• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 26
  • 26
  • 12
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • Tagged with
  • 82
  • 19
  • 17
  • 11
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 7
  • 7
  • 7
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6
  • 6
  • 5
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
81

Penser le mal moral, une généalogie de la volonté moderne / Thought about evil a genealogy of modern will

Tauty, Anne-Charlotte 20 September 2016 (has links)
Le mal est par sa nature un scandale car il se définit par ce qui ne devrait pas être à l’opposé du bien qui se présente comme ce qui doit être. Cette affirmation, qui relève de la tautologie, marque la réalité éprouvée face au mal. Il a d’abord été une évidence criante : comment réagir face aux maux de l’existence humaine ? Ainsi le mal est inscrit dans l’histoire de la pensée et commence pour notre travail avec le platonisme. Avant la conceptualisation platonicienne, le mal est une donnée factuelle de la vie avec laquelle il faut composer. Les figures divines sont ambivalentes à l’image des hommes et alternent vices et vertus. Platon postule une entité divine unique, omnisciente, omnipotente et bienveillante. Ce dieu devient intelligence, calcul et raison : le monde devient une création parfaite, belle et ordonnée et non plus le théâtre d’un affrontement entre les diverses passions des dieux. Le mal se transforme alors en un enjeu métaphysique : comment concilier cette perfection avec l’émergence du mal ? Il faut désormais expliquer et tenter de justifier la violence et les crimes. S’il est possible de proposer une théodicée qui rende le mal physique et métaphysique nécessaire, légitimer la méchanceté se révèle plus ardu. Les penseurs du platonisme, du néoplatonisme et du stoïcisme vont tenter d’apporter une première réponse au mal moral. Dans leur sillage, une rupture conceptuelle advient et révolutionne le concept : le christianisme invente le péché. En devenant péché, le mal se retrouve désormais sous la responsabilité de l’homme coupable. Le mal entre dans le giron de la liberté : il est voulu, consenti. A la suite des penseurs chrétiens, certains philosophes continueront ce travail d’élucidation de la volonté du mal. L’objectif est de retracer l’histoire de ces systèmes conceptuels qui s’entremêlent et se répondent les uns aux autres. Le mal moral se construit dans cette progression qui a des conséquences anthropologiques importantes : l’homme se pense à travers le mal. La méchanceté n’est donc pas seulement un problème à résoudre, elle devient le paradigme à travers lequel définir l’homme. Notre problématique est de montrer comment la question de la méchanceté est à la base du problème de la morale et comment elle conditionne notre représentation de la nature de la volonté humaine. Cette évolution s’est nouée lors d’étapes clés de la pensée philosophique. En effet, si dans toute philosophie morale, le concept du mal est évoqué, il n’est pas en général le centre de l’argumentaire. Le premier moment est celui de la pensée antique. Platon fait naître Dieu et le monde dans l’histoire des concepts puis se retrouve face l’énigme de nos crimes. La théodicée mise en place et qui sera reprise par Plotin et les Stoïciens ne cessera de nier l’existence d’un instinct pervers. Le mal voulu est une absurdité. L’irruption de la faute chrétienne bouleverse la donne. Saint Augustin en sera le théoricien le plus investi affectivement. Ayant expérimenté une double conversion dans sa vie spirituelle, il théorise une méchanceté issue de notre faiblesse, de notre faute première. Le mal est voulu car il n’est plus possible de vouloir autre chose. Saint Anselme reprend également le dogme de la chute mais lui apporte une dimension logique et sémantique en proposant une méchanceté égoïste. Le mal est certes voulu mais par dédain du bien. Notre dernière étape est kantienne. Le mal radical est le concept qui permet enfin de penser une volonté normale qui voudrait le mal simplement parce qu’elle a en elle cette possibilité et la liberté fondamentale de le choisir. Nous pourrons donc constater le chemin parcouru entre notre point de départ et notre point d’arrivée et comment cette problématisation du mal fait apparaître une généalogie de la volonté. Au fil de la pensée, elle passe de l’ombre à la lumière, n’étant jamais aussi présente que quand elle se retrouve confrontée aux obstacles. Penser le mal moral c’est faire l’archéologie de la volonté. / Evil provokes scandal by nature because it is what it should not be unlike good which is what it has to be. This tautological assertion expresses our feelings toward evil. It was first perfectly obvious : how must we face human pain ? Evil is a part of thinking’s history : our study starts with Platonism. Before his work, evil is just a fact of life you have to live with. The gods of Antiquity are like men : good or bad. The God of Plato is the one, omniscient, all-powerful and kindly. God is just intelligence, calculation and reason : the world he created is beautiful, ordered and perfect and it is no longer the place for the vices of ancient gods. Evils turns into a metaphysical issue : how can be the world perfect despite evil ? We have now to explain, to justify violence and crimes. Theodicy can justify pain and illness. It does not work with wickedness. Platonism, Neo-Platonism and Stoicism tried to answer this question. Following them, a conceptual break happens : Christendom invented sin. When evil became sin, man became liable and guilty. It is now a matter of liberty : man wants evil. After them, some philosophers will keep to work on the subject of the bad will. Our purpose is to find the story of these concepts and to connect thoughts between themselves. Evil has been made by this story and brings many anthropological consequences : man understands himself through evil. Wickedness is not just a matter to solve, wickedness becomes a way to define mankind. We want to show that wickedness issue is the foundations of morality and how it makes us see and think human will. Several stages occurred in this philosophical evolution. Every ethic deals with evil, not all put it at the heart of their system. Our first stage is Antiquity. Plato brings the ideas of God and perfect world in philosophy but faces the riddle of our crimes. His theodicy adopted by Plotinus and Stoics will always refuse pervert instinct in man. A man who want evil is nonsense. Christian sin appearance changes everything. Augustine will be his strongest defender. By living a double spiritual conversion, he understands wickedness as weakness due to original sin. Man want evil because he is no longer able to will something else. Anselmus follows the dogma of the fall but puts logical and semantic dimension in it and presents a self-interested wickedness. Man wants evil not for itself, man does not want enough good. Our last stage is Kant. Radical will is the first concept which allows to conceive a normal bad will which would evil just because it is one of his options and it has the liberty to do so. We can see the difference between our starting point and our arrival. We see now how the concept of will has grew up and changed. Little by little, will comes from darkness to light. The more will faces obstacles, the more it is obvious. Thinking on evil is the archaeology of the will.
82

