Zugl.: Regensburg, Universiẗat, Diss., 2006.

Submitted by Maike Costa (maiksebas@gmail.com) on 2016-07-01T14:08:17Z No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivo total.pdf: 1401604 bytes, checksum: f0cd4d45f87ff7f17a46f9c37caf5ef3 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-07-01T14:08:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivo total.pdf: 1401604 bytes, checksum: f0cd4d45f87ff7f17a46f9c37caf5ef3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-08-26 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / Le débat philosophique contemporain sur la “altérité” a donné lieu à des recherches diversifiées. Les “déconstructions” entreprises par la “postmodernité” n’ont pas encore de réussite définitive. La “critique faible” des “fondements metaphysiques” peut être résumée dans la métaphore suivante: “premièrement ils nous donnent des ailes ensuite ils nous ôtent le ciel”. Devient pertinente la critique de G.W. Hegel (1770-18310) au modèle solipsiste de fundamentation de la moderne philosophie de la subjectivité; une fois qu'il comprend la genèse des subjectivités comme essentiellement la genèse de leur sociabilité, enracinée dans une liberté solidaire et reconnue simultanément; le “problème de l’identité e da difference” sur le thème de “l'unité différenciée”. La large production intellectuelle de ce philosophe, et la “structure” de corrélation dialectique de sa pensée et de ses écrits nous renvoie toujours à la perspective de la totalité. De cette façon, notre recherche ont comme objectif genérál l’aprehénsion et l’exposition critique, à partir de la possibilité d'une approche ontologique-existentielle du Moi hégélienne, des concepts de la Conscience-de-Soi et la Reconnaissance, dans leur mouvements propre constitutive, développement et devenir en tant que “l'Esprit”, placé dans la “Dialectique de la Reconnaissance”, comme ils apparaissent dans la Phénoménologie de l'Esprit (1807), de Hegel, notamment dans le chapitre IV. Ainsi, nous supposons qu'une investigation d'intérêt académique sur ces questions est justifiée et coïncide avec les exigences de la société actuelle, à contribuer au développement des “lectures” plus compréhensive des préoccupations de l'homme et de la femme contemporains et les relations sociales complexes qui impliquent la constant “décision de reconnaissance” dans les modes d'efficacité de Si au monde ; dans l'émergence de la figure des “affinités sélectives”. / The hodiernal philosophical debate about the “alterity” raises disparate investigations. “Deconstructions” operated by the “post-modernity” have not obtained and do not intend a success definitive. And the “weak criticism” of the metaphysical foundations could be summarized by the following metaphor: “first they gave us wings and then they steal the sky”. It is pertinent the criticism of G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) to the model solipsistic of substantiation of modern philosophy of subjectivity. He understands the genesis of subjectivity as essentially the genesis of their sociability, rooted in a freedom supportive and simultaneously recognized; the identity and the difference as “differentiated unity”. The extensive intellectual production of this philosopher, as well as the "structure" of dialectical interrelationship of his thought always refers to the perspective of the whole. Accordingly, our research had as general objective the apprehension and critical exposition, since the possibility of an ontological-existential approach to I Hegelian, of the concepts of Self-Consciousness and Recognition, in their own constituent movements, development and “come-to-be” as “Spirit”, placed on Dialectic of Recognition. These concepts appear in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) (notably in Chapter IV). Therefore, we understand that an investigation of academic interest on such issues is justified and coincides with the current demands of society, contributing to the development of “readings” with more understanding of the contemporary concerns and the complex of social relations that imply a constant “decision by recognition” in the ways of effectiveness of Self in the world; the emergence of the figure of “selective affinities”. / O debate filosófico hodierno sobre “alteridade” suscita investigações díspares. As “desconstruções” operadas pela chamada “pós-modernidade” não obtiveram nem pretendem um êxito definitivo. E a “crítica fraca” dos fundamentos metafísicos poderia ser resumida na seguinte metáfora: “primeiro nos deram asas para depois nos roubar o céu”. A crítica de G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831) ao modelo solipsista de fundamentação da filosofia moderna da subjetividade entende a gênese das subjetividades como essencialmente gênese de suas sociabilidades, radicada numa liberdade solidária e reconhecida simultaneamente; identidade e diferença enquanto “unidade diferenciada”. Assim sendo, considerando a extensa produção intelectual do nosso filósofo, bem como a “estrutura” de inter-relação dialética de seu pensamento e de seus escritos, que nos remete sempre a perspectiva do todo, nossa pesquisa teve como objetivo geral a apreensão e exposição crítica, desde a possibilidade de uma abordagem ontológico-existencial do Eu hegeliano, dos conceitos de Consciência-de-Si e de Reconhecimento, em seus movimentos próprios constitutivos, desenvolvimento e vir-a-ser enquanto “Espírito”, postos na Dialética do Reconhecimento, tal como aparecem no corpo da Fenomenologia do Espírito (1807), notadamente no capítulo IV, de Hegel. Neste sentido, entendemos que uma investigação de interesse acadêmico sobre tais questões justifica-se e coincide com demandas da sociedade atual, contribuindo para o desenvolvimento de “leituras” mais compreensivas das inquietações do homem e da mulher contemporâneos e do complexo de relações sociais que implicam numa constante “decisão pelo reconhecimento” nos modos de efetividade do Si no mundo; na emergência da figura das “afinidades seletivas”.

