title: CHALLENGING INGARDEN’S “RADICAL” DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE REAL AND THE LITERARY
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: WILLIAMS, HEATH
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2020-12-09T18:25:12Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2020-12-09T18:25:12Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2020-06
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: WILLIAMS H. CHALLENGING INGARDEN’S “RADICAL” DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE REAL AND THE LITERARY. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 2020, vol. 9, issue 2, pp. 703–728.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/2226-5260-2020-9-2-703-728
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/21410
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: Ingarden’s phenomenology of aesthetics is characterised primarily as a realist ontological approach
  which is secondarily concerned with acts of consciousness. This approach leads to a stark contrast
  between spatiotemporal objects and literary objects. Ontologically, the former is autonomous, totally
  determined, and in possession of infinite attributes, whilst the latter is a heteronomous intentional
  object that has only limited determinations and infinitely many “spots of indeterminacy.” Although
  spots of indeterminacy are often discussed, the role they play in contrasting the real and literary object
  is not often disputed. Through a close reading of Ingarden’s ontological works and texts on aesthetics,
  this essay contests the purity of Ingarden’s ontological approach and the ensuing disparity between real
  and literary object, particularly on the question of spots of indeterminacy. I do this by demonstrating
  the following five theses: 1) Ingarden’s claim that the real object has an infinitude of properties belies an
  epistemology, and we should instead conclude that ontologically the real object’s properties are finite.
  2) Ingarden’s a priori argument that absent properties of real objects are ontologically determined is
  unsound. 3) The radical difference between the infinitude and finitude of givenness and absence of the
  real and the literary object ought to be relativised. 4) Indeterminacies within the novel are concretised
  in much the same way that absent properties of real objects are intended. 5) Literature makes claims
  that have a truth value that we can attribute to their author.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: en
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology;Volume 9; Issue 2
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Ingarden’s aesthetics
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Ingarden’s ontology
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: real and literary objects
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: spots of indeterminacy
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: finitude and infinitude
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: truth in literature
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: CHALLENGING INGARDEN’S “RADICAL” DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE REAL AND THE LITERARY
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 703-728.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/21410/1/703-728.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 681,19 kB