Essay from the year 1990 in the subject Philosophy - Practical (Ethics, Aesthetics, Culture, Nature, Right, ...), grade: keine, , language: English, abstract: Although both designed strata models for various kinds of art and especially for literature, the philosophers Nicolai Hartmann and Roman Ingarden never entered into any kind of dialogue. Also in secondary literature there is no exact comparison of their systems to be found. For that reason, the two strata systems are compared here for the first time and their resp. advantages and deficiencies are being pointed out. Amongst other things, the following topics are being discussed: 1. In what way Hartmann's "e;Real Foreground"e; ("e;Realer Vordergrund"e;) is more specifically subdivided in Ingarden's system, 2. How, on the other hand, Ingarden's "e;Stratum of Depicted Objects"e; ("e;Schicht der dargestellten Gegenstandlichkeiten"e;) was more thoroughly subdivided by Hartmann, 3. Why there cannot be found in Hartmann's system a corresponding stratum for Ingarden's "e;Stratum of Schematized Aspects"e; ("e;Schicht der schematischen Ansichten"e;) and 4. Why Hartmann's two strata of the "e;Irreal Background"e; ("e;Irrealer Hintergrund"e;) are consolidated by Ingarden and expressly not seen as a stratum. (In: Acta Humanistica XIX/3, Foreign Lang. and Lit. S. No. 17,June 1990, 64-82)

Essay from the year 1990 in the subject Philosophy - Practical (Ethics, Aesthetics, Culture, Nature, Right, ...), grade: keine, , language: English, abstract: Although both designed strata models for various kinds of art and especially for literature, the philosophers Nicolai Hartmann and Roman Ingarden never entered into any kind of dialogue. Also in secondary literature there is no exact comparison of their systems to be found. For that reason, the two strata systems are compared here for the first time and their resp. advantages and deficiencies are being pointed out. Amongst other things, the following topics are being discussed: 1. In what way Hartmann's "e;Real Foreground"e; ("e;Realer Vordergrund"e;) is more specifically subdivided in Ingarden's system, 2. How, on the other hand, Ingarden's "e;Stratum of Depicted Objects"e; ("e;Schicht der dargestellten Gegenstandlichkeiten"e;) was more thoroughly subdivided by Hartmann, 3. Why there cannot be found in Hartmann's system a corresponding stratum for Ingarden's "e;Stratum of Schematized Aspects"e; ("e;Schicht der schematischen Ansichten"e;) and 4. Why Hartmann's two strata of the "e;Irreal Background"e; ("e;Irrealer Hintergrund"e;) are consolidated by Ingarden and expressly not seen as a stratum. (In: Acta Humanistica XIX/3, Foreign Lang. and Lit. S. No. 17,June 1990, 64-82)

Essay from the year 1990 in the subject Philosophy - Practical (Ethics, Aesthetics, Culture, Nature, Right, ...), grade: keine, , language: English, abstract: Although both designed strata models for various kinds of art and especially for literature, the philosophers Nicolai Hartmann and Roman Ingarden never entered into any kind of dialogue. Also in secondary literature there is no exact comparison of their systems to be found. For that reason, the two strata systems are compared here for the first time and their resp. advantages and deficiencies are being pointed out. Amongst other things, the following topics are being discussed: 1. In what way Hartmann's "e;Real Foreground"e; ("e;Realer Vordergrund"e;) is more specifically subdivided in Ingarden's system, 2. How, on the other hand, Ingarden's "e;Stratum of Depicted Objects"e; ("e;Schicht der dargestellten Gegenstandlichkeiten"e;) was more thoroughly subdivided by Hartmann, 3. Why there cannot be found in Hartmann's system a corresponding stratum for Ingarden's "e;Stratum of Schematized Aspects"e; ("e;Schicht der schematischen Ansichten"e;) and 4. Why Hartmann's two strata of the "e;Irreal Background"e; ("e;Irrealer Hintergrund"e;) are consolidated by Ingarden and expressly not seen as a stratum. (In: Acta Humanistica XIX/3, Foreign Lang. and Lit. S. No. 17,June 1990, 64-82)