Notre mémoire dégage la nature du rapport de la conscience et de la vérité dans la Phénoménologie de l'esprit de Hegel selon deux aspects. D'un côté, la vérité est ce à quoi la conscience se rapporte comme une réalité en soi normative qu'elle distingue de son savoir. Mais, dès lors qu'elle veut s'assumer de la vérité de son savoir, elle fait l'expérience de la non-vérité de ce qu'elle tenait pour le Vrai. Cette expérience que fait la conscience et qui entraîne la perte d'elle-même, Hegel l'appelle la dialectique. De l'autre côté, l'absolu n'a pas seulement pour Hegel la teneur d'une substance, il est bien plutôt sujet, c'est-à-dire auto-mouvement mouvement d'advenir qui se manifeste phénoménalement en se déployant au cœur de l'opposition conscientielle du concept et de l'être, pour s'y montrer comme leur unité fondamentale. Le mémoire tente de cerner comment ces deux mouvements se concilient et quelles en sont les modalités d'accomplissement.

No description available.

<p>Martin Heidegger is generally regarded as one of the most significant—if also the most controversial—philosophers of the 20th century. Most scholarly engagement with Heidegger’s thought on Modernity approaches his work with a special focus on either his critique of technology, or on his more general critique of subjectivity. This dissertation project attempts to elucidate Martin Heidegger’s diagnosis of modernity, and, by extension, his thought as a whole, from the neglected standpoint of his understanding of mathematics, which he explicitly identifies as the essence of modernity. </p><p> Accordingly, our project attempts to work through the development of Modernity, as Heidegger understands it, on the basis of what we call a “mathematical dialectic.“ The basis of our analysis is that Heidegger’s understanding of Modernity, both on its own terms and in the context of his theory of history [Seinsgeschichte], is best understood in terms of the interaction between two essential, “mathematical” characteristics, namely, self-grounding and homogeneity. This project first investigates the mathematical qualities of these components of Modernity individually, and then attempts to trace the historical and philosophical development of Modernity on the basis of the interaction between these two components—an interaction that is, we argue, itself regulated by the structure of the mathematical, according to Heidegger’s understanding of the term. </p><p> The project undertaken here intends not only to serve as an interpretive, scholarly function of elucidating Heidegger’s understanding of Modernity, but also to advance the larger aim of defending the prescience, structural coherence, and relevance of Heidegger’s diagnosis of Modernity as such.</p> / Dissertation

In this paper I attempt to address an interpretive difficulty that surrounds Hegel's position in the history of jurisprudence. After a brief overview of Hegel's project, I outline the first two sections of the Outlines of the Philosophy of Right in order to support my argument that Hegel advocates a natural law theory of legal validity. I then show that confusions regarding Hegel's place in the history of jurisprudence arise from his view that the ethical evaluation of laws is limited (with some exceptions) to procedural laws that govern the enactment and recognition of laws in the administration of justice. I end by providing Hegel's distinctive argument for legal publicity, which he takes to be essential for the enactment and recognition of valid law.

This dissertation is an exposition and critique of Robert Brandom's theory of discursive objectivity. It discusses this theory both within the context of Brandom's own systematic philosophical project and, in turn, within the ideas and questions characteristic of the Kantian and post-Kantian tradition in German philosophy. It is argued that Brandom's attempt to articulate a theory of the objectivity of discursive norms (and hence also of the content of discursive attitudes) resembles J.G. Fichte's development of themes central to Kant's philosophy. This "Fichtean" approach to the problem of objectivity is then compared and contrasted to that of G.W.F. Hegel. Though Brandom, Fichte and Hegel share the desire to derive an account of the conditions of objectivity from the social character is discursive practices, Hegel offers a version of this project that differs with respect to the nature of self-consciousness, sociality and truth. It is then argued that Brandom's theory suffers significant internal inconsistencies that could be avoided by adopting a more "Hegelian" approach to these three themes. More specifically, Brandom's own project requires that he recognize the necessity and irreducibility of firstperson and second-person discursive attitudes, as well as that he recognize the role of "I-We" social practices for discursive objectivity. Furthermore, he must include in his explanations some form of natural teleology and hence he must abandon his deflationary approach to semantic explanation. However, Brandom's methodological and metaphysical commitments prevent him from doing so.

