My recent compositions are situated within a postmodern theoretical framework. The heterogeneity of materials and hybridity of musical formation in these works are interpreted and contextualized within a personal reading of postmodern theories. The critical essay traces my aesthetics through a historical investigation into the definition of musical postmodernism. Through extensive citation and analysis of the writings of Julius T. Fraser, Italo Calvino, and Richard Rorty, the essay aims to provide a theoretical context for the interpretation of the musical examples. The creative documentation contains three newly-composed musical works: Piano Trio from Opus 3/c, Opus 6 for Violin, and Opus 7 for Piccolo. The works' postmodern features include creative approaches to the fragmentation of musical time into separate levels, historical allusions, and the exploration of multiplicity.

My thesis examines how metaphors of globalization shape the global governance of the Internet. I consider how, in a short span of time, discussions of the Internet’s globalizing potential have gone from the optimism of the global village to the penchant of the global marketplace to the anxiety of the global war on terror. Building upon Rorty’s theory of metaphors and Foucault’s notion of productive power, I investigate how the shifts in these prevailing metaphors have produced and legitimated different frameworks of global governance. In considering how these patterns of governance have been shaped in the context of a familiar example of globalization, I demonstrate that globalization has an important discursive dimension that works as a constitutive force – not only in Internet governance, but in global governance more generally. By illuminating globalization’s discursive dimensions, this thesis makes an original theoretical contribution to the study of globalization and global governance. It demonstrates that globalization is more than a set of empirical flows: equally important, globalization exists as a set of discourses that reconstitute political legitimacy in more ‘global’ terms. This recasts the conventional understanding of global governance: rather than a response to the challenges posed by the empirical transcendence of territorial borders or the visible proliferation of non-state actors, the aims, institutions and policies of global governance are shaped and enabled by discourses of globalization, and evolve as these discourses change. In short, this thesis provides further insight into globalization’s transformations of state-based political order. It links these transformations to the discursive processes by which systems of global governance are produced and legitimated as sites of power and authority.

Réalisé en cotutelle avec l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV). / Nos recherches ont pour point de départ le constat d’un manque de dialogue entre trois philosophies politiques du XXe siècle nous provenant des États-Unis alors même que cet État devrait être le chef de file et un modèle d’ouverture en matière de réflexion sur la démocratie libérale. Les trois philosophies politiques en question sont celles de John Rawls, de Richard Rorty et de Leo Strauss. Nous avons donc procédé à l’amorce d’un dialogue en mettant en relation les idées des trois auteurs sur les grands thèmes de la vérité, de l’histoire, des dimensions de l’homme et des principes démocratiques, et avons fait un effort supplémentaire de rapprochement en montrant le rapport de chacun à onze dualismes classiques liés à ces quatre thèmes. Ces dualismes sont des oppositions binaires habituellement vénérables qui classent et divisent deux ordres de réalité. Avec ce langage commun des dualismes classiques, les obstacles aux rapprochements dus aux jeux de langage ou aux vocabulaires trop particuliers des trois auteurs sont tombés. Nous montrons d’abord qu’aucun vainqueur clair ne ressort de notre confrontation, mais qu’il y a moyen de porter un jugement sur les trois auteurs en fonction de critères non controversés (cohérence, complexité ou nuances, capacité à réfuter les deux autres). Ensuite, une confrontation et un dialogue directs des trois positions permettent de les faire s’exprimer sur les mêmes enjeux et de dégager des conclusions d’intérêt général dépassant le débat d’auteurs. Ces conclusions montrent quel genre de compromis peut être trouvé entre les principes de vérité et d’histoire, approuvent le projet de résoudre les tensions dans la vision de l’homme, en particulier entre les sphères publiques et privées, mais rappellent l’importance du point de vue ancien sur les principes repris par la démocratie (liberté, égalité, justice), ne serait-ce que pour faire contrepoids à la tendance générale. Ultimement, nous montrons comment de cette confrontation peut se dégager le programme pour la philosophie politique de vivre dans une tension féconde entre critique (prémoderne) et confiance (moderne), ainsi que la nécessité réaffirmée de poursuivre les efforts de dialogue pour rendre notre pensée digne de l’idée de la démocratie libérale. / Our study stems from the awareness that three twentieth-century political philosophies emanating from the United States have not partaken in any serious dialogue, even though this country should be a leader and model of openness regarding the topic of liberal democracy. The three political philosophies in question are those of John Rawls, Richard Rorty and Leo Strauss. Consequently, we have initiated a dialogue by confronting the ideas of these three thinkers on matters concerning truth, history, the dimensions of man, and democratic principles, having furthered this effort by highlighting the opinion of each on eleven classical dualisms related to these four matters. These dualisms are binary oppositions, generally venerable, which classify and divide two orders of reality. Using the common language of classical dualisms allowed us to overcome the obstacles due to the particular language game or vocabulary of each. In the first place, we show that if no real victor emerges from our confrontation, it is possible to judge each of the thinkers according to non contentious criteria (consistency, complexity or subtlety, capacity to refute the other positions). Then we illustrate that the direct confrontation through dialogue allows each of the three positions to express itself on the same issues and leads one to conclusions regarding matters beyond simple exegetic analysis. These conclusions show what kind of compromise is possible between the principles of truth and history. They support the project of resolving the tensions in our understanding of man, in particular, between the public and private spheres. Finally, they remind us of the importance of the ancient view of democratic principles (freedom, equality, justice), if only to counterbalance the current overwhelming trend. Ultimately, we explain how this confrontation can lead to a program for a political philosophy which balances the claims of (premodern) criticism and (modern) confidence, as well as restates the importance of continuing the dialogue in order that our thought be worthy of the idea of liberal democracy.

