This thesis aims to respond to the need of adjust GMO politics for meeting the demands of the late-modern society and the changed condition that follows from an accelerating complexity. The central objective for this study is to contribute with a narrative understanding of Sweden’s GMO politics with the purpose of examine an alternative possibility for formulating and assessing the politics of biotechnology. This is done by investigate Sweden’s politics of GMO through a narrative approach. I have reconstructed and carried out a Comparative analyzes of these narratives. This was the first of two objectives with this thesis. The other objective was to relate the political practice with the contribution and insights of Paul Ricoeur as a point of departure. My effort has been to build upon his contribution of narrative philosophy and fruitful conceptual resources and to reach an understanding of the advantage of a narrative approach in politics. This advantage lies in that it can provide an understanding of the narrative aspects in our daily lives. This would bring sensitivity and reflexivity to the political context. With this sensitivity and reflexivity it hopefully can separate irresponsible politics from responsible politics. This could be done by incorporate the result from this study. A responsible environmental politics departs from the precautionary principle in decision-making, gaining knowledge from interdisciplinary research and tries to correspond to the narrative structures in people’s daily lives. The narrative approach brings a deeper understanding for that political thought and practice is not reducible to other forms of human action.

No description available.

C’est au tournant des années 1990 que Paul Ricœur s’est intéressé à Théorie de la justice de John Rawls. Tout en étant fondamentalement en accord avec la valeur morale, déontologique et politique des principes de justice de Rawls, Ricœur s’oppose à l’approche « purement procédurale » de la justice pour les institutions telle qu’elle se développe à l’aide de l’interprétation rawlsienne de la théorie du contrat social. Si l’approche déontologique de la justice comme équité priorise une conception formelle de la justice pour les institutions, elle ne peut toutefois pas, selon Ricœur, s’affranchir des fondements téléologiques qui justifient la formulation et le choix rationnel des principes rawlsiens. En reprenant l’argumentaire de Théorie de la justice, Ricœur relève la dépendance de la procédure formelle de Rawls à une série de présupposés éthiques fondamentaux qui justifient téléologiquement la rationalité des principes. Ces présuppositions ne mettent pas en ruine la position de Rawls, au contraire, ils relèvent d’une circularité « naturelle » propre à la problématique de la distribution des biens sociaux (justice distributive), indispensable à l’élaboration d’une conception politique de la justice et à l’intelligence démocratique du contrat social. Contre la démonstration empirique de la procédure formelle de la « position originelle » sous le « voile d’ignorance » à partir de laquelle devrait résulter le choix rationnel et unanime des principes de justice, Ricœur propose de rétablir la primauté du sens de la justice pour le sujet de droit/contractant. Sans réfuter la priorité déontologique des principes de justice pour les institutions, Ricœur veut rétablir la valeur éthique de la justice pour les individus à partir d’une herméneutique du soi et d’une anthropologie philosophique qui posent le besoin de l’institution au sein même de la constitution du sujet à « vivre une vie bonne, avec et pour autrui, dans des institutions justes ». / At the turn of the 1990s, Paul Ricœur became interested in John Rawls' Theory of Justice. While fundamentally agreeing with the moral, deontological, and political value of Rawls' principles of justice, Ricœur opposes the "purely procedural" approach to justice for institutions as developed through Rawls' interpretation of social contract theory. If the deontological approach to justice as equity prioritizes a formal conception of justice for institutions, it cannot, however, according to Ricœur, break free from the teleological foundations that justify the formulation and rational choice of Rawlsian principles. Returning to the argument of Theory of Justice, Ricœur identifies the dependence of Rawls' formal procedure based on a series of fundamental ethical presuppositions that teleologically justify the rationality of the principles. These presuppositions do not undermine Rawls' position; on the contrary, they are part of a "natural" circularity specific to the issue of the distribution of social goods (distributive justice), a process which is indispensable in the elaboration of a political conception of justice and in the democratic understanding of the social contract. Against the empirical demonstration of the formal procedure of the "original position" under the "veil of ignorance" from which the rational and unanimous choice of the principles of justice should result, Ricœur proposes to re-establish the primacy of the sense of justice for those subjected to law/contractors. Without refuting the deontological priority of principles of justice for institutions, Ricœur aspires to restore the ethical value of justice for individuals from a hermeneutic of the self and a philosophical anthropology that posits the need for the institution within the very constitution of the subject to "live a good life, with and for others, in just institutions”.

