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

DFG网络“什么是文献学自证？文学批评和法学的观点”旨在使自证--文学和文献学理论和实践中尚未得到充分研究的一个方面--在更广泛的意义上对(文本)知识的理论-方法论论述有用。对自我证据的担忧的挑战在于它的模棱两可。例如，自证可以理解为认知过程的产物，也可以理解为认知和判断的前提；自证既有理性的特征，也有直觉的特征，它证明了一些东西，但同时本身往往在其显性上并不完全可以解释。虽然自证常常被称为知识和判断过程中的中心实例，但缺乏办法从理论和方法上反映自证作为(非)解释学概念和/或范畴的定义。DFG网络希望弥合这一差距，并说明如何使自证概念适用于其他解释性科学。因此，该项目是跨学科的，但集中在涉及文本解释的学科：古典语言学、德语研究、法律。其目的是通过参与的不同学科，使处理文本的方法和问题的异同更清晰地被理解，并能够从共时和历时的角度来阐明它们。这项工作主要集中在两个方面：1)自证的概念定义，基于它在(古代)修辞学中的起源；2)自证作为一种知识形式的考察。从个别成员所作的贡献来看，不仅应更清楚地理解自证的问题，而且应更清楚地理解其对案文进行解释性分析的可能性。

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.