An international online conference in January 2025 will explore the "Criticism of Literary Reason," a comprehensive theoretical framework developed over 25 years, aiming to re-establish rigorous, rational analysis in literary studies amidst a perceived decline in the field.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
In this session we are going to refer to an event that has to do with the criticism of literary reason.
And on January 30 and 31 of next year, January 30 and 31,
2025, an international conference will take place on the internet on the criticism of literary reason
the congress is organized by the egregius platform and different universities and different university departments participate in this event
that have seen fit to celebrate the organization
to carry out the call for an academic meeting where the use of this
work the use of criticism of literary reason to interpret a series of basically
literary facts but not only limited to literature this event that can be found under the topic
of theory of literature criticism of literary reason and research innovation in
literary studies You can find it on the Internet in the link given here below https colon
double slash shorten pun link slash and then the initials here jz uppercase K
lowercase u uppercase na a lowercase jzk one well in this link here Come to my back you can
find directly in the abbreviated link what has to do with all the information of this
congress now well Why a congress of this nature as perhaps many of you know
the criticism of literary reason was published for the first time in 2017 and Later it underwent a series
of updates, logically until it was updated in some other aspects and responded to some
of the critical receptions of which the work has been and continues to be the object. We already consider that the
current 2022 edition, which tripled the length of the original edition and currently available
on the internet is the definitive definition of This work is the consummation the articulation the closure
we could say say definitive of this work what comes after will be another question but
let's say that approximately 25 years were invested in the elaboration of this work This
work represented an articulation in different works in different books of something that responds to a
critical analysis of literary rationalism to a critique of the possibilities of reasoning to
rationally examine what literary materials and literature are, that is to say that what is
proposed is a critique of rationalism literature a rational, naturally
rational way of thinking about what literature is in different modalities and in different
aspects, we are fully aware that this work comes out to the public precisely at a
time and we have stressed this on numerous occasions at a time in which the formation
Literary literature has decreased brutally and irreversibly in many aspects and will
also remain reversible for a long time for many decades. We are now
entering a historical stage that represents a tunnel for everything that has to do with
literary studies throughout the West. of very unique way because the literature in the
academic institutions in which we currently work and teach has ironically
disappeared, that is, today literature is no longer in schools or
high schools or even in universities. It is absolutely not in such a way that what
is studied instead of literature because they study substitutes of a different nature. Therefore
this book is published at a time in which, if literature is not there, it is not even expected
because it has been expelled. of academic institutions we could ask ourselves why It serves
well because it serves what you want but obviously we do not write a
book for the aneca, we do not write a book to create a curriculum, which is what most damages and what
most destroys today the scientific research that university students study for
the neca. they do not study To develop the scientific and academic fields for which they theoretically
and practically work, making a resume for neca is not the same as making a resume
for literary research, they are completely divergent paths in such a way that either one
leads a double life in the sense of what is done On the one hand, a resume for bureaucratic development
, for administrative development for evaluation agencies, or a resume is made.
