Ce mémoire de maîtrise est une recherche exploratoire sur les expériences de localisation vécues dans l’espace urbain montréalais par des sujets en relation à l’information dite « de localisation ». La localisation est un processus d’orientation spatiale où l’emplacement d’un lieu dans l’espace est un problème à résoudre. Cette exploration est basée sur la théorisation de l’information proposée par Bateson (1972) et le développement du concept de dispositif par Belin (2002) et Agamben (2007) à la suite de Foucault, la localisation étant le concept empirique exploratoire. Le processus de localisation est investigué quant à son caractère médiatique : l’information de localisation est le medium qui, en étant un résultat et une cause de l’action, donne forme à ce processus mené par l’effort. Un travail de terrain ethnométhodologique déployé par le biais d’observations empiriques et d’entrevues qualitatives permet d’identifier certaines conditions qui rendent possibles, dans la vie quotidienne, les relations entre l’information de localisation, l’espace urbain et un sujet. Étant majoritairement vécue lors de déplacements présents, futurs ou passés, la localisation est ainsi conceptualisée en tant que wayfinding : l’action de déterminer quelles voies ou trajets emprunter pour se rendre d’un point A à un point B. Ce mémoire est en réalité une problématisation ouverte qui vise à explorer et identifier certains enjeux qui sont au cœur des processus de localisation dans l’espace urbain montréalais. Si « [l]e fait humain par excellence », comme le souligne Leroi-Gouhran (1965) « est peut-être moins la création de l’outil que la domestication du temps et de l’espace » (p. 139), le fait d’habiter en un certain temps et en un certain espace est en soi une relation problématique de confiance. Le vivant et le non-vivant habitent des espaces aménagés qui sont continuellement transformés par leur détermination mutuelle. En partant du constat que l’environnement construit se déploie en étant produit et aménagé dans des dispositions où certains de nos gestes sont délégués, peut-on envisager être libre sans (se) faire confiance ? / This master’s thesis is an exploratory research on localization experiences lived in Montreal’s urban space by subjects in relation to ‘location’ information. Localization is a spatial orientation process where a place’s location in space is a problem to be solved. This exploration is based on a theorization of information proposed by Bateson (1972) as well as on a development of the concept of apparatus (dispositif) by Belin (2002) and Agamben (2007) following Foucault’s; localization being an exploratory empirical concept. The localization process is investigated regarding its media character: location information is a medium that, being a result and a cause of action, shapes this process that is driven by effort. An ethnomethodological fieldwork is enacted by empirical observations and qualitative interviews that permit to identify certain conditions that make possible, in everyday life, relations between location information, urban space and a subject. Being mostly lived regarding actual, future or past movements, localization is thus conceptualized as wayfinding: the act of determining which path or trajectory to follow to get from point A to point B. This master’s thesis is actually an open problematization that aims to explore and identify some issues that are at the heart of localization processes in Montreal’s urban space. If “[t]he human act par excellence”, as put forward by André Leroi-Gouhran (1993 [1965]) “is perhaps not so much the creation of tools as the domestication of time and space” (p. 313), the fact that we dwell in a certain time and in a certain space is a problematic relation of trust (confiance) in itself. The living and the non-living inhabit spaces that are continuously transformed by their mutual determination. Starting from the observation that the built environment is deploying itself while being produced and developed (aménagé) in dispositions where some of our gestures are delegated, is it possible to consider being free without trusting?

TITLE: Picture of illness and death in contemporary German literature for children and youth (The analysis and didactic adaptation in the context of selected works of world literature) SUMMARY:Presented thesis deals with literary reflections on illness and death in contemporary German literature for children and youth. The theoretical part explains the basic concepts such as illness, death, child and developmental stages of childhood, literature and literature for children and youth. These themes are then further processed. In more detail is the work devoted to analyzing literary works with that theme. The works are examined in terms of literary aesthetic and thematic components, composition and language components. In the practical part, the work focuses on the students perception of researched topic and work with specific literary texts. The final section compares the aspects of reception on illness and death of students of Czech and Austrian schools at the age of 14 to 19 years based on questionnaires filled in by those students which were used as the main research material. KEYWORDS: illness, death, contemporary German literature for children and youth, Jutta Treiber, Sigrid Zeevaert, Petr Pohl, Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt, intercultural aspects

Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-14T13:54:56Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 385288.pdf: 1614445 bytes, checksum: b2ec545a66a5a2dff2ceff6ad5d81de6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-10-31 / Na contram?o das pesquisas sobre a humanitas do homo humanus no s?culo XX, principalmente a que se fez no exerc?cio da filosofia como fenomenologia em Heidegger, Sartre e Levinas, ergo aqui a possibilidade da Leveza. Considerando que nestes se delineia, pari passu ao sentido do humano, um peso existencial expresso como o fardo da finitude (Heidegger), do excessivo centramento em si (Sartre) e da responsabilidade infinita (Levinas), sugiro a Tese de que ? vi?vel filosoficamente coadunar, a um s? tempo, humanidade e leveza, sem que se decaia a um sentido dionis?aco ou alienado da descri??o do que ? o homem. Em s?ntese, transito aqui no fato de que ? sustent?vel a Leveza do Humano, quando do olhar para a fenomenalidade do evento da generosidade e quando se adentra de vez no sentido do humano tecido a partir da responsabilidade, o que desde Levinas se delineia como disposi??o an?rquica ao Bem anterior ao ser. Reino da Bondade que de nenhum modo ? um fardo e um peso sobre os ombros do homem.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-28T20:39:32Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Iaraci Fernandes Advincula.pdf: 501317 bytes, checksum: 6b05d8fd6875740a5cf75c1f3df9b1d2 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-08-31 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The objective of this work is to entertain the idea that the field of the human experience, in the complexity of clinical situations, requires an opening to the imponderable. This creates the proper conditions for the vitalization of the existencial event. Initially, it was necessary to develop a theoretical framework presenting and linking some aspects of the Heiddeggerian, the Levinasian and the Winnicottian perspectives in their respectives matrices of intersubjectivity; showing, through clinical dynamics, the paradoxical articulation of these different matrices in the constitution of subjectivities; showing the implications of these matrices of intersubjective conception in the understanding and in the implementation of effective clinical approaches. Finally, we focused, in the context of therapeutic situations, on the importance of paradoxical interventions in the constitution of intrapsychic Intersubjectivity. This study showed that the selves" referring both to my self and to the self of the other person is far beyond our absolute comprehension. Something alien to us, coming from our inner self and from the inner self of the other person with whom we relate, will always be emerging. We conclude this study with the realization of both the paradox and the complexity of the intersubjective constitutions, beyond the limit of human knowledge, which requires an ethical approach of waiting for what transpires within the meandering setting of the clinical work. The clinical work, by itself, demands therapeutic interventions equally complex and paradoxical / Este trabalho teve como objetivo considerar a idéia de que o campo da experiência humana, na complexidade das situações clínicas, exige a abertura para o imponderável, criando condições para a vitalização do acontecimento existencial. Para isso, buscou-se, inicialmente, construir um arcabouço teórico que apresentasse e relacionasse alguns pontos das perspectivas heideggeriana, levinasiana e winnicottiana nas matrizes de intersubjetividade correspondentes, mostrando, por meio da dinâmica clínica, a articulação paradoxal dessas diferentes matrizes de intersubjetividade nas constituições subjetivas; indicando as implicações das matrizes de concepção intersubjetiva na compreensão e nos efetivos manejos clínicos e, finalmente, focalizando, em situações terapêuticas, a importância das intervenções paradoxais para o psiquismo humano na sua constituição intersubjetiva intrapsíquica. Revelou-se, por meio deste estudo, que o si-mesmo tanto de si como do outro escapa à nossa capacidade totalizadora. Algo estranho a nós, proveniente de nossa interioridade e do outro com o qual nos relacionamos, estará sempre irrompendo. Conclui-se com o reconhecimento do paradoxo e da complexidade das constituições intersubjetivas, além do limite do conhecimento humano, o qual exige uma posição ética de espera do que se revela nos meandros do trabalho clínico, que, por sua vez, demanda intervenções terapêuticas, igualmente, paradoxais e complexas

