No description available.

No description available.

Le but de ce mémoire est de présenter la position de Theodor W. Adomo sur la métaphysique. Après avoir exposé l’idée philosophique centrale de la pensée d’Adomo, la dialectique négative, nous présentons d’une part la critique qu’adresse Adomo à la tradition métaphysique, et d’autre part sa tentative de sauvetage de la métaphysique. La thèse centrale d’Adomo sur la métaphysique est la suivante : la métaphysique doit être sauvée dans une perspective micrologique, une perspective qui est centrée sur la particularité plutôt que sur l’universalité.

Ce mémoire a pour objectif de présenter la conception de la subjectivité telle qu’elle est définie dans la philosophie de Theodor W. Adorno. Il s’agira de montrer que cette conception cherche à la fois à maintenir et dépasser la tradition idéaliste qui est à son origine. Cette tradition pense la subjectivité comme raison, autonomie et spontanéité, fondées sur la pure relation à soi de la conscience. Sans abandonner l’horizon d’une philosophie de la conscience, la conception adornienne du sujet insiste sur le rôle constitutif de la figure d’autrui, comprise à la fois comme nature, non-identité et différence. La subjectivité chez Adorno ne doit donc plus être exclusivement comprise comme raison et comme capacité d’autodétermination, mais également comme potentialité d’être librement affectée par ce qui lui est autre. Adorno nomme cette potentialité la réconciliation et la thématise sous le signe de la « communication du différent » : un rapport libéré de la peur et de la souffrance entre les individus. Dans un tel rapport, la nature n’est ni aveugle ni opprimée, laissant place à une harmonie entre la raison et ce qui lui est autre. C’est ainsi que la philosophie d’Adorno formule l’exigence morale d’une résistance critique de la pensée ouverte à la différence. / The purpose of this study is to present the conception of the subject found in the philosophy of T.W. Adorno. We will show that Adorno thinks subjectivity both with and against the German idealist tradition that gave it birth. This tradition poses that the essence of the subject is reason, spontaneity and autonomy, founded in the relationship of self to its consciousness. Adorno maintains the importance of a philosophy of consciousness, but also insists on the constitutive role of the other in the formation of the subject. As such, subjectivity for Adorno is no longer exclusively understood as reason or the power of self-determination, but must also as the potentiality of being freely affected by what is different. He thus insists on reconciliation, a non-dominating and non-submitting relationship to nature, to build his moral philosophy. Reconciliation must be understood as the “communication of differences”: a relationship between individuals in which they no longer need to fear or suffer needlessly. Moral thought must for Adorno attempt to think a state where a harmony would be possible between reason and nature, the critical resistance of thought and the openness to what is different.

Jurgen Habermas argues for a paradigm change in critical theory from Theodor W. Adorno's philosophy of consciousness to his own linguistically-turned theory. Habermas claims that Adorno's conception of reason sets up an antagonistic relationship between subject and object that can only be overcome by a non-rational mimesis with nature. This thesis defends Adorno against Habermas, and argues that the linguistic turn is a mistake. Chapter 1 outlines Habermas's critique, and corrects some of his specific misunderstandings of Adorno. Chapter 2 offers a positive defense of Adorno. By means of an expanded notion of nature, Adorno shows how the relation between subject and object need not be the antagonistic one characteristic of so much of modern philosophy. Chapter 3 argues that it is not Adorno's dialectical thought, but Habermas's linguistically-turned critical theory that suffers from an inability properly to articulate the relation between subject and object.

This paper was revised and later published in The Other Journal, Issue 14 (January 27, 2009) http://theotherjournal.com/2009/01/27/earths-lament-suffering-hope-and-wisdom/ Accessed: June 25, 2013

This is a revised version of Lambert Zuidervaart's inaugural address presented on November 21, 2003, on the occasion of the author's taking up the position as professor at the Institute.

Ce mémoire conçoit l'art comme rapport particulier au monde et mode de connaissance autre. Son objectif était de découvrir ce qui, dans la création comme dans la réception de l'oeuvre d'art, fait que nous sommes emportés ailleurs, que notre perception du monde s'en trouve ébranlée, et que son expérience provoque une transformation et un élargissement du sujet. Il visait à créer les conditions favorables à la réalisation d'un espace de liberté où nous pouvons enfin percevoir, éprouver, connaître le monde autrement. Liberté nécessitant une destruction et une reconstruction continuelle de soi: mouvement que produit le véritable rapport à l'altérité. Le premier chapitre ausculte quelques conditions artistiques essentielles à cette liberté telles qu'énoncées par le philosophe Theodor Adorno dans sa Théorie esthétique et auxquelles répondent certains artistes contemporains dans leurs pratiques artistiques respectives. Il circonscrit différents types de rapport à l'autre rendus possibles par l'art, notamment le rapport de l'art à la réalité empirique et à la rationalité, le processus de création de l'artiste ou l'artiste devant sa propre oeuvre, la confrontation acteur-spectateur, et la confrontation oeuvre-spectateur. La deuxième partie fait un retour sur la mise à l'épreuve scénique de cette réflexion. Elle relate, dans un premier temps, ses fondements, c'est-à-dire la praxis singulière des gens qui ont contribué à sa création, et donne un bref synopsis de la pièce créée. Elle expose, dans un deuxième temps, quelques méthodes de création utilisées au niveau de l'approche corporelle, musicale et symbolique, ainsi que les principes qui nous ont guidés et certaines problématiques soulevées par le processus. ______________________________________________________________________________ MOTS-CLÉS DE L’AUTEUR : Art, Altérité, Rationalité, Mimésis, Création.

