The purpose of this thesis is to examine Holocaust denial and professional historiography. Although much has been written about both subjects, the issue of distinguishing between them seems to have been largely ignored. They are, however, linked because of the way deniers conduct their business: in the attempt to make credible the claim that the Holocaust never happened, deniers mimic the styles and conventions traditionally employed by professional historians. Using footnotes and writing in the third person, deniers hope to get the surface right and make their readers believe their work. But appearances are deceiving, for deniers do not do history and are not historians. Theirs is a claim that defies morality and any sense of historical reality. Professional historians, while undoubtedly recognizing the moral bankruptcy of deniers and certainly not accepting their work as historical writing, have failed to make evident enough that deniers are not historians. Moreover, those who have attempted to refute deniers and not often have these been professional historians have usually done so on the basis of evidence: they have gone back to the data and shown how deniers have falsified or misrepresented it. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with that method, my own tack is different. At the same time as I take for granted the fact that deniers are not historians, what I aim to do is show how that is the case. Thus, this is partly a way beyond factual analysis, and partly the framework for factual refutation should it ever become necessary. Until deniers do history, however, evidence-based refutation is not necessary, and this very recognition should be implicit and explicit in any examination of Holocaust denial. My hope is to make this clear in three distinct but nevertheless related chapters. The first is about the evolution of Holocaust denial and how deniers have, especially in recent years, attempted to convey the appearance of legitimate scholarship. In the second, I focus on competing narratives as part of my effort to show that the appearance of denial literature is just part of deniers mode of deception. There is a major difference between competing narratives that are compatible historical narratives vs. historical narratives and between competing narratives that are incompatible historical narratives vs. denial literature. Drawing comparisons between the two should make more evident the genre-specific characteristics of history-writing and Holocaust denial. They are not, and can never be, the same, no matter how much deniers may try to convince us otherwise. But what to do about this dichotomy? That question is largely the basis for my third chapter. It is my contention that turning to the evidence cannot be the only method by which to distinguish between history and denial. More is required to convince others of the falsity of deniers claims, and for me this is a larger issue, one that must take into account not just how but also why we write about the past. Lost is the sense that there is an ethical component to history-writing, specifically as this relates to events like the Holocaust, the issues surrounding which seem to require no less than a general notion of right-wrong. Judging between accounts thereby takes on a more meaningful role in the sense that focusing solely on issues of true-false tends to minimize the importance of the Holocaust as lesson. So, too, I think, does this lend itself rather easily to the disconcerting placement of post-modernism/relativism and Holocaust denial under the same sign. That is, Holocaust denial is untrue, and because post-modernists are often condemned precisely because they question the very notions of truth and objectivity in historical writing, deniers and post-modernists are often linked. However, such a narrow focus risks missing the forest for the trees. Instead of looking solely at how post-modernism threatens the truth, history would be better served through the use of post-modern concepts in order to make more evident the ethical component of the discipline of history. In fact, this is what a number of scholars from other disciplines have suggested, for it is in the meaning of the Holocaust the Holocaust as lesson that we have the best prevention against denial. Our discipline, after all, is comprised of much more than facts. The more effectively we impart this to students and readers, the better the chance they will understand who historians really are, what they really do, and why it is important. This alone should make clearer the idea that deniers are not historians, and that what they say is wrong on much more than just a factual level.

Friedrich Nietzsche, 100 years after his death, remains a controversial figure in philosophy. Much of this controversy stems from Nietzsche's view of truth, which seems superficially hopelessly contradictory, vacillating between relativism and denial of truth on the one hand, and praise for science and hard truths on the other. Thus, any person wanting to defend Nietzsche's positive philosophy must first make sense of his epistemology. The solution to this puzzle regarding Nietzsche's theory of truth is the realization that Nietzsche changes his view on truth. Much like Wittgenstien, Nietzsche had an early and a late period in his epistemic views, and a middle period where he is struggling with two very different, incompatible views. The late view of truth is surprisingly straightforward: Nietzsche can be seen as an early pragmatist. Once we have a coherent truth theory, we can then start to conclude some of the more contentious arguments in Nietzsche's philosophy, such as: what is the Will to Power, and how does Nietzsche's view of truth interact with his criticism of morality? This thesis will trace the development of the former and endeavor to answer some of the latter.

