A presente Tese compreende uma análise de três componentes estreitamente relacionados do pensamento de Pierre Duhem (1861-1916), a saber, a historiografia da ciência, a filosofia da história e o método histórico. Na primeira parte, examinamos as relações essenciais estabelecidas entre o método histórico e a filosofia da história duhemianas. Na segunda, nossa atenção volta-se para o estudo de alguns aspectos da historiografia de nosso autor que têm sido negligenciados pela literatura secundária, em especial, a sua concepção das revoluções científicas. Acreditamos ser possível compor uma interpretação sintética que harmonize, sem incoerências, as afirmações que conduzem os comentadores a vê-lo como um continuísta estrito e, por outro lado, algumas passagens esquecidas que tendem a reforçar uma interpretação descontinuísta. / The present Thesis encompasses an analysis of three closely related components of Pierre Duhems thought, namely, the historiography of science, the philosophy of history and the historical method. In the first part, we examine the essential relationships established between the Duhemian historical method and his philosophy of history. In the second part, our attention turns to the study of some aspects of Duhems historiography that have been neglected by the secondary literature, particularly, the Duhemian conception of scientific revolutions. We believe that it is possible to compose a synthetic interpretation that harmonizes, without inconsistencies, on the one hand, the assertions of the French historian that led the commentators to see him as a strict continuist and, on the other hand, some other forgotten passages that tend to reinforce a discontinuist interpretation.

This paper analyzes the ideas and practices of the Brazilian historian João Ribeiro about his understanding of philosophy, history and philosophy of history. As basic sources are employed Articles "Philosophy in Brazil" (1917), the essay "The science in history" (1894) and the didactic writing "Universal History" in three versions, published respectively in 1918, 1924 and 1932 subjected to exegesis and hermeneutics strategies. The results indicate that João Ribeiro understands philosophy as metaphysical study focused on transcendence and history, as a science whose object is made up of social action and its scientific founded on universal laws. The analysis of World history shows that its didactic historiography narrates events that establish a philosophy of history. João Ribeiro adopts in his compendium line of succession civilization river (Nile, Euphrates)/Mediterranean civilization (Greek and Roman)/Atlantic civilization (modern people) and distinguishing the history of Eastern peoples as the oldest testimonies of civilization followed by the Greeks and the Romans and the modern people - fruits of fragmentation of Greco-Roman civilization, refers to the classical division of the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel developed in his "History of Philosophy" (1837). / Este texto analisa as ideias e práticas do historiador brasileiro João Ribeiro a respeito do seu entendimento sobre filosofia, história e filosofia da história. Como fontes básicas são empregados os artigos A filosofia no Brasil (1917), o ensaio A sciencia na história (1894) e o escrito didático História universal em três versões, publicadas, respectivamente, em 1918, 1924 e 1932, submetidos às estratégias de exegese e hermenêutica. Os resultados indicam que João Ribeiro compreende a filosofia como o estudo metafísico centrado na transcendência, e a história, como ciência cujo objeto é constituído pelas ações sociais sendo sua cientificidade fundada em leis universais. A análise da História universal permite inferir que sua historiografia didática narra acontecimentos que fundamentam uma filosofia da história. João Ribeiro adota em seu compêndio a linha de sucessão civilização fluvial (Nilo, Eufrates)/civilização mediterrânea (gregos e romanos)/civilização atlântica (povos modernos) e, distinguindo a história dos povos orientais como os mais antigos testemunhos de civilização seguidos dos gregos e dos romanos e dos povos modernos frutos da fragmentação da civilização greco-romana, reporta-se à divisão clássica do filósofo alemão Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel elaborada em sua obra Filosofia da História (1837).

