The aim of the thesis is to investigate and define from a genre perspective how cultural, social, and situational factors interacted in old comedy between 425 and 388 BCE.

Le but de cette étude est de fonder la parenté entre l'essence hégélienne, le Wesen, et le ti en einai aristotélicien; parenté qu'on croit être non seulement littérale, mais plus proprement spéculative. En effet, le Wesen comme le ti en einai rappellent un sens de passé, mais de passé hors du temps, qui est même spéculatif et théorétique. En particulier, on essaiera de relire certains moments de la Science de la logique en utilisant comme pierre de touche les Leçons sur l'histoire de la philosophie que Hegel a dédiées à Aristote. Déjà la bipartition de la logique objective en « Logique de l'être» et « Logique de l'essence» est une reprise d'Aristote: la science, en allant en profondeur, recherche au-delà de l'être (to on) et, une fois découverte l'essence (ti en einai), élève cette dernière à son objet. Le chemin logique qui va de l'être à l'essence pense éminemment cette vérité. La démonstration de la parenté entre Wesen et ti en einai aurait un double mérite : tout d'abord, celui de clarifier des passages très importants de la Doctrine de l'essence en dissolvant, en parallèle, les ambiguïtés dont le corpus aristotélicien reste susceptible; d'autre part, celui de lire correctement l'imparfait en de la formule monnayée par Aristote; un imparfait, d'après moi, qui ne peut qu'être métaphysique et concerner, donc, ce qui est nécessaire, immuable, hors du temps précisément en tant qu'il légitime le temps, c'est-à-dire qu'il fonde ontologiquement le temps en lui donnant sa vérité. Le travail se compose de quatre chapitres, qui sont quatre moments d'enquête bien distincts : Le premier chapitre, après quelques remarques méthodologiques, offrira une première interprétation générale de l'essence en tant que dynamis, en axant le parallèle sur les concepts aristotéliciens d'essence, d'acte et de but, qu'on utilisera ici comme un laboratoire conceptuel pour l'intégralité de notre travail.Le deuxième chapitre porte sur le sich erinnert de l'être dans l'essence, c'est-à-dire le passage à un niveau différent d'argumentation logique, à partir de son lien d'un côté avec l'anamnesis platonicienne, de l'autre avec le tien einai aristotélicien.Le troisième chapitre problématise le rôle de la Reflexion en tant que processualité immanente de l'essence, en reconsidérant l'équilibre complexe entre être et essence, respectivement, comme proteron pros hemas et proteron te physei, qui correspondent à leur tour aux expressions aristotéliciennes ti esti et tien einai.Le quatrième chapitre aborde le problème de la Wirklichkeit qui clôt la Doctrine de l'essence, en l'interprétant, selon l'indication hégélienne, comme energeia et entelecheia. / The aim of this research is to prove the relationship between the Hegelian concept of Wesen and Aristotle's ti en einai from a not merely lexical point of view. I will specially attempt the reading of some fundamental moments of the Science of logic using the Lectures on the history of philosophy that Hegel dedicates to the Stagirite. Both signifiers, Wesen and ti en einai, refer to a sense of past, but timelessly past (zeitlos), which is pregnantly speculative. Hegel structures the division of the Objective Logic in two books, "Being" and ''Essence", on the mode( of the Aristotelian episteme. True science, meaning the one that goes deeply, looks beyond Being (to on) and, once found its Essence (ti en einai), puts this fast one as its abject. The logical journey from Being to Essence thinks highly this truth. I am convinced that founding such a relationship between the above-mentioned terms has a twofold contribution: On the one hand, which one of clarifying some key-moments of the Doctrine of Essence, so disambiguating expressions, or "formulas" that the Stagirite frequently uses as synonyms (i.e. essence, act, purpose and form); On the other hand, which one of reading, and correctly understanding, the past tense en in the middle of the Aristotelian formula; a past tense definitely metaphysical, which refers to what is necessary, unchangeable, out of time just because it is what time needs most of all and what legitimates time. The dissertation articulates into four chapters, corresponding to four distinct moments of investigation: Chapter I starts with some methodological remarks, and then provides my first general interpretation of the Hegelian Essence as dynamis. I will found this kind of reading on the Aristotelian concepts of essence, act and purpose. The analysis focuses on Aristotle's Metaphysics and approaches a germinal connection between Wesen, An-sich, ousia, dynamis.Chapter Il concems the recollection (sich erinnert) of Being in Essence, that is, switching to a different Ievel of logical argumentation, its connection on one side with Platonic anamnesis, on the other one with the Aristotelian ti en einai. Both anà and en refer to a past that is not truly such: it has no-time significance but clearly a