John Milton (1608 1674) é conhecido não só como o poeta do épico Paraíso perdido, mas também como um dos grandes teóricos e polemistas do período das Guerras Civis Inglesas. Seu principal tema é o problema da liberdade em um reino que se transformou segundo ele em uma tirania de reis e potentados religiosos, onde o súdito não era mais adequadamente representado por seu soberano; de acordo com Milton, como o rei não era mais o representante justo do reino, ele não deveria mais exercer as suas funções, sendo necessária a sua deposição e, em alguns casos extremos, o regicídio (como foi defendido pelo próprio poeta); assim, a solução proposta junto com outros panfletários anti-realistas, que nunca atingiram a riqueza retórica e a ousadia teórica de Milton é o surgimento de uma república inglesa, inspirada nos moldes ciceronianos e de clara influência secular-humanista. A partir de agora, o verdadeiro representante do governo deve ser o povo, mais precisamente a commonwealth, formada por indivíduos capazes de dominar as paixões que os podem transformá-los em escravos e viver de acordo com a vontade da razão e da prudência. A liberdade interior dos membros desta república se dá dentro desta commonwealth, onde eles podem exercer a liberdade civil (em que o indivíduo pode viver com tranqüilidade desde que respeite as leis da república), a liberdade doméstica (em que se pode escolher qual é o tipo de educação que pretende ter, quais são as pessoas com quem pretende se relacionar, etc.) e a liberdade religiosa (a possibilidade de escolher uma religião sem a interferência do governo ou de qualquer outra seita religiosa que se classifique como oficial). / John Milton (1608 - 1674) is known not only for his epic Paradise Lost, but also as one of the great theorists and polemicists of the period of the English Civil Wars. Its main theme is the problem of freedom in a kingdom that has become a tyranny of kings and religious potentates, where the subject was not properly represented by his sovereign; according to Milton, as the king was no longer the right representative of the kingdom, he should no longer perform his duties, requiring the deposition and in some extreme cases, the regicide (as argued by him); thus, the proposed solution along with other anti-royalist pamphleteers, who never reached Milton´s rhetoric and the theoretical boldness is the emergence of an English republic. From now on, the true representative of the government should be the people, specifically the commonwealth, made up of individuals able to master the passions that can turn them into slaves and live according to the will of reason and prudence. The Freedom of the Republic takes place within this commonwealth, where its members can exercise civil liberty (in which the individual can live with peace of mind provided if it complies with the laws of the Republic), domestic freedom (where you can choose what kind education you want to have, who are the people you want to relate, etc.) and religious freedom (the ability to choose a religion without interference from the government or any other religious sect that classify them as \"official\").

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

The political ideas of Auberon Herbert are usually associated with the late Victorian Individualist thinkers primarily influenced by the philosopher Herbert Spencer. Although Herbert derived his political philosophy of Voluntaryism from Spencer’s thinking it also owed much to J. S. Mill. Voluntaryism was based on a Lockean-Spencerian conception of individual natural rights that asserted self-ownership and the moral obligation for individuals to respect the rights of other people. Rights protection against force and fraud constituted the primary purpose of government. Herbert, aptly describing Voluntaryism as the system of liberty, peace and friendliness, applied these principles to a range of situations from street maintenance, to collective property purchase, and, finally, to the voluntary support of the state. Voluntary taxation was the most controversial component of Herbert’s theory, emphasising its distinctiveness. Although Herbert resisted socialist and new liberal attempts to expand the role of the state, his reasons for doing so shared little in common with conservative critics of this direction. Herbert, a republican and democrat, repeatedly attacked privilege, seeking widespread change including land reform and universal suffrage. His position represented that of a radical reformer seeking to promote Voluntaryism as the basis for friendly co-operation among free individuals at home and abroad. An internationalist, Herbert opposed aggressive imperialism, but also supported national self-determination, including Irish Home Rule. The notion of the voluntary state has led to claims of Herbert’s anarchism, but research indicates a greater complexity to his political ideas. Overall, Herbert was an extreme libertarian who never completely lost sight of the state, although he greatly limited its role. While Herbert’s political theory was idealistic, it avoided the social prescription usually associated with utopianism. Herbert’s commitment to an ethos of radical progressivism was one he shared with other contemporary socialist and anarchist thinkers who, like Herbert, attempted to live the politics they espoused. For his political philosophy and activism, Herbert warrants acknowledgement as one of the most prominent English libertarians of the nineteenth century.

