La présente investigation sur le thème «Jürgen Habermas, Eric Weil et les limites politiques de la société civile» se veut une «contribution à la réflexion sur le sens de l’engagement politique citoyen». En effet, en conférant à la société civile la vocation politique de légitimation de l’Etat, le philosophe et sociologue allemand, Jürgen Habermas, postule que la prise de parole sous forme d’exercice public de la raison suffirait pour enclencher un Agir communicationnel à même de faire du citoyen l’acteur et le destinataire des lois et des institutions qui le gouvernent. Mais cet aboutissement ne va pas de soi. Elle dépend, selon le philosophe français, Eric Weil, de conditions particulières induites par la nature et le fonctionnement de la société moderne. La principale préoccupation de cette investigation qui, ose un dialogue virtuel entre les deux penseurs, est de montrer que, si le triomphe planétaire de l’ idée de société civile contribue à l’accélération de l’avènement d’une société universellement administrée dans les limites de la simple raison, l’atteinte de cet objectif reste minée par l’omniprésence de la violence et du non-sens dans la sphère politique contemporaine. Aussi, pour sortir de cette double impasse à laquelle s’expose l’exercice public de la raison, le dialogue entre Jürgen Habermas et Eric Weil s’achève par la primauté de la question du sens. Un aboutissement qui se justifie et justifie par conséquent l’engagement politique citoyen. Car, c’est en continuant à agir de façon raisonnable et non-violente, seul et/ou avec les autres pour l’avènement d’un Etat vrai, malgré la persistance de l’irrationalité, de la violence et du non-sens, que le citoyen contribue au renouvellement du sens de son existence individuelle et collective. / The present investigation on “Jürgen Habermas, Eric Weil and civil society political boundaries” is intended to be a “contribution to the reflection on the meaning of citizen political engagement”. Indeed, by giving civil society the political vocation of legitimation of the state, the German philosopher and sociologist Jürgen Habermas, posits that speaking in the form of public speaking exercise of reason would be enough to trigger a Communicational Action making the citizen the actor and the recipient of the laws and institutions that govern him. But this achievement does not happen by itself. It depends, according to the French philosopher Eric Weil, of special conditions created by nature and functioning of modern society.The main aim of this investigation which dares a virtual dialogue between the two thinkers, is to show that if the global triumph of the idea of civil society contributes to the acceleration of the advent of a universally administered society within the limits of simple reason, the achievement of the goal remains undermined by the omnipresence of violence and nonsense in contemporary political sphere.Therefore, to get out of this double impasse to which the public exercise of reason is exposed, dialogue between Jürgen Habermas and Eric Weil ends with the primacy of the question of meaning. An outcome which is justified and therefore justifies the citizen political engagement. It is by continuing to act reasonably, non-violently, alone and/or with others for the advent of a Real State, despite the persistence of irrationality, violence and nonsense that the citizen contributes to the renewal of the meaning of its individual and collective existence.

Von Januar 1997 bis März 2003 leitete Jürgen Hering die Sächsische Landesbibliothek – Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden.

The aim of this study is to explore questions regarding the concept of suffering and the relationship between a suffering world and a suffering God. The theology of Dorothee Soelle and Jürgen Moltmann are presented and then analysed through the feminist-theological lens of Rita Nakashima Brock and Rebecca Ann Parker. The feminist-theological perspective is used to highlight the theological strengths and weaknesses of Soelle and Moltmann. The issues of suffering can be found all through human history and across all religious views or life stances. Soelle and Moltmann show that to create a sustainable theology regarding suffering there needs to be an awareness of what image of God is presented. The conclusion of the study is that both Soelle and Moltmann use the term “apathy” throughout the theology that has been presented. The concept is regarded as a hindrance to forming and maintaining relationships and being able to sympathise with the suffering party. This hinderance is present both in the relationships between humans and between God and humanity. The focus of Soelle and Moltmann lies in the interpretation of God the Father and how the Father relates to the suffering of humanity. The importance of how the suffering of the Son is regarded is presented through the feminist theology of Brock and Parker. According to Brock and Parker, the church needs to examine how the suffering of Jesus is presented. If the suffering of Jesus is presented as an example of how suffering should be endured then the concept of Jesus willingly suffering might put pressure on the suffering individual to stay in the context that causes suffering.

No description available.