logical-metaphysical one. Logical development is not made up of continuity but rather of breaks and always-new demotions; it recalls some famous words Socrates says to Meno: "And isn't finding knowledge within oneself recollection?" (Meno, 85e-86a). Chapter III, in a direct link with the previous ones, thematizes the role of Reflexion as that immanent process of Essence, rethinking the complex balance of Being and Essence as, respectively, proteron pros hemas and proteron te physei, in turn corresponding to the Aristotelian formulas ti esti and ti en einai. Chapter IV, which takes crosswise the themes of the previous chapters, deals with the problem of Wirklichkeit at the end of the Doctrine of Essence, interpreting it in its twofold meaning of energeia and entelecheia. Despite Hegel, in his Lectures on the history of philosophy, apparently considers entelecheia as the most proper determination of energeia, he actually reveals two distinct senses, which correspond to different ranges of use. Wirklichkeit is then determined both as effectuality and as the determinacy of purpose. If, on the one band, Hegel accomplishes a great ontological building, on the other band he grounds an effectual reality that is only possible, still to submit to the scrutiny of the Subject, Concept, and Idea. / Scopo del presente lavoro di ricerca è fondare la filiazione tra Wesen hegeliano e ti en einai aristotelico da un punto di vista non meramente lessicale, tentando principalmente la lettura di alcuni momenti chiave della Scienza della logica al filtro delle Lezioni sulla storia della filosofia dedicate ad Aristotele. Entrambi i significanti, tanto il Wesen quanto il ti en einai, mettono infatti in gioco un senso di passato, ma passato fuori dal tempo, che è esso stesso teoretico e speculativo. La distinzione della logica oggettiva in logica dell’essere e logica dell’essenza è un calco aristotelico. La vera scienza, la scienza cioè che va in profondità, cerca oltre l’essere (to on) e, trovatane l’essenza (ti en einai) ne fa il suo oggetto. Il cammino che conduce dall’essere all’essenza, o meglio che dall’essere svela l’essenza nella Scienza della logica pensa al massimo grado questa verità. Crediamo che la dimostrazione di una simile filiazione tra i due termini abbia un duplice merito: anzitutto, quello di chiarificare alcuni momenti estremamente importanti della Dottrina dell’essenza disambiguando, nel farlo, alcune espressioni o termini di cui lo Stagirita ha fatto largo uso cadendo spesso nella sinonimia (tra tutti essenza, atto, fine e forma); dall’altro, quello di leggere in modo corretto l’imperfetto en della formula aristotelica – un imperfetto che non può non essere metafisico e riguardare, cioè, ciò che è necessario, immutabile, fuori dal tempo proprio in quanto ciò che più di tutto occorre al tempo, e che perciò stesso lo legittima. Il lavoro si articola in quattro capitoli, che corrispondono a quattro ben distinti momenti di indagine: Il primo capitolo, dopo alcune considerazioni di carattere metodologico, offre una prima generale interpretazione dell’essenza come dynamis, imperniando il parallelo sui concetti aristotelici di essenza, atto e fine. L’analisi è condotta principalmente sul testo della Metafisica. Si approccia una germinale connessione tra Wesen, An-sich, ousia, dynamis. Il secondo capitolo ripensa il sich erinnert dell’essere nell’essenza, vale a dire il passaggio a un diverso livello di argomentazione logica, a partire dal suo legame da un lato con l’anamnesis platonica, dall’altro col ti en einai aristotelico. Sia l’anà che l’en alludono infatti ad un passato che non è veramente tale, che non ha valenza temporale ma chiaramente logico-metafisica. E il procedimento logico, fatto non di continuità ma piuttosto di rotture e di sempre nuove retrocessioni, sembrerebbe richiamare proprio una certa frase di Socrate a Menone: “[m]a ricavar da sé, in sé, la propria scienza, non è appunto ricordare?” (Menone, 85e-86a). Il terzo capitolo, in diretta connessione con il precedente, problematizza il ruolo della Reflexion come processualità immanente dell’essenza, ripensando il complesso equilibrio di essere ed essenza come, rispettivamente, proteron pros hemas e proteron te physei, a sua volta corrispondenti alle espressioni aristoteliche ti esti e ti en einai.Il quarto capitolo, che riprende in modo incrociato le tematiche dei capitoli precedenti, affronta il problema della Wirklichkeit a chiusura della Dottrina dell’essenza, interpretandola nel suo duplice senso di energeia e entelecheia. Malgrado Hegel, nelle Lezioni sulla storia della filosofia, consideri apparentemente l’entelecheia come “la specificazione più propria” dell’energeia, ne emergono due sensi distinti e non propriamente sovrapponibili. La Wirklichkeit si determina quindi tanto come effettualità, quanto come finale determinazione del fine. Se, da un lato, Hegel porta qui a compimento una grandiosa trattazione di ontologia, dall’altro apre le porte all’interpretazione di un reale solo possibile, da sottoporre ancora al vaglio del Soggetto e dell’Idea.

