No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

A presente pesquisa dedica-se ao estudo da forma de tragédia moderna utilizada pelo dramaturgo americano, Arthur Miller, em The Crucible [As Feiticeiras de Salém] (1953) e A View From the Bridge [Panorama Visto da Ponte] (versão de dois atos, de 1956), apoiando-se na obra Tragédia Moderna do crítico inglês, Raymond Williams, e concentrando-se no texto teatral, ou seja, na dramaturgia, o que não inclui análise de montagens. O pressuposto teórico do presente trabalho é a crítica histórica e dialética que considera o conteúdo histórico determinante dos aspectos formais. No primeiro capítulo, discute-se o que é tragédia moderna, quais as fontes da tragédia moderna e da tragédia milleriana, qual o conceito de tragédia para Arthur Miller, por que ele escolheu a tragédia para tratar das questões figuradas nas duas peças e quais os recursos formais que ele utiliza. A partir daí, demonstra-se que ambas as peças possuem características que mesclam peculiaridades da tragédia grega com a tragédia moderna, as quais dão forma a um tipo de dramaturgia que Raymond Williams denomina tragédia liberal, cuja principal marca é mostrar e discutir a luta do homem contra sua sociedade. Com essas peças Arthur Miller \"atualiza\" a forma da tragédia para assim restaurar a idéia que está por trás dela, isto é, a idéia de causação, de conectividade. No segundo capítulo, parte-se dessa base central de conectividade para analisar como a forma escolhida por Miller reflete esse conceito; assim, ele constrói suas peças demonstrando como, em suas estruturas, as causas se conectam com seus efeitos, como as ações individuais afetam o todo, como a vida particular influi na vida pública, e vice-versa, e demonstrando, além disso, uma preocupação não-maniqueísta na construção das personagens e dos fatos. Avistamos esses traços nas duas peças de Miller principalmente devido à inserção de um narrador, que chamamos de \"explícito\" em The Crucible e \"implícito\" em A View from the Bridge, cujas funções são também analisadas. No terceiro capítulo, o que se destaca das tragédias de Miller é o fato de que os conteúdos de suas obras são determinados historicamente; sendo assim, as duas peças são exploradas à luz do macartismo para que se verifique como os paralelos podem ser compreendidos e o que eles dizem sobre o senso de coletividade. / Based on the assumption that the formal choice of the artist reveals the content of his work, and vice-versa, the present research studies the form of modern tragedy as it is applied to the text of The Crucible (1953) and A View from the Bridge (the two-act version of 1956) by Arthur Miller. For this purpose, this work draws on Raymond Williams\' conception of modern tragedy. Thus, the first chapter demonstrates that both plays combine certain characteristics which can be found in Greek tragedy, and some others that are present in the modern tragedy to form a specific kind of tragedy that Raymond Williams calls liberal tragedy; the main purpose of a liberal tragedy, according to Williams, is to show and discuss that the man is constantly struggling against his society. We have noticed that Arthur Miller relies on this assumption of the modern tragedy to rescue the idea of causation and connectedness. Having the idea of connectedness in mind, in the second chapter, we analyze the way Miller develops these plays with the preoccupation of showing the relatedness of causes and effects, which means to show how the individual acts are related to the whole society, and how the private life influences in the public one, and vice-versa. We have also observed a certain concern in depicting characters and facts taking into consideration that the truth is relative, which can be noted by the presence of what we call an \"implicit narrator\" (in The Crucible) and an \"explicit narrator\" (in A View from the Bridge). The presence of these narrators, besides having the function of establishing a complicity between characters and audience, also ensures a distancing voice, epic par excellence, which challenges the commonly held notions about the topics discussed in the plays. In the third chapter, relying on the notion that Miller\'s tragedies are historically determined, we analyze the parallels between the two plays and the historical moment in the United States which is commonly called McCarthyism, and what it represents for the sense of community explored by the author in both plays.