Le point de départ des travaux entrepris est la définition lefortienne de la démocratie par opposition au totalitarisme. Le totalitarisme est l’institution d’une société organique, une et homogène, dans laquelle aucune division sociale, aucun désaccord avec l’idéologie véhiculée par le parti ne sont possibles. La spécificité de la démocratie, a contrario, est de s’enrichir de la désintrication du pouvoir, du droit, et du savoir. Les citoyens, dotés de droits fondamentaux, sont juges de la légitimité du pouvoir établi. Leurs désaccords ainsi que l’antagonisme entre les classes sociales nourrissent l’exercice d’un commun litigieux. De là, une question fondamentale : une telle définition de la démocratie est-elle historiquement datée, ou continue-t-elle d’être pertinente aujourd’hui ? Doit-on encore concevoir la démocratie, pour la rendre authentique, par le conflit civil érigé en principe politique, ou faut-il l’envisager de manière consensualiste au lendemain de son opposition avec le totalitarisme ? Claude Lefort s’inspirait de Machiavel pour dépasser les limites du marxisme et repenser la démocratie par la valorisation du conflit civil, indissociable de la figure de l’imaginaire social. La thèse ici soutenue adopte différemment une perspective néo-machiavélienne. Elle revient à proposer un espace public dissensuel à partir du modèle machiavélien de l’entente dans le conflit, par confrontation avec l’espace public habermassien et d’autres conceptions du tort et du conflit dans les démocraties contemporaines. Comment concevoir aujourd’hui les figures du conflit civil et de l’imaginaire social, en s’inspirant paradoxalement de Machiavel pour interroger la démocratie ? / The starting point of the present work is the Lefortian definition of democracy as opposed to totalitarism. Totalitarism is the institution of an organic society, one and homogeneous, where no social division, no disagreement with the party’s ideology are possible. On the contrary democracy’s specificity consists in enriching itself with the disentanglement of power, law and knowledge. Citizens, endowed with fundamental rights can judge of the legitimacy of the power in place. Their disagreements as well as the antagonism between social classes fuel the dispute about common good.Hence a fundamental question: is such a definition of democracy historically dated or is it still relevant today? To make it authentic should democracy be seen through civil conflict made into a political principle or should it be viewed in a consensualist way just after its opposition to totalitarism? Claude Lefort drew from Machiavelli to go beyond the limits of Marxism and rethink democracy by giving more importance to civil conflict as an integral part of the theme of social imaginary. The present dissertation adopts in a different way a neo-Machiavellian perspective. It amounts to proposing a dissensual public space on the Machiavellian model of understanding within conflict by confronting it with the Habermassian public space and with other conceptions of wrong and conflict in contemporary democracies.Today how can the themes of civil conflict and social imaginary be viewed – paradoxically drawing from Machiavelli- to question democracy?

This research examines the topic of the Christian mission to Muslims in Ethiopia. The Insider Movement paradigm is examined with respect to the meaning of conversion and identity and how these concepts may best be understood in support of Muslim outreach. The study area of Ethiopia is not a Muslim majority nation but rather is pluralistic society and political system. Thus the most specific application is other sub-­‐ Saharan, non-­‐Muslim majority nations in Africa. The cultural and historical context of Ethiopia is first explored with special reference to factors arising from or focusing upon religion. Literature is reviewed regarding evangelization, church planting, and outreach to Muslims. The concept of conversion is discussed at length from both social science and Christian theological paradigms. The topic of identity is explored including identity theory as used among sociology, psychology, anthropology, and philosophy. The research was conducted and analyzed using concepts from the philosophical orientation of critical hermeneutics with specific use of the communication theory of Jurgen Habermas and narrative theory of Paul Ricoeur. The narrative identity theory of Ricoeur was found to be appropriate to a mission to Muslims. An understanding of conversion as being a process of transformation into Christ-­‐likeness through the power of the Holy Spirit was found to be most compatible with Muslim outreach. / Christian Spirituality, Church History & Missiology / D. Th. (Missiology)

