What is philolgical self-evidence? Perspectives from literary criticism and jurisprudence

“什么是语言学自明？”“文学批评和法学视角”旨在使自明性——文学和语言学理论与实践中尚未得到充分研究的一个方面——对更广泛意义上的（文本）知识的理论-方法论话语有用。对自明性的任何关注的挑战在于它的模糊性。例如，自明性既可以理解为认知过程的产物，也可以理解为认知和判断的先决条件；自明具有理性和直觉的特点，它证明了一些东西，但同时，它本身往往不能完全解释其显而易见性。虽然自明性经常被称为知识和判断过程中的中心实例，但缺乏从理论上和方法上反映自明性作为（非）解释学概念和/或范畴的定义。dfg网络希望弥合这一差距，并展示如何将自明性概念应用于其他解释性科学。因此，该项目是跨学科的，但集中在处理文本的解释学科：古典语言学，德语研究，法律。其目的是通过参与的不同学科，在处理文本时使方法和问题的异同更清楚地理解，并能够从共时和历时的角度来阐明它们。本文的研究重点集中在两个方面：1)根据自明在古代修辞学中的渊源，对自明进行概念界定；(2)对作为一种知识形式的自明性的研究。从个别成员的贡献来看，自明性不仅在其问题上，而且在其对文本进行解释分析的可能性上，都应该得到更清楚的把握。

The DFG-network "What is philological self-evidence? Perspectives from literary criticism and jurisprudence" aims to make self-evidence – an aspect of literary and philological theory and practice that has not yet been sufficiently investigated – useful for the theoretical-methodological discourse of (textual) knowledge in the broader sense. The challenge of any concern with self-evidence lies in its ambiguity. Self-evidence, for example, can be under-stood as the product of a cognitive process, but also as a prerequisite for cognition and judgement; self-evidence has both rational and intuitive traits, it proves something, but at the same time is often itself not completely explainable in its obviousness. Although self-evidence is often called upon as a central instance in processes of knowledge and judgement, there is a lack of approaches that provide a theoretically and methodologically reflected definition of what constitutes self-evidence as a (non) hermeneutic concept and/or category. The DFG-network would like to bridge this gap and show how the concept of self-evidence can be made applicable to other interpretative sciences. Therefore, the project is interdisciplinary, but concentrates on disciplines dealing with the interpretation of texts: Classical Philology, German Studies, Law. The aim is to make similarities and differences in methods and ques-tions when dealing with texts more clearly comprehensible through the different disciplines participating and to be able to shed light on them from both a synchronic and a diachronic perspective. The work focuses on two aspects: 1) A conceptual definition of self-evidence, based on its origin in (ancient) rhetoric; 2) The investigation of self-evidence as a form of knowledge. From the contributions worked out by the individual members, self-evidence should be grasped more clearly not only in its problematics but also in its possibilities for interpretative analysis of texts.