Acting and its refusal in theatre and film.

McCurdy, Marian Lea January 2014 (has links)
This thesis examines works of theatre and film that explore a refusal of acting. Acting has traditionally been considered as something false or as pretending, in opposition to everyday life, which has been considered as something real and truthful. This has resulted in a desire to refuse acting, evident in the tradition of the anti-theatrical prejudice where acting is considered to be seductive and dangerous. All the works that I examine in this thesis are relatively recent and all of them explore the paradox that in our (postmodern) times a gradual reversal has occurred where everyday life is seen as more and more false or as pretending or simulating (ie. containing acting and theatricality) and conversely, acting in theatre and film has become the place where people have begun searching for reality and truth and where ‘acting’ and pretending in life can be revealed and refused. The result of this paradox - and what I also discuss as a confusion of acting and living - is that the place in which acting can be refused has shifted; the ethical desire to refuse acting (in theatre and in life) is turning up in the aesthetic domain of acting itself. In my first chapter I study works by filmmaker István Szabó and playwright Werner Fritsch, who represent the desire to refuse acting in the context of fascism where theatrical and filmic spectacle was used by the Nazis to seduce the population and where actors during this period also experienced an inability to separate their political and artistic lives. In my second chapter I look at the way Genet’s The Balcony and Ang Lee’s Lust, Caution explore the desire to refuse acting as a result of a confusion of acting and living in the context of sexual (sadomasochistic) role-play. And in my third chapter I examine the way Warhol’s The Chelsea Girls, von Trier’s The Idiots and Affleck’s I’m Still Here represent a refusal of acting and theatricality altogether, responding to the way that ‘acting’ in life may have become an all-pervasive substitute (a simulation) for living. Foundational to the development of this thesis and a major source of material is my analysis of three theatrical productions with Free Theatre Christchurch, directed by Peter Falkenberg, in which I was involved as an actor and in which a refusal of acting was explored.

Page generated in 0.0301 seconds