本文的主旨在於探討當代美國哲學家麥金泰爾（1929－）的政治思想。麥金泰爾以亞里斯多德的理論來構築他心中理想的政治社群。並據此批駁自由主義所建構的政治社群。本研究擬藉此論爭以深入討論政治社群的本質。而整個研究是奠基在麥金泰爾後期（1981－）的著作。全文共分四章，分別略述如下。 第一章 緒論 旨在說明本研究的動機與目的，並概述麥金泰爾政治思想的 背景以及他的哲學研究方法。 第二章 麥金泰爾對現代性的批判麥金泰爾以亞里斯多德傳統的目的論觀點，批判啟蒙以來整個現代性的發展。本章討論麥金泰爾對現代性獨特的理解。 第三章 麥金泰爾的德性理論構築一個德性的社群是麥金泰爾思想的中心。因此對德性的探討成為他理論的基礎。本章討論麥金泰爾的古典德性理論以及德性的三個核心環節，進而論述此一德性理論的政治社會基礎。 第四章 政治社群的重建主導現帶社會的自由主義所引發的問題是麥金泰爾批評的重心所在。因此本章藉由麥金泰爾與自由主義之間的爭論來探討政治社群的重建問題。並且對麥金泰爾的理論部分與實踐部分作一評估。 結論 筆者綜合前面討論提出三個值得注意的論點

En esta investigación se defiende que las concepciones de libertad, público y privado son categorías privilegiadas para abordar tanto la cultura griega como la filosofía práctica de Aristóteles. Apelando a los textos clásicos, se analizan tanto la génesis como la trascendencia de estos tres conceptos, lo que posibilita una clara percepción de lo que estos representan en la cultura griega y el cometido que desempeñan en la filosofía de Aristóteles. Desde estas premisas se examinan las dispares interpretaciones que de la filosofía aristotélica han realizado tanto la republicana Hannah Arendt como la liberal Judith Swanson. Análisis que concluye en que ambas pensadoras realizan lecturas incorrectas de los textos aristotélicos así como que el error de estas diferentes interpretaciones reside en que extrapolan sus propias concepciones de libertad, o la moderna concepción de la separación de esferas, trasladándolas anacrónicamente al análisis de los textos clásicos griegos. / This investigation intends to demonstrate that the concepts of liberty, public and private, are privileged categories which explore both Greek culture and Aristotle´s practical philosophy. Using the classic texts as background, the genesis and the transcendence of these three concepts are analyzed, which gives a clear perception of what they represent in Greek culture and their role in Aristotle´s philosophy. This thesis also examines the polarized interpretations of the Aristotelian philosophy of both the republican Hannah Arendt, and the libertarian Judith Swanson. This analysis concludes that due to the thinkers´ extrapolation of their own notions of liberty and a modern interpretation of the separation of spheres theory to the classic Greek texts, resulting in an anachronism, the Aristotelian texts are incorrectly interpreted.