Richard Rorty's main thesis in his work Philosphy and the Mirror of Nature centers on a critique of representationalism in a fundamentally relativistic way. The aim of this disseration is to grasp Rorty's ideas in broader sense as a critique of inadequate interpretation of knowing- that and shift the attention to knowing-how as a key to new understanding the success of natural sciences. The fact that something is reproducibly possible for us to make in the surrounding world is not relative, and it is precisely in this way that technology (knowing- how) spreads so successfully even at multi-cultural level. In contrast, the explanatory function (knowing-that) of the natural sciences is relative, making sense only in the context of what is already known and accepted. Natural sciences are so successful because their experiments and only then take agreement of hypothesis with experimental practice (knowing-how) as the criterion of its acceptability. This dissertation offers, as a way out of Rortian relativism, the concept of "open authority" and proposes a new development in philosophic pragmatism based on it.

Persistent Pasts: Historical Palimpsests in Nineteenth-Century Prose traces Victorian historical discourse with specific attention to the works of Thomas Carlyle and George Eliot and their relation to historicism in earlier works by Sir Walter Scott and James Hogg. I argue that the Victorian response to the tense relation between the materialist Enlightenment and the idealist rhetoric of Romanticism marks a decidedly ethical turn in Victorian historical discourse. The writers introduce the dialectic of enlightened empiricism and romantic idealism to invoke the historical imagination as an ethical response to the call of the past. I read the dialectic and its invitation to ethics through the figure of the palimpsest. Drawing upon theoretical work on the palimpsest from Carlyle and de Quincey through Gérard Genette and Sarah Dillon, I analyze ways in which the materialist and idealist discourses interrupt each other and persist in one another. Central to my argument are concepts drawn from Walter Benjamin, Emmanuel Levinas, Richard Rorty, and Frank Ankersmit that challenge and / or affirm historical materiality.

Nos recherches ont pour point de départ le constat d’un manque de dialogue entre trois philosophies politiques du XXe siècle nous provenant des États-Unis alors même que cet État devrait être le chef de file et un modèle d’ouverture en matière de réflexion sur la démocratie libérale. Les trois philosophies politiques en question sont celles de John Rawls, de Richard Rorty et de Leo Strauss. Nous avons donc procédé à l’amorce d’un dialogue en mettant en relation les idées des trois auteurs sur les grands thèmes de la vérité, de l’histoire, des dimensions de l’homme et des principes démocratiques, et avons fait un effort supplémentaire de rapprochement en montrant le rapport de chacun à onze dualismes classiques liés à ces quatre thèmes. Ces dualismes sont des oppositions binaires habituellement vénérables qui classent et divisent deux ordres de réalité. Avec ce langage commun des dualismes classiques, les obstacles aux rapprochements dus aux jeux de langage ou aux vocabulaires trop particuliers des trois auteurs sont tombés. Nous montrons d’abord qu’aucun vainqueur clair ne ressort de notre confrontation, mais qu’il y a moyen de porter un jugement sur les trois auteurs en fonction de critères non controversés (cohérence, complexité ou nuances, capacité à réfuter les deux autres). Ensuite, une confrontation et un dialogue directs des trois positions permettent de les faire s’exprimer sur les mêmes enjeux et de dégager des conclusions d’intérêt général dépassant le débat d’auteurs. Ces conclusions montrent quel genre de compromis peut être trouvé entre les principes de vérité et d’histoire, approuvent le projet de résoudre les tensions dans la vision de l’homme, en particulier entre les sphères publiques et privées, mais rappellent l’importance du point de vue ancien sur les principes repris par la démocratie (liberté, égalité, justice), ne serait-ce que pour faire contrepoids à la tendance générale. Ultimement, nous montrons comment de cette confrontation peut se dégager le programme pour la philosophie politique de vivre dans une tension féconde entre critique (prémoderne) et confiance (moderne), ainsi que la nécessité réaffirmée de poursuivre les efforts de dialogue pour rendre notre pensée digne de l’idée de la démocratie libérale. / Our study stems from the awareness that three twentieth-century political philosophies emanating from the United States have not partaken in any serious dialogue, even though this country should be a leader and model of openness regarding the topic of liberal democracy. The three political philosophies in question are those of John Rawls, Richard Rorty and Leo Strauss. Consequently, we have initiated a dialogue by confronting the ideas of these three thinkers on matters concerning truth, history, the dimensions of man, and democratic principles, having furthered this effort by highlighting the opinion of each on eleven classical dualisms related to these four matters. These dualisms are binary oppositions, generally venerable, which classify and divide two orders of reality. Using the common language of classical dualisms allowed us to overcome the obstacles due to the particular language game or vocabulary of each. In the first place, we show that if no real victor emerges from our confrontation, it is possible to judge each of the thinkers according to non contentious criteria (consistency, complexity or subtlety, capacity to refute the other positions). Then we illustrate that the direct confrontation through dialogue allows each of the three positions to express itself on the same issues and leads one to conclusions regarding matters beyond simple exegetic analysis. These conclusions show what kind of compromise is possible between the principles of truth and history. They support the project of resolving the tensions in our understanding of man, in particular, between the public and private spheres. Finally, they remind us of the importance of the ancient view of democratic principles (freedom, equality, justice), if only to counterbalance the current overwhelming trend. Ultimately, we explain how this confrontation can lead to a program for a political philosophy which balances the claims of (premodern) criticism and (modern) confidence, as well as restates the importance of continuing the dialogue in order that our thought be worthy of the idea of liberal democracy. / Réalisé en cotutelle avec l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV).

My thesis examines how metaphors of globalization shape the global governance of the Internet. I consider how, in a short span of time, discussions of the Internet’s globalizing potential have gone from the optimism of the global village to the penchant of the global marketplace to the anxiety of the global war on terror. Building upon Rorty’s theory of metaphors and Foucault’s notion of productive power, I investigate how the shifts in these prevailing metaphors have produced and legitimated different frameworks of global governance. In considering how these patterns of governance have been shaped in the context of a familiar example of globalization, I demonstrate that globalization has an important discursive dimension that works as a constitutive force – not only in Internet governance, but in global governance more generally. By illuminating globalization’s discursive dimensions, this thesis makes an original theoretical contribution to the study of globalization and global governance. It demonstrates that globalization is more than a set of empirical flows: equally important, globalization exists as a set of discourses that reconstitute political legitimacy in more ‘global’ terms. This recasts the conventional understanding of global governance: rather than a response to the challenges posed by the empirical transcendence of territorial borders or the visible proliferation of non-state actors, the aims, institutions and policies of global governance are shaped and enabled by discourses of globalization, and evolve as these discourses change. In short, this thesis provides further insight into globalization’s transformations of state-based political order. It links these transformations to the discursive processes by which systems of global governance are produced and legitimated as sites of power and authority.

