Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.

Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Ograniczanie wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 3

Liczba wyników na stronie

Wyniki wyszukiwania

Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych: Balzak

Sortuj według:

Ogranicz wyniki do:

Une économie de la pensée chez le jeune Balzac

100%

Kaznowski J.

Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny

2020

nr 2

168-176

W swojej dojrzałej twórczości Honoriusz Balzak próbował sformułować system filozoficzny definiujący rolę myśli i jej wpływ na życie ludzkie. Początki tej refleksji występują już we wczesnej twórczości pisarza, począwszy od roku 1818, w jego notatkach filozoficznych, a potem w powieściach pierwszej połowy lat dwudziestych i innych tekstach. Poglądy Balzaka na ten temat można ująć w swego rodzaju ekonomię myśli, poprzez którą pisarz tworzy swoistą dialektykę myśli, woli i energii życiowej.

In his works from maturity, Honoré de Balzac tries to formulate a philosophical system describing the role of the thought and its impact on human life. Those reflections originate already in his early works since 1818, in his philosophical notes, and later in the novels from the 1820s, as well as in other texts. His opinions develop in a certain “economy of thought” through which are expressed dialectics of thought, will and vital energy.

Korespondencja sztuk, czyli monotonia pagórków

75%

Chlebowski P.

tom 30

229-244

The article is concerned with a discussion and assessment of Ilona Woronow’s book “Romantyczna idea korespondencji sztuk. Stendhal, Hoffmann, Baudelaire, Norwid” (The Romantic Idea of Correspondence of Arts. Stendhal, Hoffmann, Baudelaire, Norwid) (Kraków 2008) devoted to one of the most important ideas in the epoch. The author tries to define the theoretical and critical basis of the whole phenomenon in the perspective of four important figures of literary life of that time. She focuses first of all on the semantic dimension of the problem – she tries to show and solve the intricacies and ambiguities of Romantics judgments and opinions. However, she pays almost no attention to the aesthetic or axiological aspect of the concept of “correspondence of arts”, which leads to narrowing the whole research perspective. This unconscious limitation also leads to a great degree to a lack of clarity of the argumentation. In the book only the chapter devoted to Stendhal is redeemed, as well as some parts treating about Norwid (a good reading of the poem “Nie myśl, nie pisz – podmaluj” (Do not think, do not write – just paint) is noteworthy). The whole has a fragmentary nature, which presses heavily on it, and the multitude of quotations devoid of their context and of penetrating commentaries, the numerous digressions and unexpected turns of the narrative lead the reader towards some “semantic forest”, and not to a clear conclusion: in fact, there is no clearly distinguished point of departure and no clearly determined aim. This is why the reader who was promised a view from the tallest mountain is disappointed, as he is only given the monotony of hills.

Korespondencja sztuk, czyli monotonia pagórków

75%

Chlebowski P.

Studia Norwidiana

2012

tom 30

229-244

The article is concerned with a discussion and assessment of Ilona Woronow's book Romantyczna idea korespondencji sztuk. Stendhal, Hoffmann, Baudelaire, Norwid (The Romantic Idea of Correspondence of Arts. Stendhal, Hoffmann, Baudelaire, Norwid) (Kraków 2008) devoted to one of the most important ideas in the epoch. The author tries to define the theoretical and critical basis of the whole phenomenon in the perspective of four important figures of literary life of that time. She focuses first of all on the semantic dimension of the problem – she tries to show and solve the intricacies and ambiguities of Romantics judgments and opinions. However, she pays almost no attention to the aesthetic or axiological aspect of the concept of “correspondence of arts”, which leads to narrowing the whole research perspective. This unconscious limitation also leads to a great degree to a lack of clarity of the argumentation. In the book only the chapter devoted to Stendhal is redeemed, as well as some parts treating about Norwid (a good reading of the poem Nie myśl, nie pisz – podmaluj (Do not think, do not write – just paint) is noteworthy). The whole has a fragmentary nature, which presses heavily on it, and the multitude of quotations devoid of their context and of penetrating commentaries, the numerous digressions and unexpected turns of the narrative lead the reader towards some “semantic forest”, and not to a clear conclusion: in fact, there is no clearly distinguished point of departure and no clearly determined aim. This is why the reader who was promised a view from the tallest mountain is disappointed, as he is only given the monotony of hills.