John Milton (1608 1674) é conhecido não só como o poeta do épico Paraíso perdido, mas também como um dos grandes teóricos e polemistas do período das Guerras Civis Inglesas. Seu principal tema é o problema da liberdade em um reino que se transformou segundo ele em uma tirania de reis e potentados religiosos, onde o súdito não era mais adequadamente representado por seu soberano; de acordo com Milton, como o rei não era mais o representante justo do reino, ele não deveria mais exercer as suas funções, sendo necessária a sua deposição e, em alguns casos extremos, o regicídio (como foi defendido pelo próprio poeta); assim, a solução proposta junto com outros panfletários anti-realistas, que nunca atingiram a riqueza retórica e a ousadia teórica de Milton é o surgimento de uma república inglesa, inspirada nos moldes ciceronianos e de clara influência secular-humanista. A partir de agora, o verdadeiro representante do governo deve ser o povo, mais precisamente a commonwealth, formada por indivíduos capazes de dominar as paixões que os podem transformá-los em escravos e viver de acordo com a vontade da razão e da prudência. A liberdade interior dos membros desta república se dá dentro desta commonwealth, onde eles podem exercer a liberdade civil (em que o indivíduo pode viver com tranqüilidade desde que respeite as leis da república), a liberdade doméstica (em que se pode escolher qual é o tipo de educação que pretende ter, quais são as pessoas com quem pretende se relacionar, etc.) e a liberdade religiosa (a possibilidade de escolher uma religião sem a interferência do governo ou de qualquer outra seita religiosa que se classifique como oficial). / John Milton (1608 - 1674) is known not only for his epic Paradise Lost, but also as one of the great theorists and polemicists of the period of the English Civil Wars. Its main theme is the problem of freedom in a kingdom that has become a tyranny of kings and religious potentates, where the subject was not properly represented by his sovereign; according to Milton, as the king was no longer the right representative of the kingdom, he should no longer perform his duties, requiring the deposition and in some extreme cases, the regicide (as argued by him); thus, the proposed solution along with other anti-royalist pamphleteers, who never reached Milton´s rhetoric and the theoretical boldness is the emergence of an English republic. From now on, the true representative of the government should be the people, specifically the commonwealth, made up of individuals able to master the passions that can turn them into slaves and live according to the will of reason and prudence. The Freedom of the Republic takes place within this commonwealth, where its members can exercise civil liberty (in which the individual can live with peace of mind provided if it complies with the laws of the Republic), domestic freedom (where you can choose what kind education you want to have, who are the people you want to relate, etc.) and religious freedom (the ability to choose a religion without interference from the government or any other religious sect that classify them as \"official\").

The aim of this paper is to use a cultural-hermeneutic methodology to investigate how meaning is constructed in a contemporary social situation (co-culturally) and to suggest the Christian concept incurvatus in se as a critical theological resource (counter-culturally). Central to this account is how to think theologically in a secular situation. It could also be understood as a habermasian translation of a christian experience of the human problem as curved into themselves (homo incurvatus in se) into a existential language for a (possibly) universal experience. I liken this curvedness to the pervasive individualism of today’s society and argue that meaning-making based on the idea of individual freedom can lead to a lack of meaning and existential emptiness.  To arrive at a discussion of incurvatus in se as a theologically critical resource for the study of existential emptiness, I analyze film, parenting and worship to get an idea of what a meaning-making process can look like in these examples. The result of this analysis suggests that by viewing these activities as something that points beyond themselves, rather than something that only reflects the subjective, they can play a meaning-making role.  In light of this result and the interpretation of the situation, I propose a concept of humans as homo incurvatus in se as contrast to an idealization of individual freedom and selfrealization. Overall, this study develops a excurvatus ex se approach that is constituted by conscious and critical meaning-making and argues further that a modified understanding of the human problem as curved into themselves can serve as an incentive, or even a primus motor, to seek meaning outside the subjective in a responsible way.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:21:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Cassiano Mazon.pdf: 996276 bytes, checksum: 7633766463328c88c8d77f4fd75d295d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-09-19 / This thesis is a study on the issue of the grounds of court decisions and preventive detention orders, in light of both domestic and foreign legislation and books of authority, including Brazilian case law. The criminal procedure, an enforceable constitutional right, is a fundamental guarantee under a democratic rule of law system, the central pillar of which is human dignity. Under the rule of law, all court decisions must be duly grounded, notably in the case of the need to restrict fundamental rights, such as an individual s freedom, through a preventive detention order. The grounds arising from the due process of law consist in providing all details of the legal and factual basis which led the court to render such decision. The grounds given by the court must be just, dialectic, coherent and rational, as mere references to legal provisions, allusion to vague and generic formulae, which may be adjusted to any circumstance, are not sufficient. Considering the principle of presumption of innocence, it has been established that preventive detention, a provisional remedy par excellence, is marked by its provisional character in that it should remain effective for the same time the urgent situation that justified it lasts - thus qualifying as an exceptional measure - hence, applicable to emergency situations, if and when all other provisional remedies prove to be improper and insufficient. This study has shown that preventive detention may be ordered in view of the presence of certain legal assumptions and requirements, therefore its grounds requires from the court a careful examination of the circumstances and particularities of the case in question, in light of the principle of proportionality. The conclusion is that unjust and defective grounds give rise to the acknowledgement of the nullity thereof as the essential values provided in the Constitution may be harmed and thus adversely affect human dignity / A presente dissertação abordou o tema da fundamentação das decisões judiciais e a prisão preventiva, mediante análise da legislação e da doutrina, nacionais e estrangeiras, bem como da jurisprudência pátria. O processo penal, direito constitucional aplicado, é uma garantia fundamental no Estado Democrático de Direito, cujo pilar central é a dignidade humana. No Estado Democrático de Direito, devem ser motivadas todas as decisões judiciais, máxime diante da necessidade de restrição a direitos fundamentais, no caso a liberdade, mediante a decretação da prisão preventiva. A fundamentação, decorrente do princípio do devido processo legal, consiste na explicitação das razões de fato e de direito que conduziram o magistrado à decisão. O discurso justificativo judicial deve mostrar-se íntegro, dialético, coerente e racional, não sendo suficientes meras referências a dispositivos legais, com alusão a fórmulas vagas e genéricas, ajustáveis a toda e qualquer situação. Considerando o princípio da presunção de inocência, consignou-se que a prisão preventiva, cautelar por excelência, é marcada pela provisoriedade, devendo vigorar enquanto perdurar a situação de urgência que justificou a decretação da medida, constituindo providência excepcional, porquanto aplicável às hipóteses emergenciais, se e quando todas as demais medidas cautelares mostrarem-se inadequadas e insuficientes. O estudo demonstrou que a prisão preventiva só poderá ser decretada em face da presença de determinados pressupostos e requisitos legais, razão pela qual sua motivação demandará, por parte do magistrado, análise das circunstâncias e peculiaridades do caso concreto, à luz do princípio da proporcionalidade. Ao final, restou assente que a fundamentação inidônea, dotada de vícios, enseja reconhecimento de sua nulidade, por comprometer valores essenciais consagrados no Texto Constitucional, atingindo a própria dignidade da pessoa humana