The central idea of this paper is that our contemporary historical awareness which is increasingly turning towards the future is accessible to philosophical reflection. This raises the question whether we need a new Philosophy of History which refers less to the past, but rather aims primarily at present and future problems. If thereby a moral responsibility for future generations is addressed, Philosophy of History then goes hand in hand with Future Ethics. By means of this programme I expressly follow the Philosophy of History since the European Enlightenment. This entails an ethical perspective since progress in history is not simply predicted, but is more or less explicitly declared as desirable tendency. / Der zentrale Gedanke dieses Papiers ist, dass unser zeitgenössisches historisches Bewusstsein, das sich zunehmend der Zukunft zuwendet, einer philosophischen Reflexion zugänglich ist. Dies wirft die Frage auf, ob wir eine neue Geschichtsphilosophie brauchen, die sich weniger auf die Vergangenheit bezieht, sondern vor allem auf gegenwärtige und zukünftige Probleme zielt. Wenn dabei eine moralische Verantwortung für künftige Generationen angesprochen wird, geht Geschichtsphilosophie dann mit einer Zukunftsethik einher. Mit diesem Programm verfolge ich ausdrücklich die Geschichtsphilosophie seit der europäischen Aufklärung. Dies bringt eine ethische Perspektive mit sich, da der Fortschritt in der Geschichte nicht einfach vorhergesagt, sondern mehr oder weniger explizit als wünschenswerte Tendenz deklariert wird.

Paul Yorck von Wartenburgs Auffassung von Geschichtlichkeit Abstract The aim of this research is to examine the conception of historicity [Geschichtlichkeit] of the count Paul Yorck von Wartenburg - who is perhaps better known for his friendship with Wilhelm Dilthey. The recuperation and investigation of Yorck's arguments takes place in the context of his rejection of metaphysical and positivist models as well as from his constant intellectual exchange with Dilthey. The focus of the present analysis is Yorck's concept of person, strongly influenced by Christian doctrine, as well as his psychology of history: here we will identify how the author understands historical reality and the dependency between attitudes of consciousness [Bewusstseinsstellungen] and the context of life. Adjacent concepts ofYorck's conception of historicity, such as syndesmos (historical connection between people), "aliveness" or life [Lebendigkeit], totality [Totalität] and the human being in its entirety [Ganzer Mensch], are also examined in order to better understand Yorck's notion of historicity and its divergences to Dilthey's approach to the humanities. These observations allow us to identify some of the ways in which the relation between philosophy and history has been thought. Keywords: Paul Yorck von Wartenburg; Historicity...

Ce mémoire offre une lecture des fondements épistémologiques de la modernité. Plus concrètement, il explore un dialogue entre Reinhart Koselleck et Jürgen Habermas. Ce dialogue a d’abord pour objet l’exposition d’une compréhension commune de ce que l’on appelle le moment épochal de la modernité : c’est-à-dire de l’espace historique à partir duquel les théoriciens ont conçu – et conçoivent encore aujourd’hui – la modernité. Pour révéler cet accord, nous offrons une analyse du concept de Neue Zeit, notamment dans son rapport à l’histoire prémoderne. Cependant, et malgré cette compréhension commune, nous soulignons que les auteurs diffèrent quant au rôle qu’occupe la Neue Zeit dans la formation de la modernité. Pour mettre en lumière ce désaccord, nous présentons le concept de modernité esthétique. Ce dialogue, présenté en deux temps, nous permet de révéler, dans un troisième, que si Koselleck fait de la temporalité un moteur de l’histoire, Habermas y voit là plutôt un effet du processus de rationalisation historique. La pertinence de cette recherche repose sur sa capacité à illustrer les différences substantielles quant aux justifications sollicitées par les deux auteurs lors du dialogue. Pour être plus précis, nous avançons que si un accord substantiel relie les deux auteurs quant à leur lecture de l’histoire prémoderne, que celui-ci est descriptif, et non théorique. Ce faisant, il est possible à notre recherche de spécifier pourquoi un accord relie les deux auteurs quant à leur théorisation de l’histoire prémoderne, mais non pas sur la modernité elle-même. / This research aims to circumscribe the epistemological foundations of modernity. It does so by an analysis of the crisis of modernity. To be more precise, we explore a dialogue between Reinhart Koselleck and Jürgen Habermas. The intent of this conversation is to show a common understanding of the epochal moment of modernity. That is, the theoretical boundaries in which the foundational moment of modernity was, and still is, theorized. To reveal this agreement, we analyze the concept of Neue Zeit in its relation to premodern history. In doing so, we show that both thinkers recognise the importance of a new time, understood as an open future. Moreover, both thinkers differ as to the role and position of the Neue Zeit in the foundation of modernity. To reveal this disagreement, we present the concept of aesthetical modernity. In doing so, our research shows that as Koselleck sees temporality as a driving historical force, Habermas disagrees and sees it rather as a result of a historical rationalisation process. Furthermore, our research reveals a substantial disagreement as to the reasons underlying this dialogue. Notably, we claim that the common ground that links both thinkers in their understanding of premodern history is descriptive, rather than theoretical. That is, it refers to the empirical content of history, and not to it’s underlying causes. With that claim in hand, we offer to explain why both thinkers agree on their understanding of premodern history, but not on modern history itself.