Ce mémoire tentera de reconstruire la controverse qui a eu lieu entre Habermas et Gadamer dans les années 1960 et 1970. Ce débat porte sur notre rapport à l'histoire, à la réflexivité et à la raison. À l'aide d'ouvrages majeurs tels que Connaissance et intérêt et Vérité et Méthode, en plus d'articles ayant encadré la polémique entre les deux auteurs, il sera possible de rendre compte des positions de Habermas et de Gadamer au sujet de la possibilité critique de la réflexion, soit l'enjeu qui servira de ligne directrice à ce mémoire et qui permettra d'aborder les autres enjeux tout aussi importants. Gadamer suggère une réflexion herméneutique attentive et réceptive à notre mode d'être qui est par le fait même critique, tandis que Habermas propose une autoréflexion de la société en collaboration avec un sociologue critique qui la guide en vue de son autocritique et de son émancipation. À l'issue de leur dialogue, la pensée de Gadamer se sera développée, alors que celle de Habermas se sera transformée : les deux philosophes auront donc appris l'un de l'autre.

In the New Testament and in the early church fathers’ writings, the Son is understood to be ontologically equal to the Father and subordinate to him. Whether understood as ingenerate-generate, sender-sent, commanded-obedient, subordination shows the distinction between the Father and Son. As seen in church history, minimizing these distinctions can lead to modalism and pressing them too far leads to Arianism. In the Bible, obedience or subordination does not mean ontologically inferior. Rather, obedience results from faith and love. Although some fathers connected obedience to Christ’s humanity, they were doing so while rejecting the Arian argument that the Son’s obedience meant he was ontologically inferior. They affirmed the voluntary obedience of the Son as an expression of his love for the Father and rejected any sense of coercion or determinism. The doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father’s ousia held together the equality and subordination of the Son to the Father. Beginning with Christ’s atoning work rather than metaphysics, P. T. Forsyth and Jürgen Moltmann believe that the Son’s obedience is crucial for the atonement to be the free act of grace of the Sovereign God. Because of this, the Son’s obedience must be divine, and thus eternal. Otherwise, the obedience would be from Christ’s humanity, and humanity would contribute in inappropriate ways to the atonement. They also believe that subordination, obedience, humility, and servanthood complete the understanding of divine love. The unity provided by the same divine love is expressed according to the particularity of the Person. In the Trinitarian relationship, the Son’s eternal obedience is his free response to the Father. Here subordination is not oppression, but perfect love freely given to the perfect Lover. This fuller conception of divine love that a proper emphasis on obedience affords has great potential to help Trinitarain theology contribute to the elimination of oppression and the improvement of human relationships and to do so in a manner consistent with the biblical witness.

Thèse numérisée par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal.

Dans le contexte pastoral évangélique, il est très difficile de s’expliquer qu’un croyant puisse aimer et servir Dieu avec passion pour constater, quelques années plus tard, que la motivation qui le pousse vers Dieu a été étouffée. Bien qu’ils utilisent des termes différents, les entraineurs sportifs posent essentiellement la même question : comment inciter les personnes sous leur charge à fournir un rendement correspondant à leur potentiel. Si la motivation est le moteur du comportement, pour bien des personnes, les émotions en constituent le volant. Il semble que par nature l’humain oriente son comportement vers les émotions agréables et s’éloigne des émotions désagréables. C’est aussi vrai pour le sportif que pour le croyant. Cette étude propose une réflexion interdisciplinaire entre la théologie et la psychologie au sujet du plaisir, de la motivation et de l’action humaine, à la fois dans le sport moderne et dans la spiritualité, qui permette d’aborder notre problématique sous un nouvel éclairage. Les premiers chapitres ont pour objectifs d’identifier la rencontre entre le sport et la spiritualité (chapitre 1), de situer la problématique dans son contexte anthropologique à partir de la compréhension psychologique contemporaine de l’émotion (chapitre 2) et de la motivation (chapitre 3). Les chapitres qui suivent examinent la motivation humaine chez les sportifs à partir de la psychologie du sport (chapitre 4), avant de consulter deux théologiens protestants Jürgen Moltmann du courant libéral et John Piper, évangélique conservateur (chapitre 5) pour introduire la discussion théologique. Bien que la psychologie contemporaine ait été une discipline longtemps figée dans un paradigme darwinien ou humaniste, décriant l’empiètement de la théologie sur sa compréhension de l’humain, le chapitre 6 présente des exemples où une discussion théologique de l’humain, dépourvue de toute validité empirique, peut apporter une vision complémentaire à la psychologie contemporaine et contribuer au bien-être du sportif comme à celui du croyant. Ainsi, la contribution de la psychologie, qui est acceptable à une interprétation évangélique, peut apporter un éclaircissement sur les raisons possibles d’un changement de motivation chez le croyant dans son amour et son service envers Dieu. Le dernier chapitre se veut le prolongement de cette étude dans d’autres domaines, comme les études bibliques et le counseling auprès des croyants et des sportifs et dans le cadre de l’aumônerie militaire. / For a pastor in the Christian Evangelical tradition, it is difficult to explain how a believer, who once loved and served God with passion, finds that a few years later his motivation directed towards God has waned. Though using different terminology, coaches ask essentially the same question concerning some of their athletes. How can they incite those under their supervision to perform in light of their full potential? If motivation is the motor of behaviour, for the majority of people emotions are the steering wheel. People, by nature, tend to steer their behaviour in a direction that reinforces desirable emotions and avoids those that are undesirable. This is true for both athletes and believers. This thesis proposes a reflection on motivation as it relates to two fields of study: theology and psychology. More precisely it looks at the subject of pleasure, motivation, and human action in the areas of modern sport and spirituality, with the intention of shedding new light on our problem. The first few chapters seek to identify the common ground between sport and spirituality (chapter 1), and to situate our problem in its anthropological context by defining the basic concepts of emotion (chapter 2) and motivation (chapter 3) according to modern psychology. The chapters that follow examine motivation from an understanding of sport psychology (chapter 4) before moving on to its counterpart from a theological perspective (chapter 5) by consulting two protestant theologians: Jürgen Moltmann of a liberal persuasion and John Piper, a conservative evangelical. Though contemporary psychology is known as being a discipline fixed in a Darwinian or Humanist paradigm which disassociates from any theological understanding of human beings, chapter 6 presents examples of how a theological discussion, outside of empirical confirmation, may bring a complementary vision to contemporary psychology and contribute to the well being of both athlete and believer. The chapter also proposes how an understanding of psychology, acceptable to an evangelical interpretation, may shed light on the possible changes in motivation a believer may experience in his love and service for God. The last chapter projects the ideas of this study to other fields of interest such as Bible study, the counseling of believers and athletes, and the work of military chaplains.

