No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Philosophy of Science and Theory of Literary Criticism: Some Common Problems
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2022
Extract
Almost since the theories of Einstein and the quantum physicists came into being, a small but significant number of novelists, poets, and playwrights have turned to them for everything from casual metaphors to justification for the philosophies underlying their works. Until fairly recently, however, literary critics have tended to avoid the new physics, finding it uncongenial if not irrelevant. But over the last twenty-five years an increasing number of them, especially critical theorists, have turned to physics and even philosophy of science in the belief that these disciplines offer epistemological and methodological models applicable, to the problems of literary criticism.
The primary reason for this increased interest in philosophy of science is the rise of critical formalisms, particularly structuralism and its variants. Structuralism usually regards Russian formalism as its most significant precursor, but Northrop Frye's Anatomy of Criticism (1957) must also be seen as an important forerunner, since it provided formal criticism with a rationale.
- Type
- Part V. Literature and the Philosophy of Science
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1980 by the Philosophy of Science Association
References
Bochner, Salomon. (1965). “Why Mathematics Grows.” Journal of the History of Ideas 26: 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creed, Walter. (1980). “Is Einstein's Work Relevant to the Study of Literature?” In After Einstein: Proceedings of the Einstein Centenary Conference held at Memphis State University, March 14-16. 1979. Edited by Barker, P. and Shugart, C.G. Memphis: Memphis State University Press. In Press.Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan. (1975). Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism. Linguistics and the Study of Literature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. (1967). L'Ecriture et la difference. Paris: Editions du Seuil. (Translated by Alan Bass as Writing and Difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.)Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. (1914). La theorie physique: son objet et sa structure. Paris: H. Riviere. (Translated by P.P. Wiener as The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954.)Google Scholar
Dyson, Freeman. (1978). (Review of Benoit Mandelbrot, Fractals: Form, Chance, and Dimension.) Science 200: 678.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1921). “Geometrie und Erfahrung.” Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte, 1921, pt. I. Pages 123–130. (As reprinted in Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein. New York: Crown Publishers, 1954. Pages 232–246.)Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1966). Les Mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard. (Translated as The Order of Things. New York: Pantheon Books, 1970.)Google Scholar
Frye, Northrop. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkes, Terrence. (1977). Structuralism and Semiotics. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jameson, Fredric. (1972). The Prison-House of Language: A Critical Account of Structuralism and Russian Formalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, Morris. (1972). Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (International Encyclopedia of Unified Sciences. Vol. II, number 2.) Second Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levi-Strauss, Claude. (1962). La Pensee sauvage. Paris: Plon. (Translated as The Savage Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966.)Google Scholar
Ortega y Gasset, Jose. (1925). La Deshumanization del arte e Ideas sobre la Novela. Madrid: Revista de Occidente. Translated by Helene Wayl as The Dehumanization of Art arid Notes on the Novel. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1948.Google Scholar
Poincare, Henri. (1901). La Science et l'hypothese. Paris: Flammarion. (Translated by G.B. Halsted as Science and Hypothesis. In The Foundations of Science. New York: The Science Press, 1913.)Google Scholar
Polanyi, Michael. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. (1975). “What is Mathematical Truth?” In Mathematics, Matter and Method. (Philosophical Papers. Vol. I.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pages 60–78.Google Scholar
Scholes, Robert. (1974). Structuralism in Literature: An Introduction. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Todorov, Tzvetan. (1970). Introduction a la litterature fantastique. Paris: Editions du Seuil. (Translated by Richard Howard as The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975.)Google Scholar
Ulam, S.M. (1976). Adventures of a Mathematician. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigner, Eugene. (1960). “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” In Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13: 1-14. (As reprinted in Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays of Eugene P. Wigner. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967. Pages 222–237.)Google Scholar