Составители:
Рубрика:
Практикум
389
recognizing that this relationship is minimal, and not, on the
contrary, deducing from this minimal relationship the
maximum possible. The paranoiac is not the person who
notices that while and crocodile curiously appear in the same
context: the paranoiac is the person who begins to wonder
about the mysterious motives that induced me to these two
particular words together. The paranoiac sees beneath my
example a secret, to which I allude (Eco).
Neither piece of knowledge tells you about the nature of
texts or the nature of reading. For neither has a nature
(Rorty).
He (Есо) says that ‘the text is an object that the
interpretation builds up in the course of the circular effort
of validating itself on the basis of what it makes up as its
result… I prefer to say that coherence of the text is not
something it has before it is described, any more than the
dots had coherence before we connected them…
It may be so exciting and convincing that one has the
illusion that one now sees what a certain text is really about.
But what excites and convinces is a function of the needs and
purposes of those who are being excited and convinced. So it
seems to me simpler to scrap the distinction between using
and interpreting, and just distinguish between uses by
different people by different purposes (Rorty).
Что имеет в виду Рорти, говоря о том, что ни чтение, ни
текст не обладают собственной природой (has no nature),
а целостный смысл текста не существует, пока его не опи
шет читатель (coherence of the text is not something it has
before it is described)? Почему, по вашему мнению, направ
Страницы
- « первая
- ‹ предыдущая
- …
- 387
- 388
- 389
- 390
- 391
- …
- следующая ›
- последняя »
