Search

Start Over Creator Koblížek, Tomáš

2. How to make the concepts clear: Searle’s discussion with Derrida

Creator:
Koblížek, Tomáš
Format:
bez média and svazek
Type:
model:article and TEXT
Subject:
background, concept, speaker’s meaning, linguistic meaning, utterance, pozadí, pojem, lingvistický význam, mluvčí význam, and promluva
Language:
Slovak
Description:
The first part of the paper deals with the key question of the Searle-Derrida debate, namely, with the question of conceptual ''exactness'' and applicability of concepts to facts. I argue that Derrida makes a strict distinction between the exactness in the realm of concepts and the exactness in the realm of facts. Supposing that it is not correct to argue against him - as Searle does - that concepts cannot be exact because there are no strict boundaries between facts. The second part of the paper deals with a distinction used by John Searle: The distinction between linguistic meaning and speaker’s meaning. According to Searle linguistic meaning is constituted outside a particular context of use whereas speaker’s meaning is embedded in a particular situation. I argue this distinction is problematic as far as any meaning is constituted in a particular utterance and in a particular context of use., První část práce se zabývá klíčovou otázkou debaty Searle-Derrida, konkrétně otázkou konceptuální ,,přesnosti'' a aplikovatelnosti konceptů na fakta. Tvrdím, že Derrida rozlišuje mezi přesností v oblasti pojmů a přesností v oblasti faktů. Předpokládejme, že není správné argumentovat proti němu - jak to dělá Searle -, že pojmy nemohou být přesné, protože mezi fakty neexistují striktní hranice. Druhá část práce se zabývá rozlišením, které používá John Searle: Rozlišení mezi jazykovým významem a významem mluvčího. Podle Searle je lingvistický význam vytvořen mimo konkrétní kontext použití, zatímco význam mluvčího je zakotven v určité situaci., and Tomáš Koblížek
Rights:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ and policy:public

4. Recepce básnické promluvy jakožto specifická časová zkušenost

Creator:
Koblížek, Tomáš
Format:
bez média and svazek
Type:
model:article and TEXT
Language:
Czech
Description:
This phenomenological analysis of literature comprises a description of the relationship of two related poles of experience: the noetic (which in the case of literary discourse is the ‘act of reading’) and the noematic (again, in literary discourse, the structure of the literary utterance, which shapes the ‘act of reading’). The preliminary conclusions that were reached both by proponents of a poetics based on experience and the philosophy of art (in particular, Kant and the Constance School) and by proponents of Prague Structuralism (Jan Mukařovský, Felix Vodička, and Milan Jankovič) constitute a starting point of the phenomenological reflection on poetic utterance. The epistemological pole becomes manifest in time: the time of reading is the time of particular expectations (which spread around the centre of the experience of this moment), the special meeting of these expectations and the retention of the experience so far. (Recall Iser’s interpretation of Husserl’s phenomenology of the inner consciousness of time). The noematic pole (which must be emphasized in contrast to Iser’s conclusions) is not then comprised of the work’s fictional world, but of structural bundle of linguistic components (the acoustic and semantic layers), of composition (the climax and contrasts), and theme. In this we follow on from Vodička’s concept of ‘concretization’. The article seeks to demonstrate the proposed principles of structural phenomenological analysis on the basis of Rimbaud’s ‘Voyelles’ (1871).
Rights:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ and policy:public