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Sybil Safdie Douek.pdf: 1865791 bytes, checksum: ebc827ec6b5f55d21c76a00bfc6d1d0e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-06-03 / The present dissertation intends to confront Paul Ricoeur and Emmanuel Levinas philosophy, from an essential point of view: the relationship between the subject and the other, subjectivity and alterity. Question which relevance seems to be dramatic after the Two World Wars, particularly after the Shoah: which could be, subsequent to this historical experience, the meanings of words such as subject, man and ethics? Aware of the necessary and indispensable critics toward classic humanism, and willing to withdraw the subject of his central position in philosophy, since Descartes, both authors seem to rehabilitate the subject, and put again faith in him, without paying to the subject unrestricted reverence. The result is the idea of a subject that includes in itself alterity: self as another , says Ricoeur; the other in the same , says Levinas. But which is the place assigned to the other? Levinas insists in the absolute priority of the other, and proposes the deposition of the subject in behalf of the other: the subject substitutes himself to the other, it is hostage of the other, being absolutely passive in his relationship with him. Ricoeur, in his turn, defends the importance of both (oneself and other) and prefers to think in terms of reciprocity, and receptivity of the subject. These different perspectives concerning relationship between subject and other imply two conceptions of ethics: for Levinas, ethics of responsibility and election; for Ricoeur, ethics of promise, of good living together and mutuality. It implicates also two different attitudes in regard of a question not always considered as philosophical: transcendence or the Name of God. For both, God is a question which deserves attention, but Ricoeur excludes the Name of his philosophical speech, building a hermeutics of the self without the support of transcendence; while for Levinas, the problem of subjectivity goes along this the problem of transcendence. Therefore, a question is born: the presence or absence of the Name of God in their philosophy of subjectivity could have connections or correspondences with their respective religious traditions Ricoeur´s Protestantism and Levinas Judaism? Traditions never denied by both of them, although kept far from their philosophical reflections, each one in his own way / A presente tese se propõe a confrontar as filosofias de Paul Ricoeur e Emmanuel Lévinas, a partir de uma questão essencial: a relação do sujeito com a alteridade. Questão cuja relevância se coloca de modo dramático após a experiência histórica das duas Guerras Mundiais, em particular da Shoah: que sentido dar, hoje, às palavras: sujeito, homem ou ética? Conscientes da necessária e incontornável crítica ao humanismo clássico e, desejosos de retirar o sujeito da posição central que vem ocupando na filosofia, desde Descartes, ambos parecem querer reabilitar o sujeito, fazer-lhe novamente confiança, sem por isso, render-lhe irrestritas homenagens. O resultado é uma concepção de sujeito que inclui em si próprio a alteridade: si mesmo como um outro , diz Ricoeur; o outro no mesmo , diz Lévinas: mas que lugar dar a outrem? Lévinas insiste na prioridade absoluta do outro, propondo a deposição do sujeito em favor de outrem: o sujeito se substitui ao outro, é refém do outro, sendo absolutamente passivo na relação; Ricoeur, por seu lado, defende a importância dos dois pólos e prefere falar em reciprocidade da relação e em receptividade do sujeito. As diferentes perspectivas na relação sujeito-outrem implicam em duas concepções de ética: em Lévinas, ética da responsabilidade e da eleição; em Ricoeur, ética da promessa, do bem viver-junto e da mutualidade. Como também em duas atitudes diferentes, no que diz respeito a uma questão nem sempre considerada filosófica: a transcendência ou o nome de Deus. Se para ambos Deus é uma questão que merece atenção, Ricoeur O exclui de seu discurso filosófico, construindo uma hermenêutica do si que não necessita da transcendência para se sustentar; enquanto para Lévinas, o problema da subjetividade e o da transcendência caminham juntos. Nasce uma questão: a presença ou a ausência do nome de Deus nas filosofias do sujeito de Ricoeur e Lévinas poderia ter conexões ou correspondências com suas respectivas tradições religiosas - o protestantismo de Ricoeur e o judaísmo de Lévinas? Tradições que eles nunca negaram, embora as tenham mantido afastadas, cada um a seu modo, de suas reflexões filosóficas

No description available.

« C’est seulement lorsque nous nous ouvrons à ce qui est plein de secret et plein de grâce comme à cela qui nous donne proprement à penser, qu’il nous est aussi donné de penser ce que nous tenons pour la malignité du mal », notait Heidegger au moment de méditer la vérité de l’être dans l’exploration de la dimension inouïe au sein de laquelle elle se déploie, à l'heure de mettre fin à la philosophie pour commencer seulement à penser.Comment comprendre que l’expérience du mal ait pu accompagner le chemin de la pensée ? N’est-ce pas cette singulière concomittance qui en éclaire, à l’époque du nihilisme, l’implacable urgence, ainsi que l’indifférence apparente aux questions éthiques ? Car si le mal est accessible à la pensée par delà la différence ontologique, c'est qu'il n’est pas qu’une valeur et excède la législature de la morale. Que signifie-t-il alors et que peut vouloir dire en lever le règne ?Répondre à cette question n'ira pas sans impliquer un retour sur la signification philosophique et théologique du mal, au moment d'en attester, à l'instant de penser, l'incomplétude. Le champ dans lequel Heidegger a pu de manière ou d'autre faire sienne cette tâche n’implique-t-il pas alors de soustraire au silence sa singulière relation au christianisme, dont la morale à laquelle il s'agit de retrancher la vérité du mal porte aussi la trace ?Et si la pensée de l’Ereignis s’accomplit comme surmontement de tout mal, si c’est la paix des choses et des mortels qu’il s’agit d’y construire, la résonance du silence qui structure la langue pour en faire le plus haut de ses modes et dont nous recevons en y répondant ce que nous avons de plus propre, le dire, de quelle paix la pensée en chemin peut-elle porter l'annonce ? Quel sens revêt à cet égard la responsabilité dont l’essence de la langue nous rend face à l’être, titulaires ? / As he takes to addressing the question of being, Heidegger writes: « Only when we open ourselves to what is full of secrets and full of grace as we do to something that makes us think, are we also enabled to think what we consider as the malignancy of evil. »How is one to understand that the experience of evil goes along with the path of thinking ? Is it not this concurrence alone that can explain why evil seemingly ignores ethical questions ? For one can think of evil beyond mere metaphysics as it is not only a value and overrides the laws of morality. What is, then, the meaning of evil, and what could it possibly mean to undo its domination ? Answering this question necessarily implies to reassess the philosophical, and biblical, meaning of evil, with its incompleteness being asserted as the thinking process begins. Aiming at uprooting the truth of evil out of the Christian morality, marked as it is by silence, one wonders whether the field in which Heidegger sets out to make this task his own in one way or another, indeed involves to remove silence off its special relationship to Christianity ?

