The Pornographic Object of Knowledge: Pornography as Epistemology

Author(s):  
Jeffrey Escoffier
Keyword(s):  
1970 ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Kerstin Smeds

Some reflections on «the museologicalproject» Firstly, this article provides a very brief survey of the discussion about museology as a «field of research and study», a debate which has been going on among ICOFOM-members for the last twenty to thirty years. ICOFOM was founded in 1976 in answer to demands from the field of museum practice, which changed radically in the 1970s. Since that time the crucial question has been: Is museology a discipline or is it not? What is the object of knowledge and the subject of research in museology? 


Philologia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Svetlana Calaras ◽  

There are various interpretations of the fundamental notions used in the study of terminology. This article is a comparative study of their definitions, conducted in the process of establishing benchmarks in the study of editorial-printing terminology. It presents a research of the theoretical foundations of terminology, a study of various interpretations of linguistic meanings of key notions of terminology: „notion”, „concept” and „term”. One of the fundamental units of terminology is the „notion”, which is characterized as an abstract object of knowledge. Another fundamental unit, the „concept”, represents classes of objects of knowledge, of perceptible phenomena. Concepts are called abstractions, mental constructions or units of thought that ensure the connection between objects and their definitions. They have an essential role in human knowledge, communication not being possible if we do not have a codification of concepts in linguistic signs (terms). The concepts ensure the connection between the objects and the designations that correspond to them. And the „term” is the material form, expressed through linguistic means, of a notion specialized in a certain field of knowledge.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 150-153
Author(s):  
Dong Cao

The cognition method of “observing things” by the famous Confucian, Shao Yong from the early Song Dynasty has an extremely broad and profound meaning. It overlaps and also has similarities with Marxist epistemology. This article attempts to examine it from the perspective of Marxist epistemology; beginning with the subject and object of knowledge, the method of knowledge, and the purpose of knowledge to interpret and reflect on Shao Yong’s thought of “observation.”


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Vehlken

Under the concept of deformations, this chapter presents crucial aspects that link the phenomena of swarms to media theory. Here swarms are treated as a materialization of Serres’s figure of the ‘parasite.’ By attending to disruptive potential, swarm research has yielded new information in the context of a comprehensive media theory of interference. This includes methodological insights that are productive for concepts of media historiography. The chapter closes by tracing the epistemological and cultural-technical expansion of the zone affected by swarms. The conversion of the swarm as an object of knowledge into an operative figure of knowledge by computer simulation signifies a general shift in epistemic strategies: self-organizational phenomena came to be applied to the study of complex interactive processes.


1981 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Whittaker

One of the most peculiar features of the belief in God is the accompanying claim that God is an indescribable mystery, an object of faith but never an object of knowledge. In certain contexts – in worship, for example – this claim undoubtedly serves a useful purpose; and so I do not want to dismiss the idea altogether. But when pious remarks about the ineffable nature of God are taken out of context and turned into philosophy, the result is usually an epistemological muddle. The trouble, of course, is that those who insist on God's mysteriousness still manage to say all sorts of things about him; he is an incorporeal spirit, he created the world, he loves his creatures, and so on. To assert these things is to presume some understanding of God, but no understanding is possible if God is completely incomprehensible. So if that is how it is, if the object of religious belief is utterly incomprehensible, then it makes no sense to say – or believe – anything about God.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document