What do you think?
Rate this book
The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art
This long-awaited translation of Das literarische Kunstwerk makes available for the first time in English Roman Ingarden's influential study. Though it is inter-disciplinary in scope, situated as it is on the borderlines of ontology and logic, philosophy of literature and theory of language, Ingarden's work has a deliberately narrow focus: the literary work, its structure and mode of existence. The Literary Work of Art establishes the groundwork for a philosophy of literature, i.e., an ontology in terms of which the basic general structure of all literary works can be determined. This "essential anatomy" makes basic tools and concepts available for rigorous and subtle aesthetic analysis.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
436 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1931
5 people are currently reading
211 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 27, 2018
This is a tremendous work for seasoned readers who may at some point find themselves asking: Why do I read what I read (Outside of the obvious: Required, recommendation, et al.)?
The answer to this potentially-never-asked-question is deceptively simple: I read what I read because it's great, or because I love reading and read everything, or because I'm a specialist in the field, or I was paid to read what they wrote and then write my reaction so that others may read it or not as well.
It is an unconscious field of generalities. The reasons are not implausible but automatic. They are not genuine in their prepared, broad phraseology to so intimate an act as mute perception, i.e. reading.
The thing, then, is this: the ontology of expectation.
In not just reading what one reads, but in preparing the list of what one reads, what one will make public knowledge one has read, what one will cite in one's own books or papers: there is a general consensus at work here, a simultaneously unreal and real audience, not unlike the hipster who dedicated untold amounts of time and money into being world-perceived as not having the time nor the money.
And thus what is a way to break free from the phantom audience of hypothetical acknowledgement in terms of mute perception? What can one do to fully immerse oneself, intelligently, in research which is neither mere opposite (Say I normally read phenomenological texts, thus I'll try out romance novels; didn't Wittgenstein devour detective novels? Who cares?) nor reading in related fields work that is in no way or form of interest to oneself, including the aforementioned masochism (I can't stand what this person advocates, so perhaps I'll spend some weeks with him in order to rearrange my brain).
Thus the goal is neither mere moralistic decline nor going against the grain for the sake of going against the grain. Any idiot can accomplish by attending a political rally which, by fact of mere existence enhanced by abiding curfew, accomplishes nothing.
Thus, one way to prepare oneself for reading which is a return to profundity is to find a publishing house some of one's personal favorite books are coming from, or came from, and carouse the catalog.
In doing so, the obvious nature of this activity is transcended by not brushing aside things which have no reviews, no story behind them, and nothing on the author. Think: ______ did write this 400-page book on this subject, after all, or ______ on Heidegger. I wonder why nobodaddy knows of this book all throughout the digital world?
With the book unknown to the world obtained, one gets into the frame of mind of the traveler embarking on lands not yet discovered: How can I explain this to people? I can't give just a variation on that which has dogmatic opinion, consensus; I must explore the land, the page, my self, and return to life thereafter with perhaps many less hairs atop my head whilst many new incomparable thoughts swirl within it.
If the thing cannot be compared, it can be pioneered. Can the thing, the unknown book in the world of all the all-known, provide me with an insight which may not exist in fully functioning form here on what is called 'earth'?
The process, then, leads one to insight into insight. When we consider the world wherein everybody has something to say about something, that which has nothing said about it alludes to deserved obscurity.
But what is deserved-obscurity? It is mob consensus, which is itself of no use to the human person authentically considering ways to spark pivotal insight, interior growth in a culture set on perversity, carnality, obscenity, and an ethico-moral sickness unto death.
Through method comes truth: one has none to consult on a matter save oneself; is this insufficient?
If it is, this can be cured by further independent research. After all, the objective of this insight-process herein defined is not a matter, as mentioned, of reading for any other form-process but the authentic elucidation of reading-through-pursuit-and-individual-cognition.
