further development.

Sytuacja komunikacyjna w kulturze archaicznej a symboliczność komunikacji

Celem niniejszego artykułu jest wskazanie i przedyskutowanie (z perspektywy filozofii komunikacji i teorii komunikacji) kilku konsekwencji wynikających z badań nad fenomenem komunikacji. Oprócz zagadnień związanych z filozoficznym ujęciem procesu komunikacji podejmuje się również problematykę wyłonienia się myślenia metafizycznego w starożytnej Grecji. Artykuł ten jest próbą wskazania warunków, które należy spełnić, aby prowadzić filozoficznie uprawnioną refleksję nad procesem komunikacji. Całość została podzielona na trzy główne działy: w pierwszym są prezentowane dwa poziomy rekonstrukcji sytuacji komunikacyjnej w kulturze archaicznej; w drugim rozważa się zagadnienie początków relacji symbolizowania oraz zjednoczenia myślenia i działania. Trzecia część poświęcona jest źródłom myślenia metafizycznego oraz symboliczności komunikacji. Najistotniejszy wniosek wynikający z rozważań zawarty w artykule dotyczy nie-symbolicznego ujęcia procesów komunikacyjnych.

Badania archeologiczne a obrazowanie wizualne przeszłości

One can say that our times are dominated by visual communication. Usually all day long we have been faced by various pictures, visual forms and symbols. According to the subject of the book 'Archaeology-Culture-Ideologies' I found it interesting to pay attention to the problem of visual representation, or better say visual symbols in nowadays communication and culture, their meaning and importance. From this point of view I would like to show the role of archaeologists who discover, interpret or even create some of them. The subject is not new of course, but the most often it is taken into consideration by the scholars who practice in social anthropology or philosophy and quite rarely it appear in studies of archaeologies, especially in Polish tradition. In my opinion the subject concerning visual symbols communication and archaeology arise several important questions that are also valid for the theme of book 'Archaeology-Culture-Ideologies'. The first is socio-cultural role of our discipline, next the danger of political and propaganda misuse of the results of archaeological research and then also commercialisation of the archaeological activities. The problem of visualisation and visual-communication can be the matter of various studies. In my paper from the beginning I would like to present the general view concerning visual symbols and figural motifs and the main ideas and approaches to study them from different humanistic perspectives. Then in my presentation I am going to discuss the question why in our culture the visual symbols and representations became so popular – compare to other ways of human expression, for example verbal symbol communication. I would like to see the problem in historical perspective as well. There are a lot of evidences, which support the statement about the power of visual symbols in history. In ancient times for example Horace in 'Ars Poetica' suggested that human mind usually is much more impressed by eyes than by ears. In my opinion that is quite often in human culture that visual impression is before mental one. Visual representations and symbols are very powerful, they can show and communicate various phenomena, they act immediately and quite often in easily way they can associate. So for archaeological research it could be very important to make some studies concerning the ancient symbols and general iconography and also it would be grateful to make some attempts for the study what kind of potential meaning could have visual symbols. In my paper I can only make some general statement about it. But the most important for the topic is reflection on prehistoric and ancient visual symbols and representation and their presence in contemporary culture. So after some general statements concerning the visual symbols examined from various perspectives finally I would like to point out with support of some examples how ancient and prehistoric visual symbols and images are still used and captured by contemporary culture and what is or should be the role of archaeologists activity concerning this matter.

Rorty's Elective Affinities. The New Pragmatism and Postmodern Thought

The present book is devoted to "European connections of Richard Rorty's neopragmatism". The theme, chosen carefully and intentionally, is supposed to show the motivation behind the writing of the present work, as well as to show its intended extent. Let us consider briefly the first three parts of the theme, to enlighten a little our intentions. "European" is perhaps the most important description for it was precisely that thread that was most important to me, being the only context seriously taken into account, as I assumed right from the start that I would not be writing about rather more widely unknown to me - and much less fascinating (even to Rorty, the hero of the story) from my own, traditional, Continental philosophical perspective - American analytic philosophy. So accordingly I have almost totally skipped "American" connections (to use the distinction I need here) of Rorty's philosophy, that is to say, firstly, a years-long work within analytic philosophy, secondly struggles with it on its own grounds, and finally attempts to use classical American, mainly Deweyan, pragmatism for his own needs and numerous polemics associated with it - the questions that are far away from my interests and that arise limited interest among reading and writing philosophical audience in Poland, and perhaps also among Continental philosophers. It did not seem possible to me to write a book on Rorty in his American connections for they are insufficiently known to me, demanding knowledge of both post-war American analytic philosophy as well as pragmatism of its father-founders. I could see, setting to work on Richard Rorty, that a book on his American connections (leaving aside the issue that it would not be a philosophical problem but rather, let us say, the one of writing a monograph) written by a Polish philosopher in Poland and then in the USA was not a stimulating intellectual challenge but rather a thankless working task. Besides, having spent much time on Rorty's philosophy, writing extensively about him and translating his works, I already knew that the "Continental" context was extremely important to his neopragmatism, and that thinking about it could be relatively prolific (as opposed to the context potentially given by American philosophy).