The purpose of this thesis is to examine Holocaust denial and professional historiography. Although much has been written about both subjects, the issue of distinguishing between them seems to have been largely ignored. They are, however, linked because of the way deniers conduct their business: in the attempt to make credible the claim that the Holocaust never happened, deniers mimic the styles and conventions traditionally employed by professional historians. Using footnotes and writing in the third person, deniers hope to get the surface right and make their readers believe their work. But appearances are deceiving, for deniers do not do history and are not historians. Theirs is a claim that defies morality and any sense of historical reality. Professional historians, while undoubtedly recognizing the moral bankruptcy of deniers and certainly not accepting their work as historical writing, have failed to make evident enough that deniers are not historians. Moreover, those who have attempted to refute deniers and not often have these been professional historians have usually done so on the basis of evidence: they have gone back to the data and shown how deniers have falsified or misrepresented it. While there is nothing necessarily wrong with that method, my own tack is different. At the same time as I take for granted the fact that deniers are not historians, what I aim to do is show how that is the case. Thus, this is partly a way beyond factual analysis, and partly the framework for factual refutation should it ever become necessary. Until deniers do history, however, evidence-based refutation is not necessary, and this very recognition should be implicit and explicit in any examination of Holocaust denial. My hope is to make this clear in three distinct but nevertheless related chapters. The first is about the evolution of Holocaust denial and how deniers have, especially in recent years, attempted to convey the appearance of legitimate scholarship. In the second, I focus on competing narratives as part of my effort to show that the appearance of denial literature is just part of deniers mode of deception. There is a major difference between competing narratives that are compatible historical narratives vs. historical narratives and between competing narratives that are incompatible historical narratives vs. denial literature. Drawing comparisons between the two should make more evident the genre-specific characteristics of history-writing and Holocaust denial. They are not, and can never be, the same, no matter how much deniers may try to convince us otherwise. But what to do about this dichotomy? That question is largely the basis for my third chapter. It is my contention that turning to the evidence cannot be the only method by which to distinguish between history and denial. More is required to convince others of the falsity of deniers claims, and for me this is a larger issue, one that must take into account not just how but also why we write about the past. Lost is the sense that there is an ethical component to history-writing, specifically as this relates to events like the Holocaust, the issues surrounding which seem to require no less than a general notion of right-wrong. Judging between accounts thereby takes on a more meaningful role in the sense that focusing solely on issues of true-false tends to minimize the importance of the Holocaust as lesson. So, too, I think, does this lend itself rather easily to the disconcerting placement of post-modernism/relativism and Holocaust denial under the same sign. That is, Holocaust denial is untrue, and because post-modernists are often condemned precisely because they question the very notions of truth and objectivity in historical writing, deniers and post-modernists are often linked. However, such a narrow focus risks missing the forest for the trees. Instead of looking solely at how post-modernism threatens the truth, history would be better served through the use of post-modern concepts in order to make more evident the ethical component of the discipline of history. In fact, this is what a number of scholars from other disciplines have suggested, for it is in the meaning of the Holocaust the Holocaust as lesson that we have the best prevention against denial. Our discipline, after all, is comprised of much more than facts. The more effectively we impart this to students and readers, the better the chance they will understand who historians really are, what they really do, and why it is important. This alone should make clearer the idea that deniers are not historians, and that what they say is wrong on much more than just a factual level.

Friedrich Nietzsche, 100 years after his death, remains a controversial figure in philosophy. Much of this controversy stems from Nietzsche's view of truth, which seems superficially hopelessly contradictory, vacillating between relativism and denial of truth on the one hand, and praise for science and hard truths on the other. Thus, any person wanting to defend Nietzsche's positive philosophy must first make sense of his epistemology. The solution to this puzzle regarding Nietzsche's theory of truth is the realization that Nietzsche changes his view on truth. Much like Wittgenstien, Nietzsche had an early and a late period in his epistemic views, and a middle period where he is struggling with two very different, incompatible views. The late view of truth is surprisingly straightforward: Nietzsche can be seen as an early pragmatist. Once we have a coherent truth theory, we can then start to conclude some of the more contentious arguments in Nietzsche's philosophy, such as: what is the Will to Power, and how does Nietzsche's view of truth interact with his criticism of morality? This thesis will trace the development of the former and endeavor to answer some of the latter.

