Force et signification dans l'énoncé eucharistique
Louis Marin (1931-1992), mainly known for his studies on painting, has been also a profound interpreter of the Port-Royal Logic, a work where the effort of modern thinking towards the foundation of an autonomous scientific rationality is testified by its construction of a logic of correct ordering o...
| Published in: | Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | French |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Morcelliana
2011
|
| In: |
Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni
|
| Further subjects: | B
Thought & thinking
B Representation (Philosophy) B Marin, Louis B theory of knowledge B Logic |
| Summary: | Louis Marin (1931-1992), mainly known for his studies on painting, has been also a profound interpreter of the Port-Royal Logic, a work where the effort of modern thinking towards the foundation of an autonomous scientific rationality is testified by its construction of a logic of correct ordering of representations inspired by Cartesian philosophy. Nevertheless, the closing of the order of representation - consisting in the correspondence between the representing and the represented which assures the fundamental value of logic, the truth - is not possible, according to Marin, but through a reflection of the representation system on itself, reflection that the system cannot include again in the logical code of truth. In short, the logical distinction true/false (namely the correspondence/ non-correspondence between representing and represented) cannot be applied to itself. Theology then allows and codifies the auto-reflection of the logic system in the shape of the effectiveness (not of the truth) of the act which makes the sign correspond to its meaning: the Eucharistic examples introduced as polemical additions (against Protestants) in the fifth edition (1683), come actually to rule the logic of truth, founding it in a semiotic of effectiveness in which the act of uttering does not mean - but it produces the thing. So the Eucharistic statement does not denote the transubstantiation, but makes it happen. In his last writing on this subject, Marin comes back on his interpretation to show how the force which creates the representation and the meaning does not act in time, but it is time itself. (English) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2611-8742 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni
|