For science, creating a curriculum for scientific research means not prospering
bureaucratically, so either you do both things, that is, you lead a double life or you can be
a good researcher but not at all recognized by the public administration, so when faced with this
major dilemma, the majority Most people choose to make a curriculum aimed
at bureaucratic satisfaction to Administrative Progress and completely neglect
scientific activity. In other cases, the loneliest or the most unique cultivate
both facets with a result that is only noticeable in the long term. my case me I have done both
things, that is, I have really finished my academic career. In reality, I have done
and said everything I had to do and everything I had to say, therefore
I can speak with confidence about what I experienced and what I have done. I have cultivated a bureaucratic
and administrative curriculum so that, administratively and bureaucratically, no one could hinder
my professional development, as in fact this happened, and on the other hand, I have also developed
a curriculum to satisfy the demands that literature demanded and that have commonly been
neglected above all. along of the last three decades, that is, during the last
30 years I have said it on numerous occasions because it is true and it is important to note it. I have taught
classes at different universities in Europe and America and I have observed how
all the possibilities have progressively deteriorated exponentially. of interpretation of
what literature is And what literature demands And in return what we have left
are simply remains of literary materials, what we could identify as low-cost literature,
low-cost literature that is not really literature but rather They are simply
fragments, splinters. shavings, eh, undone, Death rattles of what was in its time a literature and which
today is eh, sweetened, eh, made up, spoiled by commercial demands of both
the academic world and the ideological world. So in this context, the criticism of literary reason arises,
you will tell me. Well, you have wasted your time writing a
work that no one is going to read, but I don't write a work for people to read. I write a
work to express what I think about literature, whether people read it or not read it,
whether people interpret it or clean with it what is dirty is a problem of people's dirt,
but not mine, that is, when I speak and when I write, I neither speak nor write nor to
do anything. friends nor to make enemies Nor to cause antipathy nor to arouse sympathy, that is, I
speak and write to expose a system of ideas. If someone wants to use this system of ideas,
they can do so with the freedom or with the capacity at their disposal, but that is no longer possible. It's my business
to say eh I offer the ideas that I have and I offer them freely, openly
and free of charge so that no one thanks me, that is, I do not speak to seek gratitude or
to seek medals or to have a street dedicated to me in Gijón, which would be the most ridiculous thing. What
could happen to me in my entire life? Not even so that when I retire to one of those universities
, I use my name to give it to a classroom. Hey, come on, that's as stupid as the top of a pine tree. No,
obviously I speak. and I write simply to expose a system of ideas about what
literature is who receives this or does not receive it, that is no longer something that can matter to me
nor can it allow me in any way to modify a single line of what I have said or written for
the most part. So there you have the criticism of literary reason, let's see what you do now with literature.
Because after the criticism of literary reason, you have neither reasons nor rights to talk about
literature in the terms in which you did before This Work. That is to say, this work
has really put on the table of literary interpretation a series of materials that had not been
used before that had not been analyzed before in the same way and it is a work that evidently
does not mean that one can be against or in favor of This work is like being against or in favor of the
water of the fire of the air or tungsten, that is to say, that is a completely absurd attitude. This work
What it raises is a question, what can ELCT do with a work of this nature based on
what literature demands of it? In other words, no, it is not what someone can do with this work, it is what
someone can do with this work taking it as a reference. literature, that is, one does not
own this work. The only owner of this work is literature. In short, when
we talk about the criticism of literary reason, we talk above all about the possibilities and
demands that literature maintains. before a reader And exposes before a reader who has at his
disposal the possibility of interpret it with the criticism of literary reason So the
organizers and promoters of this congress have proposed in these terms
critical theory of literature of literary reason and Innovation Research innovation in
literary studies a series of possibilities to intervene all of you can intervene
you can send your your communication your presentation your work before January 30 31 of next year
and expose it expose it freely and openly on the internet after naturally passing a
selection process of course there are many people who are enthusiastic about this work and say Well I
go to study the criticism of literary reason I am going to interpret literature but then when
they encounter the work and they encounter the demands not only what the work requires but
the demands that literature requires because the only thing this work does is c
the word to literature and to give way to literature very openly, to say clearly what it
requires for its interpretation because there are many people who happily believe that interpreting
literature is interpreting a barcode or saying any comic or exposing
clear occurrences. This It is another of the characteristics of the contemporary world, the world in which we currently
live. There is a fact in this world that is what we have called and we are going to coin this term, which is
communicative anarchy or semiological anarchy by virtue of which everyone can say what
they want, can use language as they want, can call to a cockatoo hippopotamus or you can
say that the earth is flat, that is, all of this has the same legitimacy from the point of view of public communication,
that is, that it is as legitimate to speak upright as to speak backwards.