This thesis aims to examine the transformations that took place in architectural theory and practice in Turkey in the 1980s, and the role of architectural publications in this context, by analyzing the framework that was drawn by the Mimarlik journal. The analysis of Mimarlik is undertaken in relation to architectural developments in the world and in Turkey, and foreign and local counterparts of the journal. The shifting stances of the journal, as the publication of the Chamber of Architects of Turkey, are studied with reference to the distribution of theoretical and practical content included in it and its changing editors and committees. Architects, buildings, architectural activities, and publications of the decade are scrutinized in order to evaluate the journal&lsquo / s approach towards architectural theory and practice. The thesis attempts to situate Mimarlik in the context of contemporary architectural developments of the 1980s. It argues the journal&lsquo / s role in

The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism. / Disertacijos tikslas yra išnagrinėti sąveikas tarp postkomunizmo įvykio prigimties ir demokratinės politiškumo prigimties. Darbe yra nagrinėjamos trejopos sąveikos: postkomunizmo ir istorizmo santykis; postkomunizmo, liberalizmo ir postmodernizmo santykis; vienovės ir pliuralumo santykis. Specifinei postkomunizmo būklės analizei taikomos postfundacionalizmo filosofijos idėjos. Postkomunizmas nagrinėjamas ne pabrėžiant liberalios modernizacijos turinį (kaip tranzitologinėse koncepcijose), bet analizuojant demokratinės transformacijos sąlygas ir galimybes. Postkomunizmo tapatybė formuojasi kaip hibridinis trijų sudedamųjų dalių – komunizmo, liberalizmo ir postmodernizmo – darinys. Liberalizmo ir postmodernizmo alter ego yra asimiliuojami universalistinėje draugo/draugo asociacijoje, kuri pakeičia išorinę draugo/priešo skirtį, nurodančią politiškumo prigimtį. Diferencinės politikos kilmės problema yra nauja, aktuali ir tęstinė postkomunizmo būklės problema. Postkomunizmas linkęs pamiršti posttotalitarizmo komponentą (jeigu išeinama iš komunizmo, tai išeinama ir iš totalitarizmo) ir siekia prisišlieti prie postliberalizmo tendencijų. Demokratinio pliuralizmo idėją asimiliuoja dominuojanti liberalios pliuralizacijos tendencija.

Disertacijos tikslas yra išnagrinėti sąveikas tarp postkomunizmo įvykio prigimties ir demokratinės politiškumo prigimties. Darbe yra nagrinėjamos trejopos sąveikos: postkomunizmo ir istorizmo santykis; postkomunizmo, liberalizmo ir postmodernizmo santykis; vienovės ir pliuralumo santykis. Specifinei postkomunizmo būklės analizei taikomos postfundacionalizmo filosofijos idėjos. Postkomunizmas nagrinėjamas ne pabrėžiant liberalios modernizacijos turinį (kaip tranzitologinėse koncepcijose), bet analizuojant demokratinės transformacijos sąlygas ir galimybes. Postkomunizmo tapatybė formuojasi kaip hibridinis trijų sudedamųjų dalių – komunizmo, liberalizmo ir postmodernizmo – darinys. Liberalizmo ir postmodernizmo alter ego yra asimiliuojami universalistinėje draugo/draugo asociacijoje, kuri pakeičia išorinę draugo/priešo skirtį, nurodančią politiškumo prigimtį. Diferencinės politikos kilmės problema yra nauja, aktuali ir tęstinė postkomunizmo būklės problema. Postkomunizmas linkęs pamiršti posttotalitarizmo komponentą (jeigu išeinama iš komunizmo, tai išeinama ir iš totalitarizmo) ir siekia prisišlieti prie postliberalizmo tendencijų. Demokratinio pliuralizmo idėją asimiliuoja dominuojanti liberalios pliuralizacijos tendencija. / The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the relationship between the event of post-communism and the democratic nature of the political. Three main tendencies of post-communist condition are analyzed: the relationship between post-communism and historicism; the interaction between post-communism, liberalism and postmodernism; the relationship between unitarism and pluralism. The fundamental assumption of the analysis is the significance of post-foundational political thought for the understanding of post-communism. Post-communism is analyzed not as linear liberal modernization, but as democratic transformation. Post-communism is the hybrid condition that includes the alter egos of communism, liberalism and postmodernism. Post-communism assimilates the potential alter egos of liberalism and postmodernism and therefore transforms the distinction of friend/enemy to the criterion of friend/friend, which ignores the nature of the political. Condition of post-communism requires not the eradication of differencies, but self-reflection of the differential nature of the political. The task of new democracy of post-communism is to articulate the possibility of democratic pluralistic politics under post-totalitarian conditions. However, post-communism is reluctant to accept the dimension of post-totalitarianism and tries to converge with universal post-liberalism. Dominating liberal pluralism assimilates democratic pluralism which becomes democratic procedural minimalism.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:23:36Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2009-09-18Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T19:09:32Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 lima_lvf_me_mar.pdf: 1208584 bytes, checksum: e3b160cd995841cdc725134f21177cce (MD5) / Investigamos três obras cinematográficas da ficção científica produzidas nos Estados Unidos da América: Homem Bicentenário (EUA, 1999), Inteligência Artificial (EUA, 2001) e Eu, Robô (EUA, 2004), todas obras da indústria cultural cujas narrativas num contexto denominado pós-modernista tematizam a relação entre humano e pós-humano. O cinema é o núcleo central do nosso objeto; observaremos os aspectos ideológicos impressos nas diegeses e nos elementos que as compõem (imagens, planos, seqüências, diálogos, montagem), isto é, a sua construção estética e a moral dela resultante. Também observaremos os usos das novas tecnologias e como seu discurso é trabalhado nestas narrativas, com o intuito de apreender as diferenças entre os discursos científicos e aqueles transmitidos ao público espectador da cultura de massa. Tomamos esses filmes devido a sua notoriedade comercial e apelo popular o que lhes conferem maior amplitude na questão dos mecanismos de manipulação, diversão e degradação, reconhecidamente atuantes na cultura de massa e na mídia. Metodologicamente, discutimos os fundamentos sociais do discurso científico nos filmes, captar suas alegorias, a relação do homem com a tecnologia e as saídas para os conflitos no plano diegético e com isso, apontar o que se apresenta como reificação e utopia nessas obras de cultura. / We investigated three cinematograph works of scientific fiction producted in the United States of America: Bicentennial Man (USA,1999), Artificial Intelligence, (USA,2001) and I, Robot (USA, 2004), all the cultural industry works whose narratives that are in a context denominated post- modernist systematize the relationship between human and post-human. The cinema is the central nucleus of our object; we observed the ideological aspects that are present in the fictional universe of the cinema and in the elements that compose this fictional universe. (images, plans, sequences, dialogs, montages), what is its esthetic construction and the moral originated from this construction that is contained in the structure of each movie. We also observed the uses of the new technologies and how the discourse of this technologies is worked out in these narratives, aiming the apprehension of the differences between the scientific discourses and those that are transmitted to the spectator public of the mass culture. We chose these movies on account of its commercial notoriety and the popular appeal that give them more amplitude in the matters of the manipulation mechanisms, entertainment and degradation recognized as actives in the mass culture and in the media. Methodologically, we discussed the socials fundaments of the scientific discourses in the movies and we tried to identify through the cinematographic narrator his allegories, the relation of the man with the technology and the solutions to the conflicts presented in the movies. Therefore, we aimed to contribute to an sociological analyses of the presented works.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:26:52Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2010-06-25Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T19:14:15Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 yatsu_rk_me_assis.pdf: 641166 bytes, checksum: 5d7b2ce790cd209f94655f0110c76b1b (MD5) / O presente trabalho apresenta uma análise do romance Noites no circo (1984), da autora inglesa Angela Carter, abordando principalmente a personagem central, Fevvers. No primeiro capítulo tratamos brevemente da vida e obra da autora, e também da fortuna crítica produzida sobre o romance. Ainda neste primeiro capítulo, procuramos analisar algumas das nomenclaturas ligadas à produção