No description available.

Ce travail se penche sur les formes et enjeux de la réfutation chez Diderot dans le contexte de la polémique religieuse. Le rôle du philosophe dans le combat contre la Superstition n'est pas négligeable, et l'on s'intéresse ici à la manière dont il a été mené. La réfutation n'est pas envisagée dans son sens rhétorique, mais elle est observée comme un outil de la contestation, qui vise d'ailleurs en tout premier lieu les modèles figés qu'engendre la rhétorique traditionnelle. La réfutation, par le mouvement qu'elle provoque en se heurtant à l'assertion qu'elle contredit, a une fonction de réveil. La première partie observe les voies empruntées pour contester, tout en prêtant attention aux diverses figures de l'adversité. Complété par l'examen de la représentation locutoire des adversaires, ce premier temps suggère une échelle de polémicité qui caractériserait les relations de Diderot avec différents types d'opposants. La deuxième partie se concentre sur le traitement de la parole adverse et sur la façon dont l'auteur rapporte les fallacies du discours adverse. Si Diderot le condamne pour son dogmatisme, forcément trompeur, il le condamne également à la mise à mort dès qu'il le fait entrer dans son texte. Enfin, la troisième partie envisage la façon dont la voix philosophique construit sa particularité en s'opposant : Diderot ne se contente pas de dénoncer et d'invalider le discours adverse, il propose son propre contre-discours. L'efficacité de ce dernier est fonction d'une certaine éthique (dont le premier principe serait le respect de la parole autre) à laquelle le philosophe se conformerait, contrairement à la figure ennemie par excellence, le dogmatisme. / The purpose of this study is to observe the features and the scope of the use of refutation in Diderot's works regarding the religious controversy. The philosopher holds a major role in the fight against Superstition, and this study intends to look into the way this fight was put up. Refutation should not be taken here on its rhetorical sense: it is considered as instrumental in the contestation process - which, by the way, above all tackles the lifeless models of the classical rhetoric. Refutation provokes movement by going against the assertion it contradicts; thus it has a function of awakening. In the first part, we look into the different means used to challenge the opposite side, and also the different faces of the opponents. The study of the locutionary positions of these opponents completes this first part, which suggests a scale of polemicity characterising the relationships between Diderot and various kinds of opponents. The second part focuses on the treatment of the opposite discourse and tries to describe how Diderot reports the fallacies of his opponents. Of course Diderot condemns the opposite discourse because of its dogmatism, which necessarily leads to deception, but he also condemns it to death as soon as he includes it in his text. The last part deals with the philosopher's voice constructing its specificity by opposing itself to other ones : not only Diderot denounces and invalidates the opposite discourse, he also conveys his own counter-discourse, whose efficiency is founded on ethical features - among which, first of all, having respect for the other's discourse. The philosopher abides by them, whereas his very enemy, namely dogmatism, does not.

M.A. (Philosophy) / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Communication enables us to share our ideas, feelings, beliefs and opinions with others. Therefore it constitutes the very root of our civilization. However, in order for communication to be meaningful, it must initially be understood. To be understood, the message must be communicated in a language we know, with reasoning based on what we already understand (as knowledge). Definitions often function as such premises, and starting points, for our reasoning. Definitions can be explicit, but mostly appear as implicit argumentative perspectives, which is why this essay intends to investigate the argumentative nature of definitions. More specifically I have chosen to examine the definitions Amnesty International use in defense of their decision to advocate for the decriminalization of sex work more closely. The theoretical framework consists of rhetorical theories about argumentation. The results show how one, by analyzing definitions as argumentative perspectives, is able to alert problematic and questionable premises that went unnoticed in the overall examination of Amnesty Internationals argumentation.

Thesis (doctoral)--Københavns Universitet. / Includes texts in Greek and Latin. Includes indexes. Includes bibliographical references (p. 308-333).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2008. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 176-183).

Thesis (doctoral)--Københavns Universitet. / Includes texts in Greek and Latin. Includes indexes. Includes bibliographical references (p. 308-333).

Professional paper (M Nursing)--Montana State University--Bozeman, 2010. / Typescript. Chairperson, Graduate Committee: Barbara Derwinski-Robinson. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 38-43).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1967. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (doctoral)--Københavns Universitet. / Includes texts in Greek and Latin. Includes indexes. Includes bibliographical references (p. 308-333).