Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 1971. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 158-170). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center.

The debate on power (puissance) remains open. The literature in International Relations (IR) understands this concept as a relation, a resource, a structure, or a social element that changes the behaviour, the position, or the identity of an actor. Power is therefore understood as a "cause". Yet, at the methodological level the causal conception of power is not fruitful. This thesis offers a non-causal conceptualization of power. After reviewing the IR literature on power, it shows that power is a spectacular instant-image that emanates from the "screenal " space. This definition is based upon the under-researched variables of "time" and "space" of power. The argument relies both on an "instantaneous" temporal understanding (phenomenology, factual history) and on a "videopoliticized" spatial understanding (television screen as political space) of international affairs.

Of the making of comparative analyses of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, there is no end. However, this project pursues a unique trajectory in its assumption that both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche devoted significant attention to the issue of power as it pertained to life in nineteenth-century Christendom. Although Nietzsche's concept of power has been vigorously examined since the late 1800s, scholars have only recently begun to explore thoroughly the social and political implications of Kierkegaard's thought. While certain treatments accomplish this by isolating their 'political thought' from their (a)theological presuppositions or exhibit a tendency to politicize Kierkegaard's theology, I seek to demonstrate how the political dimensions of their thought flows from the (a)theological core of their respective Weltanschauungen. By attempting to formulate Kierkegaard's concept of power, I argue that, not only do the two thinkers respond to similar factors and identify similar crises in the waning authority of Christendom, but Kierkegaard also effectively anticipates and critiques Nietzsche's position. The body of the project is divided into three main sections. The first section will present a summary of Nietzsche's cosmology, anthropology, and concept of power. The next section will articulate Kierkegaard's cosmology and anthropology before reconstructing his concept of power from diverse references throughout the pseudonymous authorship, religious writings, journals, and personal papers. The final section will attempt to compare and contrast the two perspectives under the auspices of a dialogical exchange. The conclusion will present the strengths and weaknesses of both positions and outline their implications and relevance for broader contemporary discourse on issues of power. This project concludes that Kierkegaard's concept of power successfully withstands the challenges which Nietzsche's perspective raises, while exposing the precarious foundations upon which the latter is based. In particular, Kierkegaard demonstrates that the designations of 'master power' and 'slave power' are mythological constructs.

No description available.

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 2017 / Powers theory is the view that some ontic or sparse properties are essentially powerful in the sense that they are “for” or “directed toward” certain manifestations. In this thesis, I consider in detail the idea that the nature of unmanifested dispositions generates serious difficulties for powers theory. I argue that extant arguments based on this idea do not succeed but also that a novel argument based on the idea does raise significant problems for powers theory and, especially, for dispositional essentialism – the version of powers theory on which some powers are fundamental natural properties. In the first two chapters, I argue that on the most charitable interpretation the most plausible extant arguments from unmanifested dispositions against powers theory collapse into a single basic argument. The putative problem that this argument raises for powers theory is that some powers stand in a relation with manifestations that do not actually exist. In chapter three, I develop an argument from unmanifested dispositions that does not depend on this idea. According to this argument, unmanifested dispositions commit the powers theorist to the problematic idea that entities that do not actually exist have a sort of ontological priority over entities that actually exist. In chapter four, I argue that the arguments discussed in the first three chapters are seriously undermined by the fact that the “directedness” of a power instance need involve only the possibility of that power instance’s token manifestation and not the token manifestation itself. In chapters five and six, I use Kit Fine’s conception of ontological dependence to reformulate the argument developed in chapter three so that it gets around this difficulty. I argue that this argument provides good grounds to think that the dispositional essentialist is committed to the claim that unrealised possibilities have a significant sort of explanatory priority over concrete reality. This result is problematic for the dispositional essentialist, as this claim is strongly counterintuitive, entails the falsity of significant forms of ontological naturalism, and is inconsistent with important parts of the standard motivation for dispositional essentialism. / XL2018

Thesis (B.A.)--Haverford College, Dept. of Philosophy, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (PhDSoSc)--University of South Australia, 2002.

Thesis (M. S.)--International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009. / Committee Chair: Birchfield, Vicki; Committee Member: Stulberg, Adam; Committee Member: Weber, Katja.

Thesis (M.A.), English--University of Central Oklahoma, 2010. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 92-95).

This study explores the historical content of Dante’s Inferno by confronting his representations of local power both with those of his contemporaries and of modern historiography. It shows the originality and nuance of Dante’s vision of local power, in particular the concept of tyranny and the rise of signoria in the cities of the north eastern part of Italy and of Romagna. The final chapter attends to Dante’s response to the judicial concept of family co-responsibility. Dante’s representation of local power is examined by focusing on Ezzelino da Romano and Obizzo II d’Este in Inferno 12, Guido da Montefeltro in Inferno 27 and Ugolino della Gherardesca in Inferno 32 and 33.