This essay aims to examine Martha Nussbaum's proposal for a classical defense of reform in liberal education and her critique of utility thinking in higher education. I want to explore how Nussbaum uses history to create an ethical alternative that cultivates both moral and intellectual virtues, which she considers to be crucial for the survival of democracy. In examining Nussbaum's use of Aristotle, I focus on her work as a proposal for institutional implementation of an Aristotelian epistemology and the cultivation of the individual as an ethical political subject. This study highlights the epistemological, educational and political ideas that form the basis of Nussbaum's ideals. I intend, however, to go beyond a contextualizing reading and thus establish a dialogue with a radical intersubjectivity to respond to Nussbaum's ambitions to recognize human vulnerabilities as assets for reason. From this perspective, I problematise Nussbaum's aspirations for reform and argue that she maintains a loyalty to an ideal that stands in contrast to the possibilities for epistemological and thus ethical political change.

Dolphins, whales, and sharks are some of the world’s most iconic animals. Yet, many people will only ever see these animals via the media. The media, then, hold significant power in creating, modifying, or reaffirming the imaginaries around various species which, in turn, influences how much concern is given to matters related to their welfare and conservation. Given the environmental and ecological concerns presently facing the ocean, protecting, conserving, and preserving the marine ecosystem is vital, and time is of the essence. Through the work of activists, three specific marine wildlife issues have received a lot of publicity across various forms of mainstream media: the killing of dolphins in Taiji, Japan for their meat; Antarctic whaling; and the practice of shark-finning. Three activist films, namely The Cove (2009), Whale Wars (2008-), and Sharkwater (2006), are centred on these issues, and filmmakers attempt to compel viewers to support the activists’ protectionist cause. In order for this goal to have a chance of coming to fruition, rhetorical arguments must be carefully crafted. Yet, the study of rhetoric in animal-focused activist films is still an understudied research area. This thesis contributes to this area of research by using the aforementioned films as case studies by applying Aristotle’s rhetorical proofs of ethos, pathos, and logos to analyse the rhetorical arguments. Ethos is demonstrable when the activists construct themselves as credible, moral heroes and the animals as possessors of positive traits worth protecting, and the hunters as immoral villains. The graphic imagery of animal death appeals to pathos to stir strong bodily and emotional responses such as sadness, and disgust in order to mobilize audience support for cause. Lastly, these films appeal to logos through the use of culturally authoritative discourses such as those of biology, western conventional medicine, and the legal system. This thesis essentially argues that these texts work rhetorically and discursively to persuade audiences to feel a connection with and sympathy towards the animals; to be supportive of the activists; and to prompt antipathy towards the hunters and industry spokespeople.

La présente recherche porte sur la théorie des parties du discours dans l’Antiquité grecque et plus particulièrement sur la réflexion entourant les conjonctions. Le premier chapitre se concentre sur la définition de la conjonction trouvée dans la Poétique d’Aristote, de même que sur les autres passages du corpus aristotélicien qui permettent de mieux cerner les contours d’une entité grammaticale encore mal définie. Le second chapitre porte sur la conjonction dans les recherches logico-grammaticales de l’école stoïcienne. La définition stoïcienne de la conjonction, de même que les différentes catégories de conjonctions identifiées par les Stoïciens sont examinées. Le rôle central des conjonctions au sein de la théorie stoïcienne des propositions complexes est souligné et met en lumière l’interrelation étroite entre la logique et la grammaire à ce point du développement de la théorie grammaticale. Le chapitre final porte sur la définition et les catégories de conjonctions trouvées dans la Tekhnè grammatikè, un bref manuel de grammaire attribué au philologue alexandrin Denys le Thrace. L’influence de la théorie stoïcienne des propositions complexes sur cette première tentative de systématisation grammaticale est mise en lumière, de même que l’interférence de préoccupations philologiques. / This research is concerned with the theory of the parts of speech in Greek antiquity and more precisely with the topic of conjunctions. The first chapter examines the definition of the conjunction given in Aristotle’s Poetics, as well as the other texts of the Aristotelian corpus which allow us the get a better grasp on a still ill-defined grammatical entity. The second chapter deals with the conjunction within the logico-grammatical researches of the Stoic school. It examines the Stoic definition of the conjunction, as well as the various categories of conjunctions that were identified by the Stoics. The central role of conjunctions in the Stoic theory of complex assertions is emphasized, thus showing the close interrelation between logic and grammar at this point in the development of grammatical theory. The final chapter is concerned with the definition and the classes of conjunctions given in the Tekhnè grammatikè, a short grammatical treatise ascribed to the Alexandrian philologist Dionysius Thrax. It shows the influence of the Stoic theory of complex assertions on this first attempt at grammatical systematization, as well as the interference of philological concerns.