Informe de Seminario para optar al grado de Licenciado en Filosofía. / Con el fin de hacerse del punto de vista del pensamiento de Hegel se intenta determinar el contenido lógico del concepto como Dios, atendiendo a su doctrina de la lógica y de la religión. Tal objetivo conduce a centrarse en los elementos fundamentales del pensamiento hegeliano, haciéndose abstracción de la plenitud del contenido, y a trazar una exposición libre y sintética de aquel contenido, pero, a la vez, ceñidamente apegada a la palabra del autor. En una primera parte se aportan los elementos básicos del contenido lógico de Dios, marcándose los contrapuntos con la lógica del sentido común y de la metafísica moderna que inevitablemente opera como trasfondo: la posibilidad de la cognoscibilidad de Dios, su existencia referida a la experiencia religiosa, el carácter ontológico de la lógica y del concepto hegeliano, la automediación y la autobjetivación como principales caracteres divinos. Así también en esta primera parte se comparan a grandes rasgos los desarrollos del contenido lógico divino en la doctrina de la lógica y en la doctrina de la religión, estableciéndose la mayor pertinencia de este último para alcanzar el objetivo general propuesto, sobre todo porque se postula que en tal desarrollo se da un enriquecimiento lógico de lo lógico, esto es, se da una relación lógica en el ámbito de lo religioso que no es reducible a alguna figura presente en la doctrina de la lógica. En la segunda parte se expone, pues, propiamente este momento lógico del concepto como Dios desde la doctrina hegeliana de la religión. Establecer tal momento es recorrer la historia lógica divina, es recorrer los conceptos en que Dios se fue determinando en el devenir religioso. A lo largo de este devenir divino se coloca énfasis en explicitar la ampliación lógica postulada y la problemática en la que está inserta. Finalmente, tras haberse expuesto la historia divina, se vuelve sobre aquella problemática. Se establece que la figura lógica que emerge en lo religioso es la figura del poner un otro, la figura de un Dios que pone a la historia humana para sí. En torno a esta figura lógica se halla el problema del comienzo: de la exposición de la necesidad de que el contenido de la experiencia religiosa sea nombrado como Dios. Es el problema de la existencia de Dios en la singular versión hegeliana. Es la tensión entre defender la existencia de Dios o la libertad de la comunidad humana lo que se juega en ello. La solución hegeliana, que se vierte en la figura del poner un otro, parece que inevitablemente lleva consigo la enajenación de la libertad para la historia humana. Sin embargo, volverse al pensamiento hegeliano debiera constituir una urgencia para nuestro mundo de la dominación globalizada. Hoy cuando la realidad toda parece una matriz devenida cristal, una matriz que ya no puede dejar de ser, debiéramos levantar nuestras voces y decir: porque nada tiene que haber, libertad podemos ser.

El objetivo de este trabajo es analizar justamente la Ciencia de la Lógica, texto en el que Hegel por primera vez presenta formalmente su método dialéctico (al cual llama, justamente, el Método, en la última parte del Libro III), el cual no es otra cosa que una manera de visualizar la realidad que, siguiendo fundamentalmente los planteamientos de Heráclito, se muestra como una total alternativa a la lógica tradicional de Aristóteles. Las palabras recién citadas de Ernst Bloch, ya adelantan la peculiaridad del pensamiento del filósofo que aquí se comienza a estudiar.

My dissertation concerns Hegel’s mature theoretical philosophy. I focus on the role of logic, meant here in a much more conventional sense of the term than is usually thought relevant to Hegel’s thought. I argue that Hegel’s main achievement in logic is to attempt a noncircular derivation of its laws and materials. Central to my interpretation is a sympathetic treatment of Hegel’s claim that Kant did not have a comparably rigorous justification for logic. In Hegel’s view, the critical philosophy’s pervasive reliance on logic precludes it from evaluating the latter in a non-question-begging way. As a result, Kant is forced to ground logic psychologically (though not “psychologistically” in Frege’s sense). For Hegel, Kant’s critical philosophy is insufficiently self-critical with respect to its own logical foundations. It is therefore vulnerable to criticism on logical grounds — especially from a Hegelian direction. As I also hope to show, Hegel rejects Kant’s critique of metaphysics, arguing that its logical presuppositions are unfounded. Once those presuppositions are overhauled, the true source of the metaphysical tradition’s impasses becomes apparent, and a non-Kantian-idealist, metaphysical solution is at hand. The lesson is that metaphysics is an enduring possibility, provided it is based on secure logical foundations.