Ce mémoire a pour but de montrer que le premier tournant herméneutique de Paul Ricœur en 1960 gravite essentiellement autour de la problématique de la volonté mauvaise. Nous soutenons autrement dit que Ricœur a initialement donné une tournure herméneutique à sa philosophie pour penser le serf-arbitre, c’est-à-dire pour penser la liberté captive d’elle-même. Afin de rendre compte adéquatement de ce tournant, notre attention sera principalement dirigée vers le deuxième tome de la Philosophie de la volonté de Ricœur, Finitude et culpabilité. Notre question se pose ainsi : comment et pourquoi, dans une problématique du mal, Ricœur entame-t-il son tournant herméneutique? Pour y répondre, nous expliciterons le parcours de Ricœur allant de L’homme faillible à La symbolique du mal. Nous verrons dans un premier temps que si le philosophe arrive à thématiser le concept de faillibilité à partir d’une ontologie de la disproportion, si la réflexion a accès à la possibilité du mal, il n’en ira pas de même pour le noème inintelligible que constitue le mal moral. Afin de penser la faute, nous verrons que Ricœur se tournera vers l’herméneutique en se mettant à l’écoute du langage de l’aveu. Ainsi, dans la deuxième partie de notre mémoire, nous expliciterons les trois moments de compréhension (phénoménologique, herméneutique et réflexif) propre à l’herméneutique philosophique de Ricœur de 1960. / The purpose of this dissertation is to show that the first hermeneutics turn of Paul Ricœur in 1960 essentially revolves around the problematic of bad will. We argue ie that Ricœur initially gave a hermeneutics twist to his philosophy to think the servile will, that is the freedom captive of itself. To properly account for this turn, our attention was mainly directed to the second volume of the Philosophy of the Will of Ricœur, Faillible man and The symbolism of evil. Our question is this : how and why, in a problematic of evil, Ricœur starts his hermeneutics turn? To answer this question, we will explain the course of Ricœur from Fallible man to The Symbolism of evil. We will see at first that if the philosopher comes to thematize the concept of fallibility from an ontology of disproportion, if the reflection has access to the possibility of evil, it does not go well for the unintelligible noema that is moral evil. To think of the fault, we will see that Ricœur will turn to hermeneutics is by listening to the language of confession. Thus, in the second part of our dissertation, we will explain the three stages of understanding (phenomenological, hermeneutics and reflexive) to own philosophical hermeneutics of Ricœur 1960.

This research examines the topic of the Christian mission to Muslims in Ethiopia. The Insider Movement paradigm is examined with respect to the meaning of conversion and identity and how these concepts may best be understood in support of Muslim outreach. The study area of Ethiopia is not a Muslim majority nation but rather is pluralistic society and political system. Thus the most specific application is other subSaharan, non-Muslim majority nations in Africa. The cultural and historical context of Ethiopia is first explored with special reference to factors arising from or focusing upon religion. Literature is reviewed regarding evangelization, church planting, and outreach to Muslims. The concept of conversion is discussed at length from both social science and Christian theological paradigms. The topic of identity is explored including identity theory as used among sociology, psychology, anthropology, and philosophy. The research was conducted and analyzed using concepts from the philosophical orientation of critical hermeneutics with specific use of the communication theory of Jurgen Habermas and narrative theory of Paul Ricoeur. The narrative identity theory of Ricoeur was found to be appropriate to a mission to Muslims. An understanding of conversion as being a process of transformation into Christ-likeness through the power of the Holy Spirit was found to be most compatible with Muslim outreach. / Christian Spirituality, Church History and Missiology / D. Th. (Missiology)

