Abstract
The proposal that I have set out to develop in the current essay departs from an effort to answer a question that remains philosophically crucial. Is it still possible today to study ontology in such a plural, fragmentary and uncertain philosophical panorama? Assuming that it is, what theoretical position would such an ontological project occupy today?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
We refer here to the conference Filosophy in the Crisis of European Humanity, Vienna (1935) and E. Husserl’s important work Die Krisis der Europäischen Wissenschaften un die Transzendentale (W. Bbiend, 1954 ).
I must mention the following articles as a groundwork for the concept of ontofiction: J. C. Couceiro-Bueno, “La metkfora en el discurso fflosôfzco: a su imagen y semejanza”, in Analecta Husserliana, eds. A-T. Tymieniecka (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991, Vol. 36) pp. 119–127; J. C. Couceiro-Bueno, La monumentalidad de la metkfora. Rivista di Estética (Rosenberg & Sellier, 1991 ), pp. 15–27.
Cf M. Heidegger, El Ser y el Tiempo, ed. F.C.E. ( México, 1974 ).
The idem/ipse binomial as a constitutive part of self is developed by Ricoeur in his work El otro como si mismo (1996). Roughly, we can say that he characterizes the idem as the constitutive part of the self that distinguishes itself by its permanence in time, and the ipse as the part of the self that does not imply the affirmation of a presumed permanent core of personality.
Cf. I. Kant, Crftica del juicio, ed. Espasa/Calpe (Madrid, 1981 ).
Cf. G. Frege, “Sobre sentido y referencia”, in Estudios Semknticos, ed. Ariel (Madrid, 1971 ), p. 55.
Cf. B. Russell, “On Denoting”, Mind 14 (1905), pp. 479–493 (compiled in B. Russell, Logic and Knowledge. Essays ( London: Allen and Unwin, 1956 ).
Cf. P. F. Strawson, Semcintica filos6fica: poblemas y discusiones, ed. Siglo XXI (Buenos Aires, 1973 ).
Cf. J. Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969): “The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse”, New Literary History 5 (1980).
Cf. H. Putnam, Mind, Language and Reality ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980 ).
Cf. P. Ricoeur, Tiempo y Narraci6n, configuration del tiempo en el relato hist6rico, ed. Europa (Madrid, 1987 ), pp. 150–255.
Cf. R. Barthes, La Antigua Ret6rica, ed. Buenos Aires (Barcelona, 1982 ).
M. Black, Modelos y Metâforas, ed. Tecnos (Madrid, 1977 ).
R. Jakobson, Ensayos de lingüfstica general, ed. Ariel (Barcelona, 1984 ).
M. Heidegger, Hölderlin y la esencia de la poesfa, ed. F.C.E. (México, 1958 ); El Origen de la obra de arte, ed. F.C.E. ( México, 1958 ).
J. Derrida, La Voz y el fenomeno,ed. Pre-textos (Valencia, 1985); De la Gramatologfa,ed. Siglo XXI (Buenos Aires, 1971); Mdrgenes de la filosofia,ed. Câtedra.
H. G. Gadamer, Verdad y Método, ed. Slgueme (Salamanca, 1977 ), p. 554.
I refer here to the so-called linguistic turn or turn of phrase, which, as is well known, consists in endowing language with a constituent role in thought. In the sphere of linguistics, its representatives are W. von Humboldt, Sapir-Whorf, etc. In the field of philosophy Heidegger and Gadamer are the two most notable.
Heidegger (1958), Gadamer (1977), Pareyson (1954) and Bürger (1987) maintain the truth of the work of art.
By the indestructibility of fiction, I mean the validating power that all fiction has owing to its invariability and the infinite possibilities for its comprehension. In contrast, scientific theories are permanently destructible, as reflected in their interpretational immobility. By monumentality (see Rivista di Estética,1992), I mean all fiction that possesses the character of a monument of language. Fiction, metaphors, and works of art are linguistic monuments that manage by themselves through their will to survive. Fiction, when it meets the conditions for being a monument, is capable of arousing in us new possibilities because of its irreplaceable, memorable characteristics. In contrast, in scientific language a tone of indifference prevails.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Couceiro-Bueno, J.C. (2000). Ontofiction: The Altered Comprehension of the World. In: Tymieniecka, AT. (eds) Paideia. Analecta Husserliana, vol 68. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2525-5_27
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2525-5_27
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5462-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-2525-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive