No description available.

No description available.

Zugl.: Braunschweig, Techn. Univ., Diss., 2003

Zugl.: Marburg, Univ., Diss., 2007

Thesis (Licentiat). / Includes bibliographical references (p. [119]-128).

Thesis--Tübingen, 2006 (Axiomatische Systeme im interreligiösen Dialog). / Includes bibliographical references (p. 199-207).

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Kassel/Universite Sorbonne Nouvelle-Paris III, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references and register.

Zugl.: Berlin, Humboldt-Univ., Diss., 2008

Eξέταση της χρήσης των λέξεων μῦθος, λόγος, ὅμοιος και ἐπιεικής στην Ποιητική του Αριστοτέλη. Παρουσίαση των τρόπων με τους οποίους ερμηνεύονται οι παραπάνω όροι και προσπάθεια επίλυσης των προβλημάτων που δημιουργεί η χρήση των όρων αυτών μέσα από τη διατύπωση σχετικών παρατηρήσεων. Μελέτη των σχέσεων μεταξύ των ουσιαστικών μῦθος και λόγος καθώς και προσπάθεια διευκρίνισης της σημασίας των επιθέτων ὅμοιος και ἐπιεικής στα κεφάλαια 2, 13 και 15 της Ποιητικής με βάση τη σύγκριση μεταξύ ζωγραφικής και ποίησης. / In the present study, we examine, to a greater or lesser extent, the terms mythos, logos, homoios and epieikēs as used in Aristotle’s Poetics. The aim of this short survey is primarily to present several interpretations of what Aristotle means by mythos, logos, homoios and epieikēs, proposed by some scholars, before attempting to solve the problems which the use of the aforementioned terms causes by making a few relevant remarks. Regarding the first two terms mentioned above, we inquire into the relationship between these terms as well as the relationship between the concepts which are signified by them, while, concerning the terms homoios and epieikēs, we mainly attempt to clarify the meaning of these particular adjectives in chapters 2, 13 and 15 of the Poetics, taking into account the comparison of poetry to painting, made in some interesting passages of the treatise. Our approach to the core of the problem is based, in any case, on the Aristotelian belief that, as regards the scientific thought, it is essential that one should perceive the similarities of things, which, however, differ much from each other.

A presente dissertação visa analisar os conceitos de mimesis e tragédia nas diferentes abordagens dos filósofos Platão e Aristóteles. O problema principal que condiciona a análise é a relação entre, de um lado, as obras de arte e, de outro, a realidade e os juízos morais. Esse problema é estudado através de uma análise dos principais textos nos quais os respectivos filósofos elaboraram suas reflexões sobre o tema, a saber, os livros II-III e X da República de Platão e A Poética de Aristóteles. Nessas diferentes obras vemos progressivamente a elaboração da primeira reflexão ocidental sobre a atividade artística em geral, com ênfase especial sobre a poesia trágica. A polêmica platônica em torno da mimesis e da tragédia tem por objetivo servir de pano de fundo para a compreensão da tese aristotélica de que a ação poética é distinta da ação tal como estruturada na vida, e, isso, em função da prioridade “ontológica” concedida à ação trágica com relação aos caracteres. A tese platônica relativa à arte, é de que a mimesis está na origem da perversão da alma intelectiva e racional capaz de estabelecer a verdade a partir da rememoração da Forma transcendente. Como a tragédia é a imitação da aparência visível das coisas, o que o poeta faz é absorver a coisa sensível em uma imagem parcial, isto é, um pequeno pedaço da coisa, visto que ela, quando sustentada unicamente pela posição do olhar do artista, estilhaça-se em uma multiplicidade cambiante de imagens que essa mesma coisa pode fornecer. É apenas a Forma transcendente que pode bloquear essa proliferação incessante de imagens que distorcem a imagem absoluta das virtudes e da verdade. Ao contrário, em Aristóteles, não vemos nada dessa redução da intriga (mythos) trágica aos conceitos discursivos ou aos valores estáveis éticos. Ao estabelecer o mythos como princípio formal da tragédia, Aristóteles subordina as demais partes constituintes da tragédia à ação enquanto disposição dos fatos em sistema. Assim, caracteres, discursos racionalmente articulados, espetáculo, etc., situam-se em uma posição secundária e subordinada correspondente ao princípio material, deixando-se, dessa maneira, determinar-se pela estrutura simultaneamente lógica e emocional da tragédia. Isso tem como consequência interditar a redução e a imobilização da tragédia em juízos morais enfáticos. / This thesis aims to analyze the concepts of mimesis and tragedy in the different approaches of the philosophers Plato and Aristotle. The main problem which makes the analysis is the relationship between, on one hand, works of art and, on the other, reality and moral judgments. This problem is studied through an analysis of texts in which their philosophers developed their thoughts on the subject, namely, books II-III and X of Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Poetics. In these various works gradually we build the first Western reflection on the artistic activity in general, with special emphasis on the tragic poetry. The controversy around the Platonic mimesis and tragedy aims to serve as the backdrop for understanding the Aristotelian view that the action as structured in life is distinct from the poetic action, and this, according to the priority "ontological" given the tragic action in relation to the characters. The Platonic theory on art is that mimesis is the origin of the perversion of the intellect and rational able to establish the truth from the transcendent form of remembrance. As the tragedy is the imitation of the visible appearance of things, what the poet does is absorb the sensible thing in a partial image, ie, a small piece of it, since she sustained only when the position of the artist's eye, shatters into a multiplicity changing images that that same thing can provide. In the transcendent Form is assigned the role of this interdict ceaseless proliferation of images that distort the image absolute virtues and truth. In contrast, in Aristotle, we see nothing that reduction of the tragic plot (mythos) to the concepts or discursive ethical values stable. In establishing the mythos as a formal principle of tragedy, Aristotle makes the other constituent parts of the tragedy to action as the facts available in the system. Thus, characters, speeches rationally articulated, performance, etc., lie in a secondary and subordinate position corresponding to the material principle, leaving themselves in this way be determined by the tragic structure both logical and emotional. This has the effect of banning the reduction and immobilization of the tragedy in emphatic moral judgments.