Call things by their name or call them by name completely wrong. Of course, in a
context of this nature, literature is at the mercy of violent ignorance, that is, of
barbarism, and consequently when barbarians occupy academic, political
and social institutions, then obviously society either fades away or becomes transformed into
something else but it is not still what it was in a context of this nature to preserve the
rationalist criticism of literature in the face of a series of adversities that present literature as a
therapeutic discourse as an ideological discourse as a religious discourse as a
grotesque and ridiculous discourse is say well witty ideas arise, such as those who propose, Translating
Cervantes' Don Quixote into current Spanish, how good it is, is an extraordinary and
Fabulous idea that even the market has sanctioned by converting it as a commercial product in
a hypothetical case. So when we find ourselves in a world so anarchic from the point of view
of communication because what happens today is communicative anarchy. In short,
semiological anarchy where everything has legitimacy from any nonsense to any
statement, that is, as the lyrics of the book would say. tango, a donkey is the same as a great teacher, this is
absolutely literal, a donkey is the same as a great teacher, well obviously surviving
in the 21st century without a philosophy, that is, without a very coherent way of seeing life
, well, it is particularly difficult. The criticism of literary reason is not only a theory
of literature with a rational, scientific, critical, dialectical foundation, but it is also an attitude
towards life sincerely, everyone can see the work as they wish, but a work that is articulated in
20 volumes and that in his tenth and final digital edition may one day be published
on paper There is a project to publish it on paper but there are 20 volumes, something like 7,000
pages 7,000 pages, that is, if you are willing to read 7,000 pages of a
literary work, you can do it, but from a work about literature from a work about literary works
you can do it but naturally it will require a lot of work naturally it is not necessary to read
the entire work because the work is articulated through multiple facets And you can focus
on the one that interests you specifically More or particularly more but what is clear
is that it is a work that probably HM is rather the product of another era, that is, it
is an encyclopedic work, it is a work that even surprises me that it was
possible for a single human being to write it, but of course it has been written over 25 years and
and it is it is it is a very extensive work but in it uh in it you will find answers
to practically all kinds of literary questions So how is this congress articulated this congress
is articulated through a series of panels or a series of thematic sections where they can
participate and can present their work in relation to this work, examining those
literary works that they deem appropriate from the assumptions offered by the criticism
of literary reason, then first of all they have the option of referring to the postulates The
postulates of the criticism of literary reason propose that literature analyzed
from HM rational criteria from dialectical criteria from critical criteria is worth the
redundancy because this is totally redundant. The criteria are either critical or
can hardly receive this name. nomenclature in such a way that criticism, rationalism,
science and a rational and logical organization articulated in what Plato called sinlo qu and
that later the good man himself will also use to base a good part of
his critical thinking and his philosophy are the starting points, that is, literature is not an
anarchic material, it is not a material that cannot be subjected to a rational,
scientific and dialectical critical organization. This is a first point on which you can reflect on whatever
seems appropriate. Secondly, the question arises. possibility of subject to examination the 13 theses of the
criticism of literary reason the 10 commandments we would say that in this case there are not 10 but rather there are
13 the 13 commandments of the criticism of literary reason that more than commandments are theses
the 13 theses of the criticism of the literary reason that is presented in this work is put in the second
edition in the tenth edition of the work the second uh let's say version great version of the work the one
that has 20 volumes the The first version had three volumes. The second version has 20 volumes. The first
version was 3,000 pages. The second and final version is 7,000 pages. That is to say, it was expanded
much more. All of this work contains the 13 theses of the criticism of literary reason.
You can submit them. In the exam they can use them to interpret literature, the
theory of Genius is also proposed. What the genius of art consists of, what the genius of
literature, in particular, of art in general, consists of, a theory of Genius is presented by virtue of the What
are the reasons for genius in
art? We often talk about genius in art but no one has defined a theory
of genius in art. The theory of Genius has its most recent antecedents. more modern
in the contemporary age in romanticism but romanticism is a completely
idealistic construction of the world that makes the human being incompatible with himself, with others
and with the world in which he lives, that is, the only exit door from romanticism is suicide
And this is something that exists Therefore, always avoiding then the theory of Genius as it is proposed
in the criticism of literary reason is a rationalist theories about the criteria of genius
in art in general and in literature in particular, there they have it, they can use it
to justify the genius of this or that author and contrast to what extent some authors are more
genius than others Because even genius is quantifiable, then there is another chapter that
has to do with the presence of criticism of literary reason in different universities,
especially in the West, even in China. I know that in China there are different people
who use criticism. about literary reason in their studies on literature and hey, you can talk about
this, if you want, you can present your experiences. There are many people who tell me
that they don't let me use the criticism of literary reason because my professors censor me in the
research work in thesis development doctoral degrees Well, but if you are censored it is
because you have not developed the necessary skills to avoid censorship, of course
there are people who go ahead demanding to be censored, no, this is not what this is about, it is neither
black nor white, that is, neither The other thing is to say: You have to expose a system
of thought with the proper capabilities, these words that are used
so much today to expose a series of criteria and you also have to look for those professors
who support you in freedom. Because the University does not It is an institution where freedom works,
the university is one of the most conservative institutions there is and Freedom in
the university is neither present nor expected, that is, freedom begins where the
working hours end and where the working calendar ends, so talking about freedom in the university is
like To speak of freedom in the church is to say or or to speak of freedom within a sect is to say
that it does not exist anywhere. University freedom is something that one must create for oneself
that must be developed in a very discreet, very hidden, very very prudent way and eh Sometimes some
people meet people with other people with directors of theses that allow them
to develop their work and in other cases not, in other cases they discuss them, so of course when
some people tell me, well, it's that their work is not followed in certain universities. And
what do they want me to do, buy the university and force them to Let them follow my work, these things are not
done this way, that is to say, one writes a work and whoever has the capacity to use and
interpret it does so and whoever does not have the capacity to interpret it, Well, follow the flow and go
where Vicente goes, where the people go, I want to say that we cannot pretend that everything the
world dedicates itself to interpreting this work because then eh Of course, if the masses praise you, it is worse for
you because what the masses basically have to do is revile, it is a very bad sign, it is a very bad sign for
the ignorant to praise a human construction because that means that that it is a kit that
there is no originality. So we already have this, that is, we already know that
we cannot expect much from universities, what are we going to expect from an institution that banishes
literature from its teaching centers and its faculties? what are we going to expect from an
institution that has turned philosophy into an ideology into self-help because we cannot expect
much from these institutions, what can we expect from institutions that sell themselves
for money because prostitution basically means it is a devaluation of many
scientific personal objectives and professionals but it has always happened like this I mean it is not possible to say
It is not that this is a time worse than others This is a time like the others exactly like the
others the only difference is that it is the time in which you live eh That is to say you
They don't live in the late Middle Ages that was It was better to live in 1318 it was better to live in 1212
it was better to live in the year 800 it was better to live in the Rome of the year 476 and of course any
past time was not necessarily better and one has to survive in the world in
which we have to live no no we cannot
survive in the
The difference between this era and the previous ones
is that we live in this era and the previous ones, because we don't know them, we interpret them in one
or another way, but in reality, you have the criticism of literary reason at your disposal.
If you want to use it, you use it and if not, then you don't use it, but obviously what you cannot deny
is that the possibilities that today the The 21st century gives them to interpret
literature are greater than what they had at their disposal 30 years ago when this work did not
exist and there they have it. In short, then clearly the presence of the criticism of literary reason
in different universities is due to what that each of you personally is
able to do with this work against against the institution within which they investigate
because they will never have anything in favor but neither of this work nor of the others nor
of the others eh Therefore do not believe that no one makes a work original Or perhaps Carl Popper when
he wrote the theory of human knowledge, Popper's works on epistemology found
support, perhaps Freud's works found support immediately, they did not find many criticisms and
even today they still find them, perhaps Nietzsche's work finds support in his
contemporaries even up to Quixote himself received numerous criticisms from
someone as indisputable as Lópe de Vega, so here what we cannot assume is that
we are going to write a book and that all of God is going to applaud us because that is an ignorance
of what It is life and complete reality. One writes a book and presents a thesis because one wants to
give objective form to one's interpretation. What others do with it, one fights and sweats
completely because it is no longer one's own business, it is no longer one's business. that's just what The concern of
the masses is an individual whose emotions depend on others. It's not my case. It's the others who
depend on what I say, not the other way around. It's the others who parasitize themselves on me. Not me on
others. That's a big deal. difference, another issue that I want you to analyze is the very definition
of literature, the very concept of literature, the criticism of literary reason gives a concept of
literature that at the moment no one has known how to replace with a better one, they have not criticized it,
they have analyzed it, they say. what is a what is B what is C What It is simple that it is complex that it is diffuse
They can say sung mass but what they have not been is capable of proposing a concept that surpasses the one
that is proposed here the concept of literature and the definition of literature naturally it is
very interesting to become famous Search for publicity criticizing a work like the criticism of literary reason,
they can do it, they can give the raises, eh, they can make a publicity sketch giving
the end of the year grapes with the criticism of literary reason, okay, very well, they can do it,
but that doesn't really mean anything because the approaches to the work so refers
to their concept and definition of literature, they are what they are, I take it, they don't leave it, but really, if
they don't make constructive criticism, it's better if they don't do anything because what they will do will be ridicule.
So the concept, the concept of definition that literature gives The criticism of literary reason
is very articulated, very founded, as everyone knows, in that declaration by virtue of
which literature is a human and also rational construction that makes its way to
freedom through struggle, which is absolutely fundamental. and dialectical thinking
that uses signs linguistics to which it confers a poetic or aesthetic value
that the German romantics called aesthetic and that the Spanish-Latin tradition considers as
poetic to those that it invests with a fictional value of a fictional status and that inscribes in a
communicative process of pragmatic dimensions that develop geographically, historically
and also politically and which of course is based on four fundamental terms:
the author, the work, the receiver and the interpreter or transducer. If this is confusing, look
at a psychiatrist's office. Maybe they can explain some more problems of
personality disorders. But this is the concept of literature that maintains the criticism of
literary reason. There is a genealogy of literature to which the genealogy of literature can also refer.
Literature in many aspects can be considered as a model that, from the field of comparative literature,
tries to overcome the entire scheme that the French comparatist school
has been repeated uncritically since the 19th century, that is to say that in comparatism there are two,
there are two orientations that have triumphed. the nineteenth-century historicist and positivist French school
that has been constantly repeated because it is very easy to repeat, one makes a manual of
comparative literature and takes what the French have said from Valdes Penger to everyone else and repeats it
temat smelt period smelt historiology logy and that's it there is no problem and a manual of
comparative literature comes out which is the umpteenth manual of comparative literature of French descent
okay And then there is another trend that prospered which was the American Anglo-Saxon school
of Rene welec and Austin baren who are the ones who develop a model of comparative literature
in which historicism is replaced by theoreticism by formalism and it is
comparative literature developed above all by American imperialism, it happens that
today Comparative literature has been shattered because postmodernism considers
that all literatures are equal in such a way that if all literatures are equal
there is nothing to compare and then comparative literature is left without resources in the face of the
demands of literary comparisons. Well, in this work there is a specific chapter
on comparative literature that we already mentioned here, but there is another chapter on literary genealogy
on the origin of literature in which four families are distinguished: primitive
or dogmatic literature, critical or indicative literature, sophisticated literature. or reconstructive and
programmatic or imperative literature, of course, they are four ways of conceiving and practicing
literature that from the point of view of comparatism can be very enriching and
from the point of view of literary genealogy as well, but eh We must keep in mind that Literary genealogy
is a completely unpublished chapter in literature and in
literary research, before the criticism of literary reason, no one ever wrote a single line about
the genealogy of literature. This is an unpublished chapter in the history of literary studies
because no one wrote a single monograph or a single book on the origin of literature,
there has been writing about the origin of language and in any case they have talked about the origin of myths and
all these things and they have stowed away very much. questions related to literature but
specifically about the origin of literature This is the first work of The history of
literary studies to which reference is made Precisely at this point the origin
of literature and of course through these four families each literary work that
we read each work literary that we write belongs to one or more of these four
families and one of them in a dominant or predominant way on this facet can
also intervene in this congress another issue is the literary ontology that concentrates on the
four materials, surpassing the model the model of jacobson sender message receiver which also does not
contain any originality in the Indiana congress is presented in 1958 but has no
originality because it was already in Aristotle's Rhetoric the one who speaks what is said and
the one who Listens therefore here jacobson so admired today totally unknown now but
so admired at the time it does not really contribute anything new or anything original Because everything that
jacobson says had already been said by Aristotle even better than jacobson therefore the
Anglo-Saxon approaches on the theory of literature are a clumsy and degraded and bad rediscovery of what
the tradition of Spanish-Greek-Latin literary studies had already done with much more
perfection and solidity for centuries before, another thing is that ignorance Anglo-Saxon on these topics
inaugurated above all with the Enlightenment and Romanticism would have eclipsed the possibilities
of taking them into account but that is already their problem. Another issue is the gnosi olía, that is,
the different possibilities and modalities of scientifically analyzing the literature the gnosi
What it exposes is the requirement
to scientifically study literature, something that the Enlightenment and German Anglo-Saxon romanticism
systematically denied, also denying all the validity of literary studies
prior to the 17th century. Of course, this is a surprising question that has also been assumed
as if such a thing, that is to say, as if it were an undeniable truth throughout Latin America and throughout
the Hispanic tradition, which is really surprising, that is, it is surprising that a tradition
culture that was born in Greece and developed through Latinity and the entire
Italian Renaissance and the Spanish Baroque suddenly since the 17th century foolishly assumed from ignorance of
Anglo-Saxon approaches that literature cannot be studied scientifically which is one
thing completely ridiculous as if other things can be studied scientifically and literature
not all because of a Kantian pietist reformist fantas moric idealist heritage that
has never been seriously questioned since the Hispanic tradition, some philosophers even go so
far as to propose, assuming Kantian positions without being aware of it, that it is not possible to
scientifically study literature and they do not know why. In other words, they repeat this but do not know exactly why
another question that arises is that of literary genres. There are two historical theories
of reference . about the literary genres that are Aristotle's and Hegel's, Aristotle's
is of no use to us due to the fact that Aristotle faces a literature that is not ours.
Aristotle talks about literature. ignoring 25 centuries of literature that we are
obliged to take into account, therefore we cannot consider as a reference a theory of
literary genres that is stated to be built having in front of us a literature that lacks the
25 centuries of history that literature requires. Yes, we have before us and on the other hand,
Hegel's theory of literary genres is a theory of German literary genres,
so to speak, and totally idealistic, that is, it is the theory of literary genres of the big
brother of German idealism that makes literature it What Germany is interested in doing
with literature, but one thing is the history of universal literature and another thing is the
German history of universal literature. They are two completely different things. That is to say,
a theory of literary genres is not the same as a theory of literary genres. German theory of literary genres
of universal literature are completely different issues. Germany is a country
that has seen the rest of the world from the holes of German idealism, which is also only one,
German idealism only has one hole. So it is a very limited vision and From this perspective,
Ortega himself developed his own perspective his kich In short, not then here we propose
a theory of literary genres that has nothing to do with either Aristotle's or
Hegel's and that requires a geneological relationship, not genealogical taking as reference to the origin
but neological taking as reference to the literary Gene, which is completely different from all
previous literary theories, another thing is that this book has interpreters who continue it, it
will have them, but maybe it has one every 100 years, of course, and you will tell me, and
it is worth writing a book so that there is one intelligent reader every 100 years, of course.
How many intelligent readers do you think the books you write have? Well,
maybe less than one every 100 years, so be very careful with arrogance in this sense
because here we write a book. and we believe that they are all intelligent readers, they are readers
and each of us as readers does what we can tenth term fiction
literary fiction fiction is a key aspect of literature without fiction there is no literature and whoever
does not understand what fiction is literary does not understand what is literature the criticism of
literary reason has placed a lot of emphasis on the value of fiction in literature and of course
fiction is the Tex is the Tex is the predictor that reveals whether someone has the capacity or not
To interpret what literature is with fiction, the same thing happens as when we use a
deictic if we point our finger at the moon and our interlocutor stays looking at the
finger because he doesn't know what literary fiction is, to put it very mildly And that It happens a lot
to those who have a capacity limited exclusively to interpreting the meaning of
words in a literal sense. When someone interprets the meaning of a word in its
exclusively literal sense, it means that they are not capable of perceiving the different meanings that
this word has and fiction above all handles many meanings literature literature is
music pedaled is music with a pedal that is to say that there is a lot of semantic reverberation in everything that
a word says in the same way that the pedal is usually said to be the soul of the piano because
obviously he who plays the piano very well has You have to know how to handle the pedal very well.
There is no pianist, no matter how good he may be, who does not master the pedal because the key of the piano is above
all the pedal. That is where the sound is really handled by the pedal, as my
music teacher says. play with your ear In short All music is played with the ear obviously
because it is what dominates absolutely everything but literature literature is the pedal
of language eh literature is the sound pedal of language what the pedal is to piano music
lait ura It is to language and in short the pedal is what evidently suspends
truth. This is a question that is explained in the chapter dedicated to literary fiction but here
in literary fiction the interpreters of literature have a very important quote so I
It is very funny that today we continue talking about fiction ignoring what this chapter proposes
Because if you talk about literature ignoring the criticism of literary reason, it is the same as
talking about literature in 1990, that is, you talk about literature 30 years late, so I
tell you, take it seriously. affirmation however you want or dera question comparative literature I
have already referred to before and I am not going to repeat myself but here we propose an analysis of literary comparatism
in a way that overcomes postmodernism, take care of it if you want and then there is an important chapter the
study of literature through through through means of resources of disciplines and
subjects that filter literary studies that in some way are a filter are an
intermediary history study literature through history It is not the same as studying
literature regardless of history. If we put on the glasses of
historians to interpret literature, we see things that we would not see if we left those
glasses behind. But these things are sometimes not things that we have to agree with but what are they issues
that must be criticized, that is, the study of literature through history is a
very different study of literature through other subjects such as those that
we point out below, studying literature through the sciences of what sciences,
imagine a study of literature through medicine, which can give rise to a
naturalistic novel, the study of literature through philosophies, that has been practiced
a lot, but what philosophies? Because not all philosophies are equal, there are philosophies. that eclipse
literature there are philosophies that in literature there are philosophies that illuminate it better than other
philosophies there are philosophies that are a dogma for literature there are philosophies that are stale about
literature like Plato's etc. That is to say that studying literature through
philosophies but through of what philosophy And what is seen about literature when
literature is studied through philosophy This is an enormously important question, as
I say, through the sciences, of course, studying literature through the market through the
market sciences reveals that many of the products that are passed off as literature are not
such, writing for the market is not the same as writing for the readers of literary works,
the interpretation of literature through the arts, imagine studying literature through
through painting through music through cinema this has been done a lot through
cinema because it is very easy it is much easier to study literature through cinema
than through painting than through architecture which through sculpture than
through music obviously and then studying literature through ideologies, which is the
point to which the 21st century and postmodernism are practically reduced, reducing literature
to the ideological confirmation of a clear dogma when the ideologies dogmatic philosophies
religions scientific fundamentalisms study literature they make it reductive they make it
reductive to make literature an asset at their service their disposal well all these
approaches and many others that I cannot summarize here are those offered by the critique of
literary reason with this work, you have a very important resource to analyze literature
at the forefront of literary research, not only Western but frankly universal. There is not
a single University in the world where the criticism of literary reason currently has a
more powerful alternative, which is what is known. they will ultimately find with the Criticism of literary reason
is an instrument that other methods, other currents of research, are insufficient
from the criticism of literary reason. You can interpret other methodologies that are
used to analyze literature, but from other methodologies the criticism of literary reason
cannot be interpreted. because the criticism of literary reason is a musical scale that
understands and integrates other forms other versions of musical scale, let's say that the criticism of
literary reason would be a twelve-tone scale While other methodologies are
pentatonic scales because the criticism of literary reason implies the that others have
But the others do not imply what the criticism of literary reason offers and if you do not believe me, read
the work and then we will talk. If you are interested, you can participate in this congress by sending your
communication proposal through the link that appears here, you see it at my You see
perfectly well the link I am referring to here, you have it in such a way that on the internet, if
you put theory of critical literature of literary reason in research in literary studies
on the egregius platform, there you will find what you need to know to participate in this
congress. and offer their interpretations of the literature to From this work good luck
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