Notre idée principale est d’essayer de comprendre la pensée politique de Raymond Aron à partir de sa théorie sur l’histoire. Pour nous, derrière sa proclamation d’une politique raisonnable ou progressive existe un support épistémologique, à savoir la proposition d’un déterminisme de probabilité concernant la vérité historique, proposition qui ne peut se constituer que dans le cadre d’une critique de la philosophie spéculative de l’histoire. Dans l’Introduction à la philosophie de l’histoire, Aron tente de surmonter l’antinomie du devenir humain entre unité totale du modèle hégélien-marxiste et pluralité irréductible du modèle d’Oswald Spengler, mais sans tomber dans le piège du relativisme absolu. Plus précisément, sa propre critique de la philosophie de l’histoire se constitue à double niveau : au niveau méthodologique, il essaye de réinterpréter la relation entre la compréhension et l’explication pour établir l’objectivité historique. Et au niveau ontologique, pour éviter une conclusion relativiste, il réintroduit l’idée d’une société humanisée au sens kantien, mais d’une manière moins téléologique et plus régulatrice. Dans le domaine politique, corrélativement, il rejette tout type de messianisme garanti d’avance, car, à ses yeux, ce n’est que par choix et décision instantanée que l’homme fait son histoire, tout en gardant l’espoir de la liberté. Et son libéralisme se différencie du libéralisme purement économique et apparaît à la fois conservateur vis-à-vis de la tradition et essentiellement politique. Notre recherche consistera à montrer comment s’est élaboré, en surmontant les philosophies dogmatiques de l’histoire, ce déterminisme de probabilité ; comment il a su appliquer cette conviction historique à son analyse de la société, notamment en tant que libérale et quel rôle doit jouer, selon lui, un intellectuel face à la politique ; nous reprendrons ensuite sa critique vis-à-vis des intellectuels français, pour l’appliquer au débat entre les intellectuels chinois. / Our main intention is to present the philosophical background of Raymond Aron’s political point of view by way of his theory on historical philosophy. For us, behind his proclamation of a reasonable politics, exists an epistemological support, known as determinism of probability as far as the historical truth is concerned. And this determinism is only possible when it is based on a critique of the speculative philosophy of history. In the book named introduction to a philosophy of history, Aron tries to surpass the antinomy of historical becoming, between total unity of the hegelian-marxiste model and the irreducible plurality of the Oswald Spengler model, and meanwhile without falling into an absolute relativism. More precisely, the historical philosophy of Raymond Aron is dedicated to a two-dimensional constitution. On the epistemological level, he tries to reinterpret the relation between explication and comprehension, by way of circle between these two methods, and aim to, in the end, establish the limit of historical objectivity by introducing a certain determinism of probability; on the ontological level, in order to avoid the relativist conclusion, he keeps the Kantian notion of truth, but in a less teleological and more regulative sense. Correlatively, in the domain of politics, he declines all kind of Messianism who claims to possess in advance the historical truth, because for him, it is only via instant choice and decision based on the liberty that can man creates his history. His liberalism essentially political is different from the neoliberalism, and maintains a conservative attitude towards the tradition. Generally speaking, our research consists of presenting how this determinism of probability is possible, and how Aron applies this philosophical point of view to the political practice, and according to him, what should an intellectual do facing the politics. And we will also discuss his critiques to the idealism of the french intellectual, in order to analyze the debate among the chinese intellectual. / 本文旨在从雷蒙•阿隆的历史观入手来了解其政治观点形成的背景。我们认为，他在政治上主张的一种“合理的政治观”始终是基于他的历史哲学观，即“或然决定论”展开的，而后者，在其博士论文《历史哲学批判导论》一书中得到了很好的阐明。从破除历史理性的二律背反开始，即黑格尔-马克思传统的作为统一体的历史观和以斯宾格勒为代表的不可还原的多样性的历史观，阿隆构建起一种既超越实证主义，又不陷入相对主义（通过引入康德意义上的“真理”概念）的或然决定论。具体言之，他的历史哲学批判基于一种双层面的建构，一方面，在认识论层面，他试图重新阐释说明和理解的关系来维护历史的客观性；在形而上学层面，为了避免相对主义的结论，他引入了康德意义上的“人道主义社会”的概念，并将其视为一种更少目的性而更多调节性的概念。就政治领域而言，与此相对应的，他拒斥任何先定的救世福音说，并且坚信人类的历史只能由每个自由的个体的当下的选择和决定中被创造。他所主张的自由主义，不同于经济自由主义，一方面对传统秉持保守的态度，另一方面，本质上又是一种政治的自由主义。我们的研究将从阿隆对传统的教条的历史哲学的批判起步，揭示其“或然决定论”的观点的形成过程；及其历史观如何影响其政治观的过程，尤其反映于他作为一名知识分子，对历史的态度问题；我们也将讨论他对法国知识分子弊病的批判，并且将这一批判引入对中国知识分子的讨论当中。