carteriana, como realismo mágico, pósmodernismo e feminismo, tendo como referência alguns estudos já realizados. No segundo capítulo, utilizamos teorias acerca da simbologia. O interesse é analisar alguns dos símbolos que aparecem no romance e são relevantes na leitura, pois deixam subentendidos alguns dos sentidos que a autora deseja transmitir. No terceiro capítulo, o interesse é demonstrar que nesta extensa narrativa de Angela Carter, as representações estão presentes e produzem o clima de espetáculo, fazendo do romance um verdadeiro circo / The present work presents an analysis of the novel Nights at the circus (1984), by the English writer Angela Carter, above all approaching the main character, Fevvers. In the first chapter we briefly deal with the writer´s life and work, and also with the critical works produced about the novel. Still in this chapter, we try to analyze some of the terminology related to Carter´s production, such as magic realism, post-modernism and feminism, taking as reference studies already done. In the second chapter, we use theories about symbology. The interest is to analyze some of the symbols which appear in the novel and are important during the reading because they let implicit some of the meanings that the author wants to transmit. In the third chapter the interest is to demonstrate that in this long Carterian narrative the representations are present and produce the spectacle mood, turning the novel into a real circus

Cette étude se propose de réfléchir la ou les formes prises par un théâtre politique sur les territoires français et allemand des années 1995 à 2015. L'enjeu est d'évaluer les stratégies esthétiques développées par les artistes afin de renouveler les modalités du politique au théâtre, alors que l'édifice idéologique et théorique qui soutenait jusqu'alors une telle dimension semble révolu. La reprise dans notre titre de l'assertion paradoxale du théoricien allemand Hans-Thies Lehmann – une « "interruption" du politique dans le champ du théâtre politique contemporain » – permet d'introduire et de circonscrire les grands axes de cette problématique. Est-ce que l'interruption apparente et rhétorique du politique dans le discours des artistes est à lire comme une fin du politique ou au contraire comme une suspension momentanée de ses catégories, constituant une stratégie destinée à contourner la situation postmoderne d'aporie critique ? Cette question se propose d'être appréhendée par le biais de l'analyse transversale des différents discours artistiques. Le terme de discours comprend aussi bien les représentations que les propos méta-artistiques et les entretiens. La méthode permet de dépasser les oppositions apparentes au profit d'une approche prenant en compte toute la complexité et les contradictions du problème. Ces oppositions prennent bien souvent la forme, dans les propos des artistes, d'un refus de se voir affilier à un théâtre politique historique alors que les spectacles en prolongent et en renouvellent paradoxalement les modalités esthétiques. / The present study aims at observing the form or forms taken by a political theatre in France and Germany in the period between 1995 and 2015. At stake is an evaluation of the aesthetic strategies developed by artists so as to renew the ways of representing politics in the theatre when the ideological and theoretical structures which, until then, underpinned this dimension seem to have collapsed. The title’s quote of the German academic Hans-Thies Lehmann’s paradoxical assertion: an “interruption of politics in the contemporary political theatre” introduces and defines the limits of the domain under scrutiny. Is the illusory and rhetorical interruption of politics in the artists’ discourse to be understood as the end for the theme or, on the contrary, as a momentary suspension of its categories aiming at working around the post-modern situation of political aporia ? We propose to address the question by means of a transversal analysis of different artistic discourses. In the notion of discourse we intend to include the plays as well as meta-artistic declarations and interviews. This method aims at overcoming the apparent oppositions in order to find a way to take into account the complexities and contradictions of the problem. These oppositions often take the form, in the artists’ words, of a refusal to be affiliated to a historical political theatre whereas, paradoxically, the plays prolong and rejuvenate the aesthetic conventions of this theatre.