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rita de Cassia Oliveira.pdf: 727213 bytes, checksum: f30d8eb97ac55684b842083ec2899a65 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-04-22 / The present philosophical work bears the title The O Guesa poem by Sousândrade, in light of Paul Ricoeur s hermeneutics and intends to be an interpretation which has as paradigm the Paul Ricoeur s Phenomenological Hermeutics with respect to showing the meaning of the present existence in the symbolism of poetic foundation. I thematize the question of poetic language in its narrative aspect in the O Guesa poem and its correlation with the pertinent literature and philosophy to highlight the metaphoricity as a poetic language condition because it is constituted in a differentiated mode of thinking the world. Ricoeur turns to Aristotle Poetics and Rhetoric works as a starting point of his investigation on the significance of metaphor power when permitting that something is said indirectly by the joining of disconnected images having, nevertheless, an enclosed truth. I follow Ricoeur s same procedure in La métaphore vive, and look upon Aristotle for an understanding about the theory of metaphor in adequation to the analysis of the O Guesa poem. The development of the study reaches a correlation between the hermeneutic and the theory of narativity as to the interpretation of the act of narrating as an origin of rationality that tells actions and events according to an ordering which is characterized as the machination plot. Ricoeur s books that sustain this survey are, chiefly, La mémoire, l histoire, l oubli, Du texte à action and Temps et récit which reveal Ricoeur s reflection on the narrative identity as resulting from the interweaving of history with fiction. The narrative identity, a theme developed in Soi-même comme Un Autre, requires that Ricoeur imagine the subject in his interpersonal and institutional reflexives, bringing forth ethics and moral as indispensable knowledge for a philosophy which recognizes literature as being a vast laboratory of human experience / O presente escrito filosófico tem como título O poema O Guesa, de Sousândrade, à luz da Hermenêutica de Paul Ricoeur e pretende ser uma interpretação que tem como paradigma a Hermenêutica Fenomenológica de Paul Ricoeur no que visa o mostrar do sentido da existência presente no simbolismo da criação poética. Tematizo a questão da linguagem poética em seu aspecto narrativo no poema O Guesa e a correlação deste com a filosofia e a literatura que lhe são pertinentes, para destacar a metaforicidade como uma condição da linguagem poética por se constituir num modo diferenciado de pensar o mundo. Ricoeur recorre a Aristóteles, propriamente às obras Poética e Retórica, como ponto de partida da sua investigação sobre o poder de sentido da metáfora ao possibilitar que algo seja dito de modo indireto pela junção de imagens descontínuas possuindo, entretanto, uma verdade contida. Sigo o mesmo procedimento de Ricoeur em La métaphore vive, e busco Aristóteles um entendimento acerca da teoria da metáfora em adequação com a análise do poema O Guesa. O desdobramento desse estudo alcança a correlação entre hermenêutica e teoria da narratividade quanto à interpretação do ato de narrar como originário de uma racionalidade que conta ações e acontecimentos segundo uma ordenação que se caracteriza como tessitura da intriga. Os livros de Ricoeur que fundamentam essa investigação são, mormente, La mémoire, l histoire, l oubli, Du texte à action e Temps et récit que revelam a reflexão de Ricoeur sobre a identidade narrativa como resultante do entrecruzamento da história com a ficção. A identidade narrativa, tema desenvolvido em Soi-même comme un Autre, exige que Ricoeur pense o sujeito em suas mediações reflexivas interpessoais e institucionais, fazendo aparecer a ética e a moral como conhecimentos imprescindíveis para uma filosofia que reconhece ser a literatura um vasto laboratório de experiência humana