Essayiste mondialement connu, éditorialiste dans de grands hebdomadaires français, agrégé de philosophie, Jean-François Revel a accompagné la vie intellectuelle française et internationale de la seconde moitié du XXe siècle. Né le 19 janvier 1924 à Marseille, décédé le 30 avril 2006, il se caractérise par un itinéraire intellectuel qui s’ancre profondément dans son temps. Il l’est comme tous les penseurs de son siècle, certes, mais sans doute encore davantage, car il est un penseur peu théoricien, avant tout soucieux des faits. Il compose son argumentaire libéral et l’emploie dans la grande presse et dans ses essais à grand succès, au service de la défense d’une démocratie qu’il juge menacée de l’intérieur et de l’extérieur.Libéral impénitent, Revel prend résolument la défense de la démocratie libérale contre le totalitarisme communiste et le socialisme marxiste. Polémiste, il critique durement la Constitution de la Ve République, le « grand dessein » du général de Gaulle, l’Union de la gauche entre socialistes et communistes et l’antiaméricanisme des Français. Sceptique popperien, il tente de dégager les ressorts intellectuels de ce qu’il appelle la « tentation totalitaire » et de la paralysie des démocraties occidentales confrontées aux ambitions géostratégiques de l’URSS.Publiciste à la manière des écrivains du XIXe siècle, témoin des grands défis politiques, économiques, sociaux et idéologiques du XXe siècle, sentinelle isolée du libéralisme au temps du marxisme triomphant, ardent défenseur de la démocratie libérale si combattue et malmenée par les fascismes et les totalitarismes nazi et communiste, Revel aura donc occupé une place à la fois centrale et marginale dans l’histoire des idées en France.En outre, Revel est resté, en vérité, et malgré une ferme empreinte anglo-saxonne, un libéral démocrate français, certain de son ancrage à gauche en dépit des controverses le visant, affronté à une gauche française profondément marxisée et une droite gaulliste et post-gaulliste très nettement hostile au libéralisme. Pour lui, l’adhésion au libéralisme intégral n’est pas une question de dogme, mais d’expérience : le libéralisme politique assure la paix civile, l’équilibre des pouvoirs et la participation des citoyens à la vie politique ; le libéralisme économique garantit mieux que l’interventionnisme étatique l’efficacité et la justice sociale.Penseur mineur par rapport à Aron ou Hayek, essayiste et polémiste, Revel a, depuis son décès, été plongé dans un relatif confinement. Son rôle de diffuseur des idées libérales dans la grande presse – plutôt que dans les cercles universitaires – n’est que rarement souligné dans les travaux sur le libéralisme au XXe siècle. L’objet de ce travail est de tenter de remédier modestement à ce confinement. / Writer all over the world, columnist in top French weeklies, graduated in philosophy, Jean-François Revel went through the international and French intellectual life from the end of the war on. Born on July 19, 1924, Marseilles, passed away on April 30, 2006, his intellectual profile was deeply rooted in his time. So were his intellectual contempories in this century, but undoudtedly still more, because his thought was little theoritical, based on facts before all. His liberal reasoning was used in the largest press and in his best-selling books at the service of democracy, that he sees as threatened internally and externally.Publicist in the way of the 19th century-writers, watchman of prominent political, economic, social and ideological challenges in the last century, isolated sentinel of liberalism in the period of triumphant Marxism, fierce champion of liberal democracy that was fought by fascisms and Nazi and Communist totalitarianisms, Revel played a role both central and marginal in the history of ideas in France.Moreover, Revel remained, and in spite of a real Anglo-Saxon stance, a French liberal democrat, convinced of being left-winger even though he was the target of controversies, faced with both a deeply Marxised French Left and a clearly antiliberal Gaullist and post-Gaullist Right. Giving his support to integral liberalism was not a question of dogma but of experience. Political liberalism ensures civil peace, check and balance, the participation of citizens to political life, and economic liberalism is better than state interventionism to create social justice and to guarantee efficiency.Philosopher of minor interest if compared with Aron or Hayek, political writer and polemist, Revel has, since he died, been relatively confined. His role of vulgarizator of liberal ideas in the largest press – rather than in the academic inner circles – has rarely been underlined in the studies dealing with 20th century-liberalism. The topic of this thesis is to try to modestly make Revel’s work better known.

Trad. de l'allemand de: Tesi doct.--Universitat de Basilea, 1985. / Bibliogr. p. 336-341.