SOARES, José Rômulo. O (neo)pragmatismo como eixo (des)estruturante da educação contemporânea. 2007. 189f. . Tese (Doutorado em Educação) – Universidade Federal do Ceará, Faculdade de Educação, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Educação Brasileira, Fortaleza-CE, 2007. / Submitted by Maria Josineide Góis (josineide@ufc.br) on 2012-07-10T12:37:07Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2007_Tese_JRSoares.pdf: 1102713 bytes, checksum: 5b65ba48a2d88a330c8d1b404c56a6e3 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Maria Josineide Góis(josineide@ufc.br) on 2012-07-17T13:44:16Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2007_Tese_JRSoares.pdf: 1102713 bytes, checksum: 5b65ba48a2d88a330c8d1b404c56a6e3 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2012-07-17T13:44:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2007_Tese_JRSoares.pdf: 1102713 bytes, checksum: 5b65ba48a2d88a330c8d1b404c56a6e3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007 / The present thesis looks into pragmatic philosophy and its historical ability for subsistence in the field of education. After some years of decline, pragmatism has reemerged in the form of neopragmatism, adjusted to a new context and imposing its principles upon contemporary education. The World Bank has been of crucial importance in the establishment of a new educational model, destined especially for the poor or “developing” countries. We analyzed the notion of society which underlies the political philosophy of John Dewey (1859-1952), an American Democrat and intellectual and perhaps the most influential pragmatic philosopher in education. We provide a critical analysis of his commitment to liberal democracy as well as his role as an influential intellectual in his country and elsewhere. Likewise, we examine the notion of society held by Richard Rorty (1931), the main advocate and driving force of the reemergence of pragmatism. In his redefinition of the phenomenon, Rorty attributes post-modern characteristics to pragmatism and questions the philosophical debate from Plato to Hegel, along with Marxism and analytical philosophy, which he considers to be philosophical systems dominated by metaphysics. In his antitheoretical and antiphilosophical outlook, Rorty proposes to hold creative conversations in which intersubjective relationships generate new words capable of solving everyday problems through enhanced use of language games suitable for each situation. Rorty believes that the improvement of society, for which he takes North American democracy as a model, requires the use of language games as a way of justifying beliefs, but not the purpose of reaching truth. Thus, to this neopragmatic thinker, social change should no longer rely on the great narratives, such as Marxism, which he thinks has lost its historical relevance. In contrast to the (neo)pragmatic approach and under the guidance of Marx and his followers, we see the presence of (neo)pragmatism as part of today’s capital crisis and urgent need to deal with humanity’s huge problems―problems generated by capital itself. Since (neo)pragmatism emerged in concert with the establishment of the United States, it has always been an essential support of the American, conservative way of life. Thus, we offer a critique of (neo)pragmatism through the ontology of the social being and considering work as a central ontological category of human life and essential element of human emancipation. / Este trabalho aborda a filosofia pragmática e sua capacidade histórica de recomposição no meio educacional. Após alguns anos de refluxo, o pragmatismo ressurge na forma de um neopragmatismo e se adequa ao contexto, ao mesmo tempo em que impõe seus princípios à educação contemporânea. Nessa direção, O Banco Mundial aparece como instituição fundamental na consecução de um novo modelo educativo, especialmente para os países pobres ou “em desenvolvimento”. No intento de atingir nossos propósitos investigativos, analisamos a concepção de sociedade subjacente à filosofia política de John Dewey (1859-1952), intelectual democrata dos Estados Unidos e o mais notável filósofo pragmático na educação. Nesse sentido, analisamos criticamente seu compromisso com a democracia liberal, como também seu papel de intelectual influente em seu país e no mundo. Da mesma forma, examinamos a concepção de sociedade veiculada por Richard Rorty (1931-2007), principal responsável pelo ressurgimento do pragmatismo, como também o seu maior difusor. Ao reeditar o pragmatismo, Rorty lhe atribui características pós-modernas e questiona o debate filosófico de Platão a Hegel, como também o marxismo e a filosofia analítica, para ele, sistemas filosóficos dominados pela metafísica. Em sua proposta antiteórica e antifilosófica, Rorty propõe a constituição de conversações criativas, nas quais as relações intersubjetivas criem novos vocabulários e esses passem a resolver seus problemas cotidianos utilizando cada vez mais e melhor, os jogos de linguagem propícios a cada situação particular. Para Rorty, o aperfeiçoamento da sociedade, da qual toma como modelo a democracia norte-americana, passa pelo uso dos jogos de linguagem, como forma de justificar crenças e jamais como meio de encontrar a verdade. Assim, para o autor neopragmático, a mudança social não se relaciona mais às grandes narrativas, como por exemplo, ao marxismo, que para o referido autor, perdeu seu sentido histórico. Na contracorrente da abordagem neo(pragmática) e sob a orientação de Marx e de seus adeptos, compreendemos a presença do (neo) pragmatismo como parte da atual crise do capital e de sua necessidade em responder aos graves problemas hoje vivenciados pela humanidade, problemas esses criados pelo próprio capital. Como filosofia nascida junto com a construção do império norte-americano, o (neo)pragmatismo se firma atualmente como aporte do estilo de vida americano, revelando-se, portanto, muito conservador. Assim, realizamos a crítica ao neo(pragmatismo) pela via crítica da ontologia do ser social e tomando o trabalho como categoria ontológica central na constituição da vida humana e também como elemento essencial da emancipação da humanidade.