O objetivo desse trabalho é rastrear a dimensão de influências específicas que moldaram Jürgen Habermas na construção da Teoria do Agir Comunicativo. Em sua obra maior, a pretensão habermasiana foi harmonizar um vasto leque de autores e teorias que uma vez trabalhados em suas especificidades convergissem para a existência de um projeto emancipador possibilitado por uma racionalidade de teor comunicativo. Com esse propósito, a atenção está voltada para o segundo volume dessa obra, em especial para o papel de Talcott Parsons e sua teoria de sistemas, a sociologia de Émile Durkheim que faculta a interação por meio da linguagem e seu entrelaçamento com Habermas por mais de uma via, as discussões metodológicas com Popper e a disputa com o positivismo, bem como a presença da teoria crítica e seus personagens diversos. / The aim of this work is to track the size of specific influences that shaped Jürgen Habermas in the construction of the Theory of Communicative Action. In his major work, the habermasion intention was to harmonize a wide range of authors and theories that treated in their particularity would be able to converge to an emancipatory project made possible by a rationality of communicative content. For this purpose, the attention is focused on the second volume of this work, especially on the role of Talcott Parsons and his systems theory, on the sociology of Émile Durkheim that provides interaction through language and its relationship with Habermas through several ways, on the methodological discussions with Popper and the dispute with positivism, and on the presence of critical theory and its many characters.

O propósito deste trabalho é examinar a constituição sistemática e histórica da teoria da linguagem de Habermas. Seguindo as indicações do próprio Habermas, segundo as quais essa teoria constitui-se como uma \"pragmática formal apoiada em Kant\", uma \"pragmática formal de herança kantiana\" ou, ainda, um \"kantismo lingüístico\", analisamos em um primeiro momento a maneira como ela promove a convergência de duas linhagens filosóficas aparentemente inconciliáveis: a filosofia kantiana e da virada lingüística. Dito de uma maneira mais específica, analisamos a maneira como ela atualiza o motivo da \"transformação pragmática da filosofia kantiana\", central para a segunda linhagem. Em seguida, comentamos a exposição da teoria da linguagem na década de 1970, quando esta assume a forma de uma teoria da competência comunicativa, associada a uma teoria da verdade como consenso. Por fim, comentamos as modificações que Habermas propõe para sua teoria sobretudo na década de 1980, mostrando como ele procura responder às críticas a que foi submetido. / The aim of this work is to examine the systematic and the historical constitution of Habermas\'s theory of language. By following his own suggestions, according to which it constitutes itself as a \"formal pragmatics tied to Kant\", a \"Kantian formal pragmatics\" or a \"linguistic Kantianism\", we analyze at the first moment how it promotes the convergence of two apparently incompatible philosophical lineages: the Kantian philosophy and the linguistic turn. More specifically, we analyze how it up dates the motive of the \"pragmatic transformation of Kantian philosophy\", fundamental for the second lineage. Later on, we comment on the presentation of the theory of language in the 1970s, when it assumes the form of a theory of communicative competence, associated to a consensus theory of truth. Finally, we comment on the modifications that Habermas proposes to his theory mainly in the 1980s, showing how he tries to respond to the criticism to which he had been exposed.