And so we come to perceive that obscurity is less a standardized, defined term than we would imply upon utterance. Obscurity is less a way than a chance of several ways. This depends upon research methodology and examination of conscious, fulfilled in abandoning epistemological nihilism for authenticity as consensus-transcendence.
If consensus does not exist there can arrive nothing but hypothesis and process. One does not gentrify parts of the city at random, but after research and observational time past. There may be plans to gentrify other parts of the city, but in the end there are too many people shooting each other there every day for cohesion to make anything resembling profit. In a similar way, the personal-investigative text warrants the reader a chance of interior construction through presentation to the self-world.
Upon presentation there is the chance that, should the topic matter in its genesis have belonged to a microscopic readership, today it may be met with exuberance prone to fade. There is no bankroll to seeking insight. If there was it would be something else. Literal-insight comes not as a 'real' insight, but through the aforementioned pivot, another intuition of the instant: mute perception without underlying (Or blaring) psychological constitution of givenness is societal exchange. Through this process, cumulative interiority, one may embark on a whole new pathway of uncovering what turn out personal-masterpieces, and hence of enormous importance to one's livelihood, both public and in private.
When we consider the subjectivity of a masterpiece, we again find that the terms are less defined than they are forcefully conveyed. Mute perception is the reading process, and hence a masterpiece is much more of an intimate thing than it would appear.
In these language games of what-is and what-isn't we come at last to realize that a great deal of what matters most to us matters most to us in that there is obvious or obscure exterior approval in the process. There is nothing wrong with this, and in fact it is most of the time a joyous thing. My idea is that this is neither an either/or scenario but a perchance to contemplate the possibility of an authentic artistic experience which occurs, like life, for reasons we can define but still cannot fathom. This interiority-insight method of research led me to this book, for instance, which for me becomes an instant classic. But does not classic imply consensus-classic?
Summarily, the classic can abide by public as well as private consensus. The book is a classic to me, and I am the sole person in the world who considers it a classic. Thus, the tautology of interiority-insight is less strange than beautiful, less chaotic than constructive. We forget that anything can and does happen at any given moment; psychologizing the ontic research-reading process can help return a sense of nostalgia to our lives, whilst simultaneously granting us the profound gift of knowledge which is obvious nowhere save to one's heart.
It is a return to the individual, who can then suggest to the other; it is a mirror of the writer, who despite all slurs, writes so that the other can hold the words in his hand and read the page(s).
The answer to this potentially-never-asked-question is deceptively simple: I read what I read because it's great, or because I love reading and read everything, or because I'm a specialist in the field, or I was paid to read what they wrote and then write my reaction so that others may read it or not as well.
It is an unconscious field of generalities. The reasons are not implausible but automatic. They are not genuine in their prepared, broad phraseology to so intimate an act as mute perception, i.e. reading.
The thing, then, is this: the ontology of expectation.
In not just reading what one reads, but in preparing the list of what one reads, what one will make public knowledge one has read, what one will cite in one's own books or papers: there is a general consensus at work here, a simultaneously unreal and real audience, not unlike the hipster who dedicated untold amounts of time and money into being world-perceived as not having the time nor the money.
And thus what is a way to break free from the phantom audience of hypothetical acknowledgement in terms of mute perception? What can one do to fully immerse oneself, intelligently, in research which is neither mere opposite (Say I normally read phenomenological texts, thus I'll try out romance novels; didn't Wittgenstein devour detective novels? Who cares?) nor reading in related fields work that is in no way or form of interest to oneself, including the aforementioned masochism (I can't stand what this person advocates, so perhaps I'll spend some weeks with him in order to rearrange my brain).
Thus the goal is neither mere moralistic decline nor going against the grain for the sake of going against the grain. Any idiot can accomplish by attending a political rally which, by fact of mere existence enhanced by abiding curfew, accomplishes nothing.
Thus, one way to prepare oneself for reading which is a return to profundity is to find a publishing house some of one's personal favorite books are coming from, or came from, and carouse the catalog.
