Teoría de la mente aplicada a la literatura como valor literarioel caso de Ulises y Argo en la Odisea

  1. José Manuel Mora - Fand o s 1
  2. Daniel Vela Valldecabres 2
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid
    info

    Universidad Complutense de Madrid

    Madrid, España

    ROR 02p0gd045

  2. 2 Universidad Rey Juan Carlos
    info

    Universidad Rey Juan Carlos

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01v5cv687

Journal:
Tonos digital: revista de estudios filológicos

ISSN: 1577-6921

Year of publication: 2020

Issue: 38

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDIGITUM editor

More publications in: Tonos digital: revista de estudios filológicos

Abstract

The starting hypothesis that we want to validate is: the Theory of the mind applied to the Literatur e is indicative of artistic quality insofar as it is kata to eikós (Aristotle: "according to what can be expected") and because it brings unity and complexity to the plot and to the characters. We start from the presentation of the status quaestionis of th e cognitive studies applied to literature. Secondly, relying on the Poetics of Aristotle, we affirm that the artistic quality of literary narrative depends, first of all, on its composition ( mythos ). And within composition, a complex work is preferable to a simple one. Another indispensable quality factor, inseparable from the previous one, is the unity of action: because of the right temporal selection of events and because everything is directed towards an end. It is necessary to add that these characteri stics of good narratives have to occur "according to what can be expected" ( kata to eikós ), following the expression of Aristotle. As an example, we have chosen the meeting between Ulysses and his dog Argo at the end of The Odyssey . The scene is analyzed i n order to show how Theory of the mind applied to literature adds to the artistic quality of the work, as it adds discoursive complexity insofar it is kata to eikos and reinforces the unity of the work.

Bibliographic References

  • Aristóteles (1974). Poética, Valentín García Yebra (trad.), edición trilingüe. Madrid: Gredos.
  • Booth, W. C. (1983). The Rhetoric of Fiction. USA: Chicago University Press.
  • Chenari, M. (2009). Hermeneutics and theory of mind. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8, 17-31.
  • Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gainsford, P. (2003). Formal Analysis of Recognition Scenes in the Odyssey. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 123, 41-59.
  • Galván, L. (2017). El argumento y las pasiones en la comedia: la Poética de Aristóteles y algunas comedias cómicas de Lope de Vega. Bulletin of Spanish Studies, vol. XCIV, 4, 573-594.
  • García Berrio, A. & Hernández Fernández, T. (2012). Crítica literaria. Madrid: Cátedra.
  • Goldhill, S. (1991). The Poet’s Voice: Essays on Poetics and Greek Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Homero (1982). Odisea, edición de Manuel Fernández-Galiano, traducción de José Manuel Pabón. Madrid: Gredos.
  • Hutto, D. (2007). The Narrative Practice Hypothesis: Origins and Applications of Folk Psychology. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, May, 43-68.
  • Jiménez Cataño, R. & Yarza, I. (2009).Mimesi, verità, fiction. Ripensare l'arte. Sulla scia della Poetica di Aristotele. Roma: Edusc.
  • Leslie, A. (1994). ToMM, ToBY, and Agency: Core Architecture and Domain Specificity. En L. Hirschfeld&S. Gelman (eds.), Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture(pp. 119-148). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mora-Fandos, J.M. (2007).Ulises y Argos en la Odisea: una escena de reconocimiento como referente para escritura creativa. En E. Fuster (ed.), Repensar la ficción. Identidad personal y reconocimiento en cine y TV (pp. 63-83). Roma: Edizione della Università della Santa Croce.
  • Premack, D. &Woodruff, G. (1978). Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 515-629.
  • Richardson, A. (2004). Studies in Literature and Cognition: A Field Map. En A. Richardson & E. Spolsky (eds.), The Work of Fiction: Cognition, Culture,and Complexity(pp. 1-29). Aldershot: Ashgate.
  • Ricoeur, P. (1991), Auto-compréhension et histoire. En T. Calvo & R. Ávila (eds.), Paul Ricoeur. Los caminos de la interpretación(pp. 9-25). Barcelona: Anthropos.
  • Ricoeur, P. (2003). Tiempo y narración III. El tiempo narrado: Lingüística y teoría literaria. México: Siglo XXI.
  • Ricoeur, P. (2004). Tiempo y narración I. Configuración del tiempo en el relato histórico. México: Siglo XXI.
  • Rorty, A. O. (ed.) (1992). Essays on Aristotle's Poetics. Princeton:Princeton University Press.
  • Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional Intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality, 9 (3), 185-211.
  • Vilarnovo, A. (1992).Kata toeikós y la definición aristotélica de literatura. En A. Vilarnovo &J. F. Sánchez, Discurso, tipos de texto y comunicación(pp. 107-118). Pamplona: Eunsa.
  • Zecchin de Fasano, G. (2000). Anagnórisis y anagnorismós: proceso y resultado en los reconocimientos de Odisea. El caso de Odiseo y Penélope. Praesentia. Revista venezolana de estudios clásicos, 2, 285-308.
  • Zunshine, L. (2006). Why we Read Fiction: Theory of Mind and the Novel. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
  • Zunshine, L. (2015). Introduction to Cognitive Literary Studies. En L. Zunshine (ed.),The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Literary Studies(pp. 2-10).USA: Oxford University Press.
Data source: Dialnet