La procédure pénale française se caractérise par le pouvoir de contrainte probatoire accordé aux autorités chargées de la recherche de la vérité. Celui-ci a fait l’objet d’une activité législative importante au cours de ces quarante dernières années marquée tant par une multiplication des mesures que par un renforcement progressif de leur encadrement. Cette succession des réformes législatives, dont le rythme s’est accéléré depuis le début du XXIe siècle, souligne la difficulté de trouver un équilibre satisfaisant entre, d’une part, l’efficacité de la recherche de la vérité et, d’autre part, l’effectivité des prérogatives accordées à l’individu. La recherche d’un tel équilibre conduit à s’interroger sur l’encadrement de la contrainte probatoire en s’extrayant des classifications traditionnelles des diverses mesures. Une approche historique des prérogatives accordées à l’homme permet de déterminer les droits et principes constituant aujourd’hui cet encadrement. En effet, la Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de 1789 appréhende l’individu en tant que citoyen dans ses relations avec l’Etat. Le respect de la liberté individuelle est dès lors mis en exergue. A ce titre, la création des mesures de contrainte ne peut être arbitraire et leur mise en œuvre doit être raisonnable. A l’issue de la Seconde guerre mondiale, l’individu n’est plus envisagé seulement comme un citoyen mais également comme un membre de l’humanité. L’effectivité de sa dignité et du respect de ses droits, en particulier, de son droit à un procès équitable, complètent en conséquence l’encadrement de la contrainte probatoire. / The main feature of French criminal procedure is the coercitive power attributed to the authorities in charge of seeking the truth. Over the last forty years, the number of statutes relating to this coercitive power largely increased, reinforcing the boundaries of its legal framework. Since the beginning of the 21st century, the path of statutes enactments increased suggesting that there is difficulty in finding the right balance between the efficiency in the truth seeking and the effectiveness of individuals’ rights. Defining the right balance suggests to analyze the coercitive power’s legal framework without relying on the classical legal categories. An historical approach of the individuals’ rights allows us to identify the legal and theoretical framework of the said coercitive power. Indeed, the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen considers the individual as a citizen relating to the State. The respect of individual freedom is the core of the Declaration, preventing arbitrary coercitive measures and an unreasonable use of the coercitive power. After Second World War, the individual has not been considered only as a citizen, but also as a member of Mankind. Accordingly, the respect of individuals’ dignity and rights, especially the right to a fair trial has reinforced the coercitive power’s legal framework.