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Sybil Safdie Douek.pdf: 1865791 bytes, checksum: ebc827ec6b5f55d21c76a00bfc6d1d0e (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009-06-03 / The present dissertation intends to confront Paul Ricoeur and Emmanuel Levinas philosophy, from an essential point of view: the relationship between the subject and the other, subjectivity and alterity. Question which relevance seems to be dramatic after the Two World Wars, particularly after the Shoah: which could be, subsequent to this historical experience, the meanings of words such as subject, man and ethics? Aware of the necessary and indispensable critics toward classic humanism, and willing to withdraw the subject of his central position in philosophy, since Descartes, both authors seem to rehabilitate the subject, and put again faith in him, without paying to the subject unrestricted reverence. The result is the idea of a subject that includes in itself alterity: self as another , says Ricoeur; the other in the same , says Levinas. But which is the place assigned to the other? Levinas insists in the absolute priority of the other, and proposes the deposition of the subject in behalf of the other: the subject substitutes himself to the other, it is hostage of the other, being absolutely passive in his relationship with him. Ricoeur, in his turn, defends the importance of both (oneself and other) and prefers to think in terms of reciprocity, and receptivity of the subject. These different perspectives concerning relationship between subject and other imply two conceptions of ethics: for Levinas, ethics of responsibility and election; for Ricoeur, ethics of promise, of good living together and mutuality. It implicates also two different attitudes in regard of a question not always considered as philosophical: transcendence or the Name of God. For both, God is a question which deserves attention, but Ricoeur excludes the Name of his philosophical speech, building a hermeutics of the self without the support of transcendence; while for Levinas, the problem of subjectivity goes along this the problem of transcendence. Therefore, a question is born: the presence or absence of the Name of God in their philosophy of subjectivity could have connections or correspondences with their respective religious traditions Ricoeur´s Protestantism and Levinas Judaism? Traditions never denied by both of them, although kept far from their philosophical reflections, each one in his own way / A presente tese se propõe a confrontar as filosofias de Paul Ricoeur e Emmanuel Lévinas, a partir de uma questão essencial: a relação do sujeito com a alteridade. Questão cuja relevância se coloca de modo dramático após a experiência histórica das duas Guerras Mundiais, em particular da Shoah: que sentido dar, hoje, às palavras: sujeito, homem ou ética? Conscientes da necessária e incontornável crítica ao humanismo clássico e, desejosos de retirar o sujeito da posição central que vem ocupando na filosofia, desde Descartes, ambos parecem querer reabilitar o sujeito, fazer-lhe novamente confiança, sem por isso, render-lhe irrestritas homenagens. O resultado é uma concepção de sujeito que inclui em si próprio a alteridade: si mesmo como um outro , diz Ricoeur; o outro no mesmo , diz Lévinas: mas que lugar dar a outrem? Lévinas insiste na prioridade absoluta do outro, propondo a deposição do sujeito em favor de outrem: o sujeito se substitui ao outro, é refém do outro, sendo absolutamente passivo na relação; Ricoeur, por seu lado, defende a importância dos dois pólos e prefere falar em reciprocidade da relação e em receptividade do sujeito. As diferentes perspectivas na relação sujeito-outrem implicam em duas concepções de ética: em Lévinas, ética da responsabilidade e da eleição; em Ricoeur, ética da promessa, do bem viver-junto e da mutualidade. Como também em duas atitudes diferentes, no que diz respeito a uma questão nem sempre considerada filosófica: a transcendência ou o nome de Deus. Se para ambos Deus é uma questão que merece atenção, Ricoeur O exclui de seu discurso filosófico, construindo uma hermenêutica do si que não necessita da transcendência para se sustentar; enquanto para Lévinas, o problema da subjetividade e o da transcendência caminham juntos. Nasce uma questão: a presença ou a ausência do nome de Deus nas filosofias do sujeito de Ricoeur e Lévinas poderia ter conexões ou correspondências com suas respectivas tradições religiosas - o protestantismo de Ricoeur e o judaísmo de Lévinas? Tradições que eles nunca negaram, embora as tenham mantido afastadas, cada um a seu modo, de suas reflexões filosóficas

Submitted by Setor de Tratamento da Informa??o - BC/PUCRS (tede2@pucrs.br) on 2015-05-19T12:53:08Z No. of bitstreams: 1 468838 - Texto Completo.pdf: 1065857 bytes, checksum: 3976f654668076f919d14ab1994d23b6 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-19T12:53:08Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 468838 - Texto Completo.pdf: 1065857 bytes, checksum: 3976f654668076f919d14ab1994d23b6 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-03-21 / Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Cient?fico e Tecnol?gico - CNPq / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / This study aims to define the Jos? Saramago?s autobiographical space by identifying the expression of subjectivity present in his chronicles, his memoir (confessional literature) and his novels (fictional literature) of the portuguese writer. The analysis of the texts that make up the corpus has privileged, from each one of the texts, which can be related with three themes: man/ideology, man/past and man/literature. Based on the theoretical formulations, especially the one?s by Paul Ricoeur and Javier del Prado Biezma, this study demonstrates the identification of recurrent thematic fields in the narrative and structural marks left by the Self in the texts. These aspects made it possible to trace the presence of the subject that is expressed through writing and also the definition of a Saramago?s autobiographical space. / O presente estudo buscou delimitar o espa?o autobiogr?fico de Jos? Saramago atrav?s da identifica??o da manifesta??o da subjetividade presente em suas cr?nicas, seu livro de mem?rias (literatura confessional) e seus romances (literatura ficcional). A an?lise dos textos que comp?em o corpus privilegiou passagens de cada uma das obras, relacionadas com tr?s n?cleos tem?ticos que nortearam o trabalho: homem/ideologia, homem/passado e homem/literatura. Com base, especialmente, nas formula??es te?ricas de Paul Ricoeur e Javier del Prado Biezma, o estudo identificou campos tem?ticos recorrentes nas narrativas e marcas estruturais deixadas pelo Eu nos textos. Esses aspectos possibilitaram o rastreamento da presen?a do sujeito que se expressa atrav?s da escrita e, assim, a defini??o de um espa?o autobiogr?fico saramaguiano.