Spelling suggestions: "subject:"epistemology off history"" "subject:"epistemology oof history""
1 |
Empire, Imagined Nature, and the Great White Horizon| Polar Discourse, Transition, and the Sublime in Mid-Victorian and Modern Imperial British CultureFontenot, M. Christian-Gahn 02 September 2015 (has links)
<p> This project seeks to understand the relationship between discursive practices and the conceptions of nature, heroism, and masculinity found in Victorian and modern Imperial British culture. It does this by tracing two interwoven stories that materialized in the North and South Poles. The first being concerned with how polar landscape was perceived and created as Sublime by the discursive practices of explorers, authors, artists, and the press. The second being concerned with how polar discourse was used and influenced by British imperial rhetoric. In such a context, there was an opportunity for the British Empire to create a space that reclaimed and “proved” the unchanging presence of mid-Victorian Britishness. Even in its decline, the Empire was able to push forth the idea that modernism, war, and flux would not hold sway over the British spirit itself. Relying on expedition narratives, literary publications, paintings, and press coverage, this work highlights the importance (and fluidity) of intellectual concepts and their influence over the way that space was imagined by the British. Ultimately, the project seeks to lend insight into the significant connection between polar discourse and World War I discourse, showing how the mythological way of imagining the poles became a catalyst for imagining indescribable spaces of horror during the most destructive war in European history.</p>
|
2 |
Habermas et Koselleck : éléments d’un dialogue sur la genèse de la modernitéBouffard Chevalier, Xavier 12 1900 (has links)
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.
|
Page generated in 0.4712 seconds