This study brings the insights of Slavoj Žižek’s Lacan-inspired approach to bear upon a series of influential 20th century plays and their engagement with what Lacan calls the Real. The plays to be explored share a focus on experiences, events or encounters which transcend, exceed, disrupt, and in some cases shatter characters’ normal, familiar realities. Examined through the lens of Žižek, these confrontations with the sublime and the fantastic reveal a crucial relation to the plays’ contemporary contexts, prompting us to “look awry” upon the dynamics of our own symbolically-regulated reality and the ever-changing and precarious nature of our relation to it. Similarly crucial is the relation of the Lacanian Real to our theatrical forms and modes of perception in the theatre. In staging “encounters with the Real,” these plays prompt us simultaneously to explore the ways in which the Real operates —and “appears” — in our own theatrical experience, ensnaring our gaze and the force of our desire. The study offers a Žižekian approach to works including Peter Shaffer’s Equus, John Mighton’s Possible Worlds, S. An-sky’s The Dybbuk, or Between Two Worlds, Caryl Churchill’s The Skriker, Tony Kushner’s The Illusion, and Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt’s Enigma Variations.

Persistent Pasts: Historical Palimpsests in Nineteenth-Century Prose traces Victorian historical discourse with specific attention to the works of Thomas Carlyle and George Eliot and their relation to historicism in earlier works by Sir Walter Scott and James Hogg. I argue that the Victorian response to the tense relation between the materialist Enlightenment and the idealist rhetoric of Romanticism marks a decidedly ethical turn in Victorian historical discourse. The writers introduce the dialectic of enlightened empiricism and romantic idealism to invoke the historical imagination as an ethical response to the call of the past. I read the dialectic and its invitation to ethics through the figure of the palimpsest. Drawing upon theoretical work on the palimpsest from Carlyle and de Quincey through Gérard Genette and Sarah Dillon, I analyze ways in which the materialist and idealist discourses interrupt each other and persist in one another. Central to my argument are concepts drawn from Walter Benjamin, Emmanuel Levinas, Richard Rorty, and Frank Ankersmit that challenge and / or affirm historical materiality.

This study brings the insights of Slavoj Žižek’s Lacan-inspired approach to bear upon a series of influential 20th century plays and their engagement with what Lacan calls the Real. The plays to be explored share a focus on experiences, events or encounters which transcend, exceed, disrupt, and in some cases shatter characters’ normal, familiar realities. Examined through the lens of Žižek, these confrontations with the sublime and the fantastic reveal a crucial relation to the plays’ contemporary contexts, prompting us to “look awry” upon the dynamics of our own symbolically-regulated reality and the ever-changing and precarious nature of our relation to it. Similarly crucial is the relation of the Lacanian Real to our theatrical forms and modes of perception in the theatre. In staging “encounters with the Real,” these plays prompt us simultaneously to explore the ways in which the Real operates —and “appears” — in our own theatrical experience, ensnaring our gaze and the force of our desire. The study offers a Žižekian approach to works including Peter Shaffer’s Equus, John Mighton’s Possible Worlds, S. An-sky’s The Dybbuk, or Between Two Worlds, Caryl Churchill’s The Skriker, Tony Kushner’s The Illusion, and Eric-Emmanuel Schmitt’s Enigma Variations.