In doing so, the obvious nature of this activity is transcended by not brushing aside things which have no reviews, no story behind them, and nothing on the author. Think: ______ did write this 400-page book on this subject, after all, or ______ on Heidegger. I wonder why nobodaddy knows of this book all throughout the digital world?
With the book unknown to the world obtained, one gets into the frame of mind of the traveler embarking on lands not yet discovered: How can I explain this to people? I can't give just a variation on that which has dogmatic opinion, consensus; I must explore the land, the page, my self, and return to life thereafter with perhaps many less hairs atop my head whilst many new incomparable thoughts swirl within it.
If the thing cannot be compared, it can be pioneered. Can the thing, the unknown book in the world of all the all-known, provide me with an insight which may not exist in fully functioning form here on what is called 'earth'?
The process, then, leads one to insight into insight. When we consider the world wherein everybody has something to say about something, that which has nothing said about it alludes to deserved obscurity.
But what is deserved-obscurity? It is mob consensus, which is itself of no use to the human person authentically considering ways to spark pivotal insight, interior growth in a culture set on perversity, carnality, obscenity, and an ethico-moral sickness unto death.
Through method comes truth: one has none to consult on a matter save oneself; is this insufficient?
If it is, this can be cured by further independent research. After all, the objective of this insight-process herein defined is not a matter, as mentioned, of reading for any other form-process but the authentic elucidation of reading-through-pursuit-and-individual-cognition.
And so we come to perceive that obscurity is less a standardized, defined term than we would imply upon utterance. Obscurity is less a way than a chance of several ways. This depends upon research methodology and examination of conscious, fulfilled in abandoning epistemological nihilism for authenticity as consensus-transcendence.
If consensus does not exist there can arrive nothing but hypothesis and process. One does not gentrify parts of the city at random, but after research and observational time past. There may be plans to gentrify other parts of the city, but in the end there are too many people shooting each other there every day for cohesion to make anything resembling profit. In a similar way, the personal-investigative text warrants the reader a chance of interior construction through presentation to the self-world.
Upon presentation there is the chance that, should the topic matter in its genesis have belonged to a microscopic readership, today it may be met with exuberance prone to fade. There is no bankroll to seeking insight. If there was it would be something else. Literal-insight comes not as a 'real' insight, but through the aforementioned pivot, another intuition of the instant: mute perception without underlying (Or blaring) psychological constitution of givenness is societal exchange. Through this process, cumulative interiority, one may embark on a whole new pathway of uncovering what turn out personal-masterpieces, and hence of enormous importance to one's livelihood, both public and in private.
When we consider the subjectivity of a masterpiece, we again find that the terms are less defined than they are forcefully conveyed. Mute perception is the reading process, and hence a masterpiece is much more of an intimate thing than it would appear.
In these language games of what-is and what-isn't we come at last to realize that a great deal of what matters most to us matters most to us in that there is obvious or obscure exterior approval in the process. There is nothing wrong with this, and in fact it is most of the time a joyous thing. My idea is that this is neither an either/or scenario but a perchance to contemplate the possibility of an authentic artistic experience which occurs, like life, for reasons we can define but still cannot fathom. This interiority-insight method of research led me to this book, for instance, which for me becomes an instant classic. But does not classic imply consensus-classic?
Summarily, the classic can abide by public as well as private consensus. The book is a classic to me, and I am the sole person in the world who considers it a classic. Thus, the tautology of interiority-insight is less strange than beautiful, less chaotic than constructive. We forget that anything can and does happen at any given moment; psychologizing the ontic research-reading process can help return a sense of nostalgia to our lives, whilst simultaneously granting us the profound gift of knowledge which is obvious nowhere save to one's heart.
It is a return to the individual, who can then suggest to the other; it is a mirror of the writer, who despite all slurs, writes so that the other can hold the words in his hand and read the page(s).
Read
February 24, 2025book about book
October 24, 2015
Really useful for the literary theory. Specially if you are working with reception and interpretation of the literary work of art.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews