Affiliation:
1. Universität Greifswald, Institut für Philosophie , Baderstraße 2, 17489 Greifswald , Germany
Abstract
Abstract
The article treats the problem of interpretation in its respect to reality by example of Umberto Eco’s moderate ‚realistic‘ position and his criticism of Friedrich Nietzsche, the “father” of postmodernism. Here the strongest arguments on both sides are evaluated: Eco’s “negative realism” pointing out the impossibility of some interpretations and Nietzsche’s thinking out the absolute absence of a privileged position proceeding from which it would be possible to unequivocally identify what is real. The article argues that the crucial point why some interpretations may prove to be stronger or weaker is best described in terms of the concept of power. One however should avoid misconceptions, since power itself is interpretation which nevertheless allows for the gradation of reality, the mobility of its horizons, their shifting and even their potential availability. A much-disputed question of prehistoric times as well as that of death as a limit of interpretability is inter alia included in the analysis. Both classical anti-realistic positions, such as that of Wittgenstein, and the argumentation of contemporary advocates of realism, such as Quentin Meillassoux, are taken into consideration.
Reference40 articles.
1. Abel, G. (1984), Nietzsche. Die Dynamik der Willen zur Macht und die ewige Wiederkehr, Berlin u. New York.
2. Abel, G. (2004), Zeichen der Wirklichkeit, Frankfurt am Main.
3. Albert, H. (1994), Kritik reiner Hermeneutik. Der Antirealismus als Problem des Verstehens, Tübingen.
4. Arendes, L. (1992), Gibt Physik Wissen über die Natur? Das Realismusproblem in der Quantenphysik, Würzburg.
5. Aristoteles, Metaphysik [metaph.].