This thesis presents a historical analysis of literature through the intriguing (but often overlooked) overarching concepts of art –“das Mögliche”, “das Wirkliche” and “das Unmögliche”– and the changes in the historical orientations they represent. Each concept is demonstrated through the exploration of three key texts. The first text addressed in this thesis is Aristotle’s Poetics and the realm of the “Mögliche” he founded within his argument. The second concept, the “Wirkliche”, was inspired by the German Sturm und Drang writer J.M.R. Lenz and his text Anmerkungen übers Theater. Oscar Wilde’s dialogue “The Decay of Lying” summarizes the third and final concept discussed within this thesis, the “Unmögliche”. His desire for art to be unreal represents the accumulation of German Romantic thought and Oriental influence on Western Art. Through the contexts of these three categories and their texts we can obtain a more accurate understanding of the foundations and possibilities of art.

No description available.

L’objectif de cette thèse est d’élucider l’intention, la pertinence et la cohérence de l’appropriation par Heidegger des concepts principaux de la philosophie pratique aristotélicienne dans ses premiers cours. Notre analyse portera principalement sur les notions clefs d’energeia et de phronēsis. La première section de la thèse est préparatoire : elle est consacrée à une analyse étroite des textes pertinents de l’Éthique à Nicomaque, mais aussi de la Métaphysique, en discussion avec d’autres commentateurs modernes. Cette analyse jette les fondations philologiques nécessaires en vue d’aborder les audacieuses interprétations de Heidegger sur une base plus ferme. La deuxième et principale section consiste en une discussion de l’appropriation ontologique de l’Éthique à Nicomaque que Heidegger entreprend de 1922 à 1924, à partir des textes publiés jusqu’à ce jour et en portant une attention spéciale à Métaphysique IX. Le résultat principal de la première section est un aperçu du caractère central de l’energeia pour le projet d’Aristote dans l’Éthique à Nicomaque et, plus spécifiquement, pour sa compréhension de la praxis, qui dans son sens original s’avère être un mode d’être des êtres humains. Notre analyse reconnaît trois traits essentiels de l’energeia et de la praxis, deux desquels provenant de l’élucidation aristotélicienne de l’energeia dans Métaphysique IX 6, à savoir son immédiateté et sa continuité : energeia exprime l’être comme un « accomplissement immédiat mais inachevé ». L’irréductibilité, troisième trait de l’energeia et de la praxis, résulte pour sa part de l’application de la structure de l’energeia à la caractérisation de la praxis dans l’Éthique à Nicomaque, et du contraste de la praxis avec la poiēsis et la theōria. Ces trois caractéristiques impliquent que la vérité pratique ― la vérité de la praxis, ce qui est l’ « objet » de la phronēsis ― ne peut être à proprement parler possédée et ainsi transmise : plus qu’un savoir, elle se révèle surtout comme quelque chose que nous sommes. C’est ce caractère unique de la vérité pratique qui a attiré Heidegger vers Aristote au début des années 1920. La deuxième section, consacrée aux textes de Heidegger, commence par la reconstruction de quelques-uns des pas qui l’ont conduit jusqu’à Aristote pour le développement de son propre projet philosophique, pour sa part caractérisé par une profonde, bien qu’énigmatique combinaison d’ontologie et de phénoménologie. La légitimité et la faisabilité de l’appropriation clairement ontologique de l’Éthique à Nicomaque par Heidegger est aussi traitée, sur la base des résultats de la première section. L’analyse de ces textes met en lumière la pénétrante opposition établie par Heidegger entre la phronēsis et l’energeia dans son programmatique Natorp Bericht en 1922, une perspective qui diverge fortement des résultats de notre lecture philologique d’Aristote dans la première section. Cette opposition est maintenue dans nos deux sources principales ― le cours du semestre d’hiver 1924-25 Platon: Sophistes, et le cours du semestre d’été 1924 Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Philosophie. Le commentaire que Heidegger fait du texte d’Aristote est suivi de près dans cette section: des concepts tels que energeia, entelecheia, telos, physis ou hexis ― qui trouvent leur caractérisation ontologique dans la Métaphysique ou la Physique ― doivent être examinés afin de suivre l’argument de Heidegger et d’en évaluer la solidité. L’hypothèse de Heidegger depuis 1922 ― à savoir que l’ontologie aristotélicienne n’est pas à la hauteur des aperçus de ses plus pénétrantes descriptions phénoménologiques ― résulte en un conflit opposant phronēsis