The Christian concept of hope is often criticised for the asceticism, renouncement, and passiveness in expecting the arrival of God's kingdom in "future time". On the contrary, the eschatology of Nikolai Berdyaev in Christian philosophy speaks about the necessary transformation of the world by the human itself, determining the arrival of God's kingdom. The aim of this thesis is to analyse the concept of hope related to the world, which is currently estranged and objectified. This approach is further looked upon in the context of similarly eschatologically-orientated Ernst Bloch's Philosophy of hope, Jürgen Moltmann's Theology of hope, and Johann Baptist Metz's Political theology. The thesis aims to evaluate the extent of the transferability of Berdyaev's thinking into current debates about the Christian philosophy of hope. Keywords: Christian philosophy, Personalism, Philosophy of hope, Philosophy of history, Christian eschatology, Political theology

The objective of this dissertation thesis is the life of Czech historian Josef Susta in 1939-1945 . The thesis is concerned with the reasons for the election of the new president of the Czech Academy of Sciences and Arts in 1939. The text analyses the activities of Josef Susta as the head of the scientific institution in the period of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, as well as the activities of the Academy itself. The thesis finds evidential support of assessment of his activities during the Nazi Occupation. The thesis deals with risky status of elites on the social as well as cultural level in 1939-1945. Interpreting Susta's scientific activities, the thesis provides a complex picture of his personality. In conclusion, the work deals with Susta's suicide as well as whether he considered all risks of the prominent position.

Gegen die Unumgänglichkeit des philosophiehistorischen Wissens sich zu stellen, haben verschiedene Denker unternommen, andere wollen die Umgangsformen der Philosophiegeschichte reformieren und neue Modelle des (historischen) Umgangs einführen. Gilles Deleuze nun scheint beides zu versuchen, indem er dem philosophiehistorischen Wissen als Philosoph jede Evidenz bestreitet und es zugleich als Philosophiehistoriker in einer neuen Umgangsweise aufhebt. Seine Philosophie ist offenbar verträglich mit einer Rede über andere Philosophien, ja scheint sie sogar zu fördern, wenn man so die Tatsache interpretieren will, daß Ddeuze eine ganze Reihe von Büchern zu einzelnen Denkern veröffentlicht hat. Wie diese Beziehung von Philosophie und Philosophiegeschichte bei ihm aussieht, ist bisher nicht untersucht. Zum paradoxen Unterfangen von Gilles Deleuze, Philosophiegeschichte zu treiben und sie zugleich zu unterlaufen, die folgenden Überlegungen, deren vorläufiger Charakter daran zu erkennen ist, daß sie sich an verstreuten expliziten Äußerungen orientieren.

[pt] A tese tem como objetivo apresentar a antropofagia filosófica de Oswald de Andrade, com base em seus ensaios, artigos e teses escritas entre os anos de 1945 e 1954. Durante esta década, o autor desenvolveu um conjunto de reflexões no qual confronta os diversos aspectos de duas inclinações psicoculturais da espécie: o matriarcado e o patriarcado. Esta pesquisa pretende introduzir o leitor nos conceitos principais desta teoria. A tese também examina o estilo singular dos ensaios, debatendo como o autor lida com a oposição entre os campos discursivos da interpretação e da criação (teorias do conhecimento e ficção), e produz uma revisão heterodoxa de eventos e idéias tradicionais da história ocidental. / [en] The thesis aims to present Oswald de Andrade s philosophical anthropophagy, based on his essays, articles and thesis written between the years of 1945 and 1954. During this decade, the author developed a series of reflections in which confronts the various aspects of two psychocultural inclinations of the species: the matriarchy and the patriarchy. This research intends to introduce the reader into the main concepts of this theory. The thesis also examines the singular style of the essays, discussing how the author copes with the opposition between the discursive fields of interpretation and creation (theories of knowledge and fiction), and produces a heterodox review of traditional events and ideas of Western History.

No description available.