Submitted by Alice Araujo (alice.caraujo@ufpe.br) on 2018-04-17T18:19:24Z No. of bitstreams: 1 DISSERTAÇÃO Ricardo Silva Albuquerque Mello.pdf: 1143462 bytes, checksum: 934d646ae287af1275f471280efd5b84 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-17T18:19:24Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DISSERTAÇÃO Ricardo Silva Albuquerque Mello.pdf: 1143462 bytes, checksum: 934d646ae287af1275f471280efd5b84 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-08-29 / Este trabalho estuda os diferentes procedimentos retóricos que se produzem no debate entre o jurista Ronald Dworkin e o filósofo Richard Rorty sobre a relação do Direito com o Pragmatismo, mais precisamente, acerca da defesa da tese-da-única-resposta-correta na interpretação de normas jurídicas e sua justificação. O moralismo da doutrina jurídica de Dworkin será contraposto à filosofia ironista de Richard Rorty, tendo como método a “leitura retórica de textos” e como marco a “Retórica” de Aristóteles. Este “método” aborda os textos do debate retoricamente ao ler os pressupostos teóricos da tese de Dworkin mediante seus componentes persuasivos (pathos, ethos, logos). A pesquisa ainda enfatiza as variações de influência da retórica no cânone que a relaciona com as controvérsias entre Platão e os sofistas, para caracterizar os limites da leitura proposta (de Rorty e Dworkin) e sua dependência para com a técnica retórica de dissociação de termos antitéticos. A linguagem como utensílio de ataque ou defesa, nos contextos de comunicação do direito e da filosofia, é finalmente tratada como um estigma de poder duplo. / This work studies different rhetoric procedures produced in Ronald Dworkin and Richard Rorty debates about the relation between Law and Pragmatism, more specifically, concerning the defense of one-right-answer-thesis in interpretation of law and its justification. Dworkin’s laws doctrine moralism is placed opposite to Richard Rorty ironist philosophy through “rhetoric reading” set as a method and based on Aristotle “Rhetoric”. This “method” approaches texts rhetorically while reads theoretical presuppositions of Dworkin’s thesis, through its persuasive components (pathos, ethos, logos). This research put emphasis upon the study of variations of influence regarding rhetoric into the canon that stress the controversies between Plato and sophists. This helps characterizing some limits of readings elected here (of Rorty and Dworkin works) and its dependence on dissociation of antithetic terms rhetorical technic. Language as an attack or defense utensil, in philosophy and law communication contexts, is portraited as a double power stigma.

No description available.