A study was conducted to measure the effects of misanthropic attitudes towards physicians on the avoidance of health care for both treatment and preventive purposes. Demographic and other attitudinal and behavioral variables were also measured. Results indicated that income, age, health status, cancer preventing and detection beliefs and health care misanthropy were all related to subjects' health care avoidance for treatment-oriented purposes. Age, sex, use of blood pressure screening tests, and objective health status were significantly associated with avoidance of health care for preventing purposes. As well, those who rated high on misanthropy measures were more likely to patronize non-traditional health care providers than traditional medical doctors. A discussion of communication theories which may provide some explanation for health care avoidance is also given.

<p>In recent years it has been generally accepted that the difficulties in the text of Shakespeare's primarily from the fact that for some reason or other Shakespeare left the play unfinished. Although critics have advanced several theories, some biographical and some dramatic, to explain why Shakespeare might have abandoned the play, none of these explanations sufficiently considers the formidable problems surrounding the dramatic presentation of misanthropy. Because the unqualified hate is an emotion which most human beings find repugnant. it is difficult to present a genuine misanthrope as a sympathetic character. For this reason the most successful dramatic of misanthropy, such as Moliere's forester or Menander's, have aimed the audience the chance to ridicule the misanthrop's even while it sympathizes Nith some of his condemnations of humanity. This tendency was particularly intense in the early seventeenth century, when the story of Timon, the arch-misanthrope, was commonly used as a cautionary example of degenerate behaviour. Shakespeare• s problems would have been further increased by the fact that misanthropy finds expression chiefly through words rather than through deeds, and thus does not easily lend itself to a theatrical presentation. Because the misanthrope normally reveals his hatred of mankind in long tirades; and because his condition is not subject to change or development, there is always the danger that a play containing such a character will degenerate into a static series of abusive debates. This danger is especially prevalent then, as in the case of Shakespeare's Timon, the misanthrope becomes the central figure.</p> <p>This thesis examines Shakespeare's depiction of misanthropy in the light of Elizabethan attitudes and practical stage considerations. In the first two chapters, I study sixteenth and early seventeenth century treatments of misanthropy and the Timon story in an effort to discover what preconceived ideas an Elizabethan audience might have brought to Shakespeare's play. I have discovered that a significant number of didactic writers vigorously condemned misanthropy, either as a beastly vice born of envy, or as a symptom of insanity. So intent were they on centering Timon's behaviour, that they frequently altered Plutarch's account of the Timon story to depict the arch-misanthrope as an active seeker after man's destruction. By contrast, the period's literary works tended to depict the misanthrope as a figure of fun, either by exposing him to direct ridicule, or by associating him physically or metaphorically with the figure of the Renaissance Fool. The third chapter introduces two non-Shakespearean stage misanthropes, Bohan from Greene's James IV, and the protagonist of the anonymous Timon Play, and examines the difficulties surrounding their presentation. In the fourth chapter I discuss Shakespeare's use of misanthropy as a character trait in several figures who are not themselves misanthropes. Chapter five and six deal with two Shakespearean comic misanthropes, Jaques from As You Like It and Thersites from Troilus and Cressida, and examine the ways in which Shakespeare has surmounted the theatrical problems outlined earlier. Finally, I offer a detailed study of Timon of Athens, to show how Shakespeare attempts to build up sympathy for Timon in the first three: acts through this behaviour of the Athenians, the comments of Flavius and Apemantus, and the Alcibiades subplot; and then counts on this buildup of sympathy to carry through to the end of the play. I conclude, however, that for all its subtlety cf construction, Timon of Athens fails as a tragedy, primarily because of the intransigence of its subject matter. I believe that my approach should prove useful to a more detailed understanding of the play's dramatic structure.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

No description available.

Cette étude de science politique s’inscrit dans le prolongement d’une thèse effectuée en littérature comparée, intitulée « Entre littérature et philosophie : l’Homme est-il un animal politique ? Physique de la misanthropie » (dirigée par M. F. Monneyron, soutenue en nov. 2013, publiée chez L’Harmattan). Dans cette analyse, il s’agissait de tenter une ébauche de conceptualisation philosophique de la haine de l’humanité en partant du théâtre de la misanthropie pour voir ensuite si les quelques résultats obtenus pouvaient s’appliquer à la littérature concentrationnaire et aux dystopies, deux autres genres littéraires qui forment le terreau naturel de doctrines et de pratiques misanthropes.Quelles sont les déterminations culturelles (mythologiques, religieuses, artistiques, médiatiques) de la misanthropie et de la misologie ? Comment apprécier leurs impacts dans le champ politique des paroles et des actes ? La misanthropie n’est-elle pas un composé de misogynie et de misandrie ? Peut-elle être érotique et créer des réseaux ? Comment se concrétise-t-elle dans les domaines du travail, de l’économie, de la technique, de la guerre, dans les problématiques afférentes aux minorités ? Et la démocratie peut-elle générer de la misanthropie ? / This sociological study draws on a comparative literature thesis entitled « Entre littérature et philosophie : l’Homme est-il un animal politique ? Physique de la misanthropie » (Between literature and philosophy: is Man a political animal? Physics of misanthropy) (defended in Nov. 2013, published by L’Harmattan). In this analysis, the aim was to try to sketch a philosophical draft of the hatred of humanity based on misanthropic theatre before trying to apply the results thus obtained to concentration camp literature and to dystopias, two other genres which form the breeding-ground of misanthropic doctrines and practices. This first thought process allowed giving form to some powerfully material aspects of misanthropy: its geography, its therianthropic productions, its infantile manifestations, its exanthropic phenomenology and its dietetics.In the present political science thesis, our aim is to identify the cultural determinations of misanthropy and misology (be it mythological, religious, artistic or in the media) before reflecting on the impact they might have on the political field of speech or of deeds. Isn’t misanthropy a compound of misogyny and misandry? Can misanthropy be erotic? How does it appear in the realms of work, economy, technique, war or in the issues relating to minorities? Eventually we will ask ourselves to which extent democracy creates misanthropy.

No description available.

Ce mémoire propose une lecture psychanalytique du Dyscolos de Ménandre. Le personnage de Cnémon, le misanthrope de la pièce, est interprété à travers certains concepts de la psychanalyse lacanienne. Nous soutenons qu’à l’origine du caractère misanthropique de Cnémon on trouve une identification avec l’imago du misanthrope, et que, par conséquence, son tropos (« caractère » ou « façon d’être ») est le produit de cette identification. De cette façon, le tropos du personnage est un élément vital de son existence et sa subjectivité. De plus, nous affirmons que derrière la – en apparence – simple misanthropie de Cnémon se cache une formation complexe qui amène directement à son désir. / This dissertation analyses Menander’s Dyscolos from a psychoanalytic perspective. The character of Cnemon, the misanthrope of the play, is interpreted through concepts drawn from Lacanian psychoanalysis. I argue that the misanthropic nature of Cnemon arises from an identification with the imago of the misanthrope, and that his tropos (‘character’ or ‘way of being’) is a product of such an identification. Thus conceived, the tropos of the character is a vital element of his existence and his subjectivity. Furthermore, I argue that behind the prima facie simple misanthropy of Cnemon lies a complex formation which leads to his desire.

De nos jours omniprésent sur la scène politique, le cynisme fut depuis son origine l’objet de polémiques. Le mode de vie scandaleux auquel il est associé pose la question de l’appartenance ou non de Diogène et des Cyniques à la philosophie. Par ailleurs, qu’a à voir le cynisme des sociétés actuelles avec celui que pratiquait Diogène ? Si des analystes situent au siècle des Lumières l’émergence d’une nouvelle conception du cynisme propre à la modernité, peu d’études historiques ont été menées sur la question. Il importe donc de retourner aux sources et de mesurer la validité de cette hypothèse. Par une étude de l’histoire du cynisme et de sa transmission, nous retraçons l’évolution des enjeux au cœur du mouvement cynique et de sa postérité, et présentons une synthèse des significations du cynisme ainsi que des tensions qu’elles comportent. De nombreuses références permettent de définir la place qu’occupe le cynisme au XVIIIe siècle. Les auteurs des Lumières se sont réappropriés l’antique sagesse de Diogène et ont voulu concilier son impudique franchise aux exigences de la sociabilité. Ainsi, l’étude de la réception du cynisme au siècle des Lumières doit tenir compte des débats moraux de l’époque. Visant l’élaboration d’une morale matérialiste sur un fondement naturel, les Philosophes ont tâché de contourner les problèmes de l’amoralisme révélés par le constat de La Mettrie selon lequel il y a inadéquation entre bonheur et vertu. Pour ce faire, Helvétius réduit la portée des déterminismes liés à l’organisation, en soulignant l’importance des facteurs externes dans la gestion des comportements ; Diderot et D’Holbach mettent l’accent sur la sociabilité afin d’assurer l’inhérence d’un fondement moral chez l’être humain, renforçant un désaccord déjà profond entre le cynisme et les idéaux des Lumières. Or, cette approche est-elle généralisée ? Ou le cynisme des Lumières est-il sujet à des variantes selon les auteurs ? Cette thèse se propose d’étudier, par l’analyse des occurrences du cynisme dans les textes de la France des Lumières, les différentes acceptions du cynisme, pour cerner les enjeux auxquels elles s’attachent. Des textes tels qu’Aihcrappih de Godart de Beauchamps, Le Diogène décent de Prémontval, le Socrate en délire de Wieland, Le cynique moderne de Cœtlogon, Le désapprobateur de Castilhon, Le cosmopolite de Fougeret de Monbron, Le paysan perverti de Restif de la Bretonne et Arlequin Diogène de Saint-Just seront pris en considération. Ils s’ajouteront à une étude du cynisme chez Diderot, chez qui la thématique parcourt l’ensemble de l’œuvre et atteint son expression la plus achevée dans Le neveu de Rameau. Par ses doutes, Diderot trouve également sa place dans l’étude des critiques des Lumières qu’ont formulées Rousseau et Sade, chez qui l’on évalue la pertinence de l’enjeu cynique. Il ressort de cette thèse que les acceptions moderne et contemporaine du cynisme comportent des distinctions conceptuelles qui nous interdisent de les amalgamer. Notre analyse du cynisme dans le contexte français des Lumières montre que l’on est, jusqu’à la fin du XVIIIe siècle, en présence d’une conception typiquement moderne du cynisme, laquelle met l’accent sur la redécouverte de l’impudeur de Diogène. Plus précisément, le cynisme se caractérise, au XVIIIe siècle, par un repli misanthrope et solitaire, lequel s’oppose à l’optimisme humaniste des Philosophes. Il est l’expression d’un rejet de la sociabilité mise de l’avant par ces derniers, en réponse au constat de corruption de la société. S’il est possible d’y situer l’émergence d’une nouvelle conception du cynisme, c’est donc seulement dans la mesure où les débats liés à l’élaboration d’une morale matérialiste, fondée en intérêt ou en sentiment, montrent que chacun de ces fondements comportent des failles, et non parce que certains auteurs des Lumières auraient entendu par cynisme ce que nous entendons aujourd’hui. Tout se passe comme si l’homme désabusé, qui tient pour acquis l’incorrigibilité de sa nature et de la société, choisissant d’en tirer profit malgré l’immoralisme que cela comporte, avait forgé le statut de cynique postmoderne. Cela rompt avec la tradition qui, jusqu’à la fin de l’époque moderne, tient le Cynique pour une figure d’un dire vrai fondamentalement désapprobateur du genre humain. Si l’impudeur poussée dans ses derniers retranchements conduit le cynique à n’éprouver aucune honte à mentir, il poursuit en cela la devise d’altération des valeurs initiée par Diogène, mais contribue désormais au maintien d’un statu quo sur l’état de corruption de la société qu’aucun cynique, ancien ou moderne, n’aurait accepté de taire. / Now pervasive on the political scene, cynicism has been contentious from its beginnings. The scandalous way of living to which it is linked raise the issue of whether or not Diogenes and the Cynics must be considered as part of the history of philosophy. Besides, what do today’s cynical practices share with those of Diogenes? Some interprets situate the emergence of a new conception of cynicism peculiar to modernity during the Enlightenment, but few historical studies have been centered on this question. It is consequently important to return to the sources of cynicism to measure this hypothesis’ validity. Through a study of cynicism’s history and its transmission we trace the evolution of the major issues at the core of cynic movement and its posterity, and present a synthesis of its significations and their internal tensions. Many references allow us to define the place that cynicism occupies within the XVIIIth century. Philosophers have tried to reclaim Diogenes’ antique wisdom while also accommodating his shameless frankness to the requirements of sociability. The study of the reception of cynicism in the XVIIIth century french Enlightenment must therefore be seen within the scope of the moral debates of that time. Those debates aim to elaborate a materialist moral on a natural basis, trying in doing so to tackle the problem of amoralism revealed by La Mettrie’s statement of the inadequacy between happiness and virtue. To do that, Helvetius reduces the scope of natural determinisms by underlining the importance of exterior factors when managing behaviors. Diderot and D’Holbach, on their part, emphasize the notion of sociability to make sure there’s a moral sense within human nature itself; this belief reinforces an already profound disagreement between the ideals of Enlightenment and cynicism. But is this approach that widespread? Or is cynicism subject to vary according to authors? This thesis proposes, by studying the occurrences of cynicism in French Enlightenment’s texts, to give an account of its different meanings in order to identify the issues that are put forward. Therefore, texts such as Aihcrappih by Godart de Beauchamps, Le Diogène décent by Prémontval, Le Socrate en délire by Wieland, Le cynique moderne by Cœtlogon, Le désapprobateur by Castilhon, Le cosmopolite by Fougeret de Monbron, Le paysan perverti by Restif de la Bretonne, and Arlequin Diogène by Saint-Just will be taken into account, as will be cynicism in Diderot’s texts; this thematic is present in his whole work, Le neveu de Rameau being the most achieved expression of it. Exposing his doubts, Diderot also finds its place in our exposition of the Enlightenment’s critics as they have been formulated by Rousseau and Sade; we’ll also analyze the relevance of their cynical stakes. The conclusion of this thesis is that the modern and contemporary meanings of cynicism entail important conceptual distinctions that forbid us to amalgamate them. Our analysis of cynicism in French Enlightenment’s texts shows that up until the end of the XVIIIth century, we are faced with a modern conception of cynicism that rests to a considerable extent upon the rediscovery of Diogene’s immodesty. More precisely, the XVIIIth century cynicism can be characterized by a solitary and misanthropic withdrawal, which opposes the Philosophers’ humanist optimism. Cynicism is therefore a rejection of sociability, a value put forward by Philosophers in response to the general state of corruption of society. In other words, if one can locate the emergence of a new form of cynicism in the Enlightenment, it’s not that some authors understood cynicism as we do now: it is because the debates linked with the construction of a materialist conception of morality, be it be founded on interests or sentiments, show that these fundaments carry some weaknesses. It is as though the disillusioned man who takes for granted the incorrigibility of nature and society and chooses to take advantage of it despite the immorality of doing so has given birth to the postmodern cynic. This is he who breaks with a tradition which, up to the modern era, considered the cynic as the figure of a blunt truth teller, disapproving of mankind. If immodesty, driven into a corner, leads the postmodern cynic to shamelessness in lying, he in a sense pursues the motto of the alteration of values initiated by Diogenes, but now contributes to maintain the corruption of society, which no cynic, may he be ancient or modern, would have accepted to silence.

La période comprise entre 1917 et 1937 marque le début de la littérature chinoise moderne. La littérature française a participé à la construction de cette nouvelle littérature, dont la modernité réside dans la négation des valeurs littéraires et sociales chinoises classiques, dans l’ouverture aux littératures étrangères et dans l’appel au respect de l’individualité. Des écrivains chinois novateurs contestent la nécessité de la société et mettent en avant la vie intérieure dans la littérature. Ils trouvent une signification à la vie dans l’amour et dans la beauté, chacun interprétant ces notions à sa manière. Cette époque est aussi celle, en Chine, de débats littéraires. Aux écrivains individualistes s’opposent des écrivains passéistes et des écrivains engagés à gauche. La confrontation entre différentes conceptions littéraires se reflète dans la réception de la littérature française. Dans les revues littéraires chinoises, des idées opposées sont formulées à propos de Ronsard, de Montaigne et de Malherbe. Des controverses agitent les milieux littéraires autour de Molière, de Rousseau ou de Baudelaire. Les divergences sur la compréhension de la littérature française résultent du fait que les critiques et les traducteurs chinois perçoivent de manière différente la relation entre l’homme et le temps, et la relation entre l’homme et la société. L’interprétation de la littérature française par les écrivains chinois s’appuie sur des réflexions sur l’homme et sur sa situation existentielle. / The period between 1917 and 1937 marks the beginning of modern Chinese literature. French literature has contributed to the construction of Chinese new literature, the modernity of which resides in the denial of traditional Chinese literary and social values, in the opening to foreign literatures, and in the call for respect of the individuality. Chinese writers with pioneering spirit contest the necessity of the society and highlight the internal life in literature. They all consider the pursuit of love and beauty as the signification of the life. However, they interpret those notions of love and beauty in different ways. This period in China is full of literary debates. Individualistic writers are opposed to backward-looking writers and left-wing writers. The confrontation between different literary conceptions is reflected in the reception of French literature in China. In Chinese literary magazines, opposed ideas are formulated on Ronsard, on Montaigne and on Malherbe. Debates concerning Molière, Rousseau and Baudelaire arose in literary circles. The difference of opinions on French literature results from the fact that Chinese critics and translators understand in different ways the relationship between mankind, the time and the society. The interpretation of French literature by Chinese writers is based on reflection on human beings and on their existential situation.