et sophia qui divise l’être en deux sphères irréconciliables qui auraient pour effet selon Heidegger de plonger les efforts ontologiques aristotéliciens dans une impasse. Or, cette conclusion de Heidegger est construite à partir d’une interprétation particulière de l’energeia qui laisse de côté d’une manière décisive son aspect performatif, pourtant l’un des traits essentiels de l’energeia telle qu’Aristote l’a conçue. Le fait que dans les années 1930 Heidegger ait lui-même retrouvé cet aspect de l’energeia nous fournit des raisons plus fortes de mettre en doute le supposé conflit entre ontologie et phénoménologie chez Aristote, ce qui peut aboutir à une nouvelle formulation du projet heideggérien. / The purpose of this thesis is to sort out the intent, the philosophical relevance and the consistency of Heidegger’s appropriation of the basic tenets of Aristotle’s practical philosophy in his early lecture courses. Our analysis will focus mainly on the key notions of energeia and phronēsis. The first preparatory section of the thesis is devoted to a close analysis of Aristotle’s relevant texts of the Nicomachean Ethics, but also of the Metaphysics, in discussion with other modern commentators. This lays the philological groundwork which will enable us to engage Heidegger’s challenging interpretations on a more secure footing. The second and main section discusses Heidegger’s ontological appropriation of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics from 1922 to 1924 on the basis of the texts so far published, and with a special attention to Metaphysics IX. The main result of section I is an insight into the central character of energeia for Aristotle’s project in the Nicomachean Ethics and, more specifically, for his understanding of praxis, which in its genuinely original sense turns out to be a way of being of human beings. Our analysis recognizes three essential traits to energeia and praxis, two of which stemming from the analysis of Aristotle’s own elucidation of energeia in Metaphysics IX 6, namely immediacy and continuity: energeia expresses being as an ‘immediate unfinished fulfillment’. Irreducibility, the third trait of energeia and praxis, results from applying the structure of energeia to the characterization of praxis in the Nicomachean Ethics, and from contrasting it with poiēsis and theōria. These three features entail that practical truth―the truth of praxis, the ‘object’ of phronēsis―cannot be properly possessed and thus transferred: more than something we know, it is something we are. It is this special character of practical truth that primarily attracted Heidegger to Aristotle in the early 1920s. Section II, devoted to Heidegger’s texts, starts by reconstructing some of the intellectual steps that led him to resort to Aristotle for the development of his own philosophical project, characterized by a profound, yet intriguing intermingling of ontology and phenomenology. The legitimacy and feasibility of Heidegger’s pointedly ontological appropriation of the Nicomachean Ethics is also discussed, on the basis of the results of section I. The analysis of these texts is characterized by the sharp opposition set by Heidegger between phronēsis and energeia in his 1922 programmatic Natorp Bericht, a perspective that strongly diverges from the results of our philological reading of Aristotle in section I. The assessment of this opposition is maintained throughout the discussion of the two main sources―the 1924-25 winter course Platon: Sophistes, and the 1924 summer course Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Philosophie. Heidegger’s direct commentary of Aristotle’s text is followed closely in this section: concepts such as energeia, entelecheia, telos, physis and hexis―which find their ontological characterization in the Metaphysics or Physics―need to be scrutinized in order to follow Heidegger’s argument and to assess its soundness. Heidegger’s hypothesis from 1922―namely, that Aristotle’s ontology does not fit the insights of his more penetrating phenomenological descriptions―eventually culminates in a clash between phronēsis and sophia which divides being into two irreconcilable spheres and brings Aristotle’s ontological efforts to a dead end. Yet, this conclusion of Heidegger is built upon a specific interpretation of energeia that critically leaves in the shade its performative side, one of its essential traits as Aristotle conceived it. The fact that in the 30s Heidegger himself comes to see this side of energeia provides us with stronger grounds to question the supposed conflict between ontology and phenomenology in Aristotle, which can result in a new formulation of the Heideggerian project.