Senso Comum e Crítica Literária
Enviado por
Kiria AbreuSenso Comum e Crítica Literária
Enviado por
Kiria AbreuCommon questions
Com tecnologia de IA'Senso comum' or common sense is based on unreflective knowledge shaped by cultural beliefs, superstitions, and everyday judgments, often subjective and dependent on personal viewpoints . In contrast, scientific knowledge is characterized by objectivity, derived from empirical evidence, and structured through systematic methodologies . Common sense tends to unify experiences without recognizing deeper connections, while scientific knowledge seeks to verify hypotheses and establish theories through validated connections . Common sense generalizes from limited experiences; science aims for broad applicability and precision.
G. Vico views senso comum as an unreflective judgment commonly shared by a class, a people, a nation, or humanity as a whole, functioning without deep reflection . M. Heidegger connects common sense to the level of understanding where individuals feel secure within various 'truths' of life experiences, actions, research, creation, and faith . Both philosophers acknowledge that while common sense is widely shared and taken for granted, philosophy challenges its assumptions through critical inquiry.
'Crítica literária' reflects broader intellectual and cultural currents by being an integrative discipline that spans various cultural and scientific sectors. It is both an individual and a collective intellectual exercise directed toward capturing the spirit of a culture, the level of scientific knowledge, and an expression of rational and imaginative capabilities through language . This expansive role affirms the relevance of literary criticism beyond mere textual analysis, indicating its function as a mirror to societal intellectual energies.
Hans-Georg Gadamer considers senso comum as embedded within communal traditions, producing ideas and thoughts through shared societal values passed through generations. This view highlights that common sense is not isolated but entwined with historical and cultural contexts that shape current interpretations and criticisms of human knowledge . By situating common sense within these traditions, Gadamer emphasizes its role in maintaining continuity and evolving cultural heritage, thus enriching the comprehension of our diverse cultural legacies.
'Senso comum' is seen as rigorous because it formulates explanations in general statements shared across a community, leading to a collective sense of understanding . However, it's subjective because it is deeply intertwined with personal viewpoints and conditionings, resulting in diverse interpretations depending on individual contexts. This contradiction reveals that common sense blends individual perceptions with collective beliefs, serving as both a unifying force and a point of divergence in interpreting experiences.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, literary history emerged as a distinct discipline, shaping the concept of national literature by distinguishing it from classical notions of belles-lettres. This development lead to the identification of literature as a national endeavor, defining distinct national literary traditions. Consequently, concepts like 'literatura brasileira' or 'literatura portuguesa' arose, promoting the creation of a national identity through literary works, separate from prior universal literary forms . This period emphasized the individualization of literatures according to their respective nations.
Early twentieth-century literary studies battled against historiographical and biographical methods in favor of more 'scientific' approaches like structuralism and formalism. Critics of these methods argued that literature should be scrutinized through intrinsic elements—structuralist and formalist lenses—rather than extrinsic factors like the author's life or historical context . The emphasis was on understanding a text by its structural elements rather than context, aligning with the quest for objective analysis during that era.
'Impressionism crítico' deviates from traditional literary criticism by rejecting the analytical circle that attempts to bestow scientific objectivity on literature. Instead, it emphasizes subjective and disinterested methods akin to common readers' experiences, thus focusing on recording reading impressions rather than theorizing about literature. This movement arose as a reaction against attempts to achieve scientific objectivity in literary analysis . The main motivation behind this approach is the pursuit of a personal, aesthetic experience of literature, rather than an objective analysis.
Rejecting philosophy as 'dangerous' in favor of 'senso comum' for daily living suggests a preference for security in widely shared beliefs over the uncertainty that philosophical inquiry introduces. While common sense provides an immediate framework to navigate daily challenges, philosophy questions underlying assumptions, potentially destabilizing accepted norms. This preference prioritizes practicality and consensus over critical reflection and individual thought . However, this approach could impede progress and deeper understanding, as philosophical scrutiny often leads to discovery and innovation.
Modern theories of literary genres emerged from eighteenth-century aesthetic science debates and brought significant transformation by distinguishing literary genres as strictly literary, emphasizing narrative fiction, drama, lyric, and essay forms. This shift excluded previously included intellectual activities like journalism, philosophy, and history from literary classification. This change was propelled by a desire for a clear boundary that separates imaginative literature from content aimed at knowledge or information . This reflects a move away from Neoclassical broad classifications towards a refined set of literary types.