This thesis starts from the point of departure of asking why Aesthetic Theory is difficult to read. In answering this question it is argued that the difficulty of the work is a function of the unusual claims Adorno makes about the relation between art and philosophy, and that the presentation of these arguments exemplifies these claims. This complimentary relation between form and content has implications for the way Adorno can be understood as engaging the idea of mimesis. Aesthetic Theory should be understood as a theory of mimesis in modern art and as a mimetic work itself. Given this idea, the question of the readability of the work emerges as inseparable from the explicit claims Adorno makes for mimesis. If the work ultimately cannot be understood because Adorno does not define his concepts, or it is unexplainable for any other reason, then mimesis will be shown to be untenable. The issue of the readability of Aesthetic Theory is explored in the Introduction through a discussion of issues arising from the recent history of Adorno's reception. Particular attention is paid to the differences between critics who have emphasised the significance of the particular claims Adorno makes against those who emphasise his method. Chapter I rejects this distinction while it argues that the character of Adorno's writing is uneven, that is to say, Aesthetic Theory cannot usefully be read in a uniform way. Chapter I considers different aspects of this lack of uniformity and argues that the identity of Aesthetic Theory as 'philosophy' is often tenuous as it moves in and out of other modes of argument. Chapters 2 and 3 look at different aspects of the identity of Aesthetic Theory as philosophy. Chapter 2 explains the strategic significance of the work as a continuation of a tradition of philosophy from Hegel onwards. This tradition, it is argued, has explicitly understood the problem of philosophy as recognising itself as experience while it attempts to describe experience. Chapter 3 extends this theme into a consideration of philosophical form. If philosophy is understood as a mode of experience then its form as well as its content is significant. Through a consideration of Heidegger and Derrida, Chapter 3 examines the uniqueness of the philosophical form of Aesthetic Theory. Having made this distinction. Chapter 4 reads Aesthetic Theory as philosophical form, describing aspects of it as mimetic. Chapters 5 and 6 then give detailed readings of parts of Aesthetic Theory which are particularly relevant for an understanding of Adorno's theory of the mimetic potential of modern art. The concluding chapter argues that the internal consistency of Aesthetic Theory in its practice and definition of the crisis of mimesis in modernism has significant implications for the practice of art history and criticism of twentieth-century art.

Autorização concedida ao Repositório Institucional da UFOP pelo autor, 10/10/2014, com as seguintes condições: disponível sob Licença Creative Commons 4.0, que permite copiar, distribuir e transmitir o trabalho, desde que seja citado o autor e licenciante. Não permite o uso para fins comerciais nem a adaptação desta. / Submitted by Oliveira Flávia (flavia@sisbin.ufop.br) on 2015-10-19T15:54:16Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 22190 bytes, checksum: 19e8a2b57ef43c09f4d7071d2153c97d (MD5) DISSERTAÇÂO_ArteLiberdadeReconciliação.pdf: 1723269 bytes, checksum: 4fc6ea0af56ca79337e50191514b806b (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Gracilene Carvalho (gracilene@sisbin.ufop.br) on 2015-10-26T13:00:28Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 22190 bytes, checksum: 19e8a2b57ef43c09f4d7071d2153c97d (MD5) DISSERTAÇÂO_ArteLiberdadeReconciliação.pdf: 1723269 bytes, checksum: 4fc6ea0af56ca79337e50191514b806b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-10-26T13:00:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 22190 bytes, checksum: 19e8a2b57ef43c09f4d7071d2153c97d (MD5) DISSERTAÇÂO_ArteLiberdadeReconciliação.pdf: 1723269 bytes, checksum: 4fc6ea0af56ca79337e50191514b806b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 / Essa dissertação trata do problema que a chamada racionalidade instrumental, tendo em vista o projeto de esclarecimento da humanidade, causa para a liberdade humana, ao reprimir a natureza interna do homem, a partir de Theodor Adorno e Max Horkheimer, em sua Dialética do Esclarecimento. Busca discorrer sobre o tema, analisando possíveis saídas para o problema, visando mostrar que seria necessária a reconciliação entre o homem, a racionalidade e a natureza. Para isso, apresenta elementos da teoria estética de Adorno que demonstram que há na obra de arte e na experiência estética, tal como descrita pelo filósofo, uma resposta à repressão da natureza e a possibilidade da liberdade e da reconciliação. _____________________________________________________________________________________ / ABSTRACT: This dissertation work deals with the problem the so called instrumental rationality causes to the human liberty, taking in consideration the project of the enlightenment of mankind repressing the inner nature of man, as from Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, in his Dialectic of Enlightenment . It pursues to discourse on this theme analyzing the possible solutions to the problem, seeking to show the necessity of reconciliation between man, rationality and nature. In order to do so this dissertation presents elements of Adorno’s Theory of Esthetics which demonstrates that in the piece of art and in the esthetic experience, as described by the philosopher, there is an answer to the repression of nature and the possibility of liberty and reconciliation.