Przeglądaj wg Autor "Paulin, Maximilian"

Teraz wyświetlane 1 - 2 z 2

Apologie Pawel Fjodorowitsch Karamasows. Schuld bei Dostojewskij und seinen Interpreten
Paulin, Maximilian (Gdańskie Seminarium Duchowne, 2013)
In a common interpretation of Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamasov, Dmitri Karamasov is held guilty of murdering his father in a moral sense, while the character of Smerdyakov is put beyond the range of ethic consideration as he is seen as an allegory of the merely executing factor of the act of violence. Hence, his suicide is read as a proof that the evil itself doesn’t take over responsibility; in face of the accusation it fades away, leaving the charge of responsibility to the human moral subject. Dostoyevsky, however, seems not wanting to stress such a kind of moral hero that, in this interpretation, could be seen in Dmitri. With introducing Alexey in his preamble, he is in fact presenting us a „weak” hero, leading us to another understanding of the story. Yet Alexey is still not the weakest. It is Smerdyakov. What this article pleads for is that Smerdyakov is systematically made a scapegoat, as Dostoyevsky is illustrating in several pertinent scenes. It is only coherent that interpreters, while completely ignoring this fact, continue this scapegoating in dehumanising him by taking off him of all ethic consideration, reducing him to a personification of a merely mechanic component. By contrast, this is an apology for Smerdyakov as a human being. And as a son of Fyodor and brother of Alexey, Dmitri and Ivan.
Fallibilismus als Anwalt der Opfer Der kritische Schlüssel René Girards und seine Parallelen im kritischen Rationalismus
Paulin, Maximilian (Gdańskie Seminarium Duchowne, 2013)
Providing a critical instrument to identify structures of victimization, René Girard’s program is in fact very affine to Critical Rationalism methodology as developed by Charles Popper and widely assented in contemporary epistemology. In order to proof this thesis, in a first step, Girard’s understanding of epistemology is reconstructed. His occasionally very strict objection to any form of relativism thereby is shown to be due to an obviously polemic context. In claiming his theory to be scientific, Girard indeed knows very well that it is the specification of science to approach things not apodictically, but hypothetically, and he clearly assents this principle. In a second step, typical misunderstandings of both the Mimetic Theory and Poppers fallibilism are analysed and parallelized. They properly consist in an exaggeration of some aspects, while complementary aspects are suppressed. With the Mimetic Theory, just this uneven exaggeration can be explained as happening precisely in constellations of rivalry, as among the „hostile brothers”, and yet as happening unintentionally and therefore being so hard to detect. Therefore, the claim of showing this connection, as raised by the Mimetic Theory, itself cannot be presented in an apodictic manner because it so would force the counterpart into rivalry about the alleged truth, which would so again deform it, NB on both sides of the disputation. Besides this rather „ethical” reason, there also is a strongly „epistemic” reason why Mimetic Theory and the uncovering of scapegoat mechanism should consider themselves to be hypothetical and fallible: Without a continuous rising of this self-critical attitude, the self-vindicatory and self-enclosing spell of myth would have never been broken.