Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-25T19:20:25Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Marcelo Consentino.pdf: 1415146 bytes, checksum: 182ad9d82d1c1bf902f13f92bf986c48 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2012-11-22 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The purpose of this dissertation is to contribute to the studies which search to investigate the relationship between the Christian tradition and the modern culture, and therefore to bring elements to answer two fundamental questions: (1) what is living and what is dead in Christianity and in modernity, and (2) what should live and what should die in Christianity and in modernity. In order to do that, the problem will be studied according to the work of the modern Christian philosopher Vladimir Soloviev, especially rich by the efforts of the author to be ultramodern and ultraorthodox. The First Chapter will be dedicated to investigate the scientific basis in the work of Soloviev, especially his notions of anthropology and historiography, with special emphasis in the historical development of Christianity and modern civilization. The Second Chapter is dedicated to Soloviev s philosophical evaluation of the human condition and the history of humanity. The Third Chpater is dedicated to Soloviev s theology, that is, on how the human condition and the history of humanity are seen on the light of Christian Revelation according to orthodoxy. The Fourth and Last Chapter, which should be hold as a conclusion, is dedicated to investigate, particularly in the last of Soloviev s books, The Tale of the Antichrist, the ultimate points of convergence and divergence between the ideals of the Christian tradition and the ideals of modern culture / O propósito desta dissertação é contribuir para os estudos que visam investigar as relações entre a tradição cristã e a cultura moderna, e assim trazer elementos para responder duas questões fundamentais: (1) o que é vivo e o que é morto no cristianismo e na modernidade, e (2) o que deve viver e o que deve morrer no cristianismo e na modernidade. Para tanto se abordará o problema a partir da obra do filósofo cristão moderno Vladimir Soloviev, particularmente rica pelo esforço do autor de ser a um só tempo ultra-moderno e ultra-ortodoxo. O Primeiro Capítulo será dedicado a investigar as bases científicas na obra de Soloviev, em especial as suas noções de antropologia e de historiografia, com ênfase especial no desenvolvimento histórico do cristianismo e da civilização moderna. O Segundo Capítulo é dedicado à avaliação filosófica de Soloviev da condição humana e da história da humanidade. O Terceiro Capítulo é dedicado à teologia de Soloviev, ou seja, a como a condição humana e a história da humanidade são vistas à luz da Revelação cristã segundo a ortodoxia. O Quarto e último Capítulo, que deve servir como conclusão, é dedicado a investigar, em especial no derradeiro livro de Soloviev, O conto do Anticristo, os pontos definitivos de convergência e divergência entre o ideal da tradição cristã e o ideal da cultura moderna

Nicholas Roerich, the well-known Russian artist, writer and mystic from the early twentieth century is best known in the West for his theatrical design work, above all for the sets of the celebrated ballet The Rite of Springs. The goal of this thesis is to provide a fuller understanding of Roerich’s art and literary works within the historical context of his time. In particular, I have sought to illuminate Roerich’s focus on depiction of nature, especially mountains, in relation to his fascination with the mythical Shambhala. In the first chapter of this thesis I analyze Roerich’s early career, as well as his personal and professional relationship with the World of Art, the leading art group at the turn of the twentieth century in Russia. Roerich’s early interest in the history of ancient Russia, archeology and geology, which I discuss, was central to the meaning of his landscape depictions in both his stage designs and paintings. The second chapter of this work investigates how these interests evolved into the artist’s quest for Eastern wisdom and mystical revelations. Although Roerich is often treated as an oddity, his concerns with occult ideas were not unique in his time. The third chapter focuses on Roerich’s activities abroad and his international success as a promoter of ancient wisdom. I discuss the Russian émigré art scene in New York in the 1920s and Roerich’s place within it. I also offer an examination of the artist’s correspondence with his family and colleagues, which sheds light on Roerich’s beliefs in his mysterious “Teachers” and their role in leading him to the East. / text

Vladimir S. Soloviev (1853-1900) était un philosophe russe, poète et dissident de la période prérévolutionnaire. Comme celle de beaucoup de ses contemporains prérévolutionnaires russes, la pensée de Soloviev fut constamment sollicitée par la réfection imminente de l’État russe dans un futur très proche. Dans le contexte de cette époque, un examen des fondements théoriques du système juridique était peut-être inévitable. Néanmoins, dans la pensée russe, c’est seulement avec Soloviev que le droit cessa d’être un sujet spécialisé dans le domaine de l’administration, ne concernant guère les grands enjeux de société, et devint intimement lié au développement même de la philosophie morale et sociale. Au sein du projet philosophique systématique que propose Soloviev, le concept de l’unitotalité est envahissant, en termes épistémologique et social. Une pierre d’assise également fondamentale est le concept philosophico-religieux de la divino-humanité, à travers lequel la source de la dignité humaine est ultimement exprimée. La philosophie juridique de Soloviev, contenue pour l’essentiel dans un traité intitulé La Justification du bien : essai de philosophie morale (1897), a pour principal objet l’interaction entre le droit et la morale. Alors que l’objet et la portée du droit peuvent être directement déduits de principes moraux, le droit ne peut pas coïncider exactement avec la morale, compte tenu de son caractère plus limité, fini et coercitif. Pour Soloviev, le droit doit imposer un niveau minimum du bien en fournissant les conditions de base (par ex. la primauté du droit, le droit à une existence digne, la liberté de conscience) pour le libre développement des facultés humaines sans transposer directement en lui la plénitude complète du bien. La principale motivation de Soloviev réside dans la prémisse théologique sous-jacente que le bien ne peut jamais être complètement subsumé sauf par un acte conscient de liberté personnelle. En tandem, Soloviev souligne le rôle progressiste de l’État pour favoriser le libre perfectionnement humain. En tant que tel, Soloviev nous fournit certaines voies innovatrices dans le façonnement de la relation tant théorique que pratique entre le droit et la religion. À l’encontre d’un compromis entre objets, c’est-à-dire un arrangement de type interculturel situé entre fragmentation culturelle (multiculturalisme idéologique) et assimilation antireligieuse (laïcité militante), l’analyse de Soloviev présente la nécessité d’une conciliation temporelle, dans une perspective historique beaucoup plus large, où la laïcité est considérée non pas comme une finalité ontologique en soi, figée dans le temps, mais comme un moyen au service d’une destinée humaine en cours d’actualisation. Le cadre philosophico-juridique de Soloviev peut être utilement mis en dialogue avec des auteurs contemporains comme Stephen L. Carter, Charles Taylor, John Witte Jr, Ronald Dworkin et Jürgen Habermas. La contribution potentielle de Soloviev sur la place de la religion dans la société russe contemporaine est également mentionnée, avec un accent particulier sur le réexamen critique de l’héritage durable de la notion byzantine de la symphonie entre l’Église et l’État. Enfin, une théorie du fédéralisme inspirée par Soloviev est développée en appliquant, sur une base comparative, des avancées théoriques dans le domaine de l’histoire juridique global à l’évolution constitutionnelle du Canada et d’Israël. / Vladimir S. Soloviev (1853-1900) was a prerevolutionary Russian philosopher, poet and dissident. Like that of many of his contemporaries in prerevolutionary Russia, Soloviev’s thought was constantly prompted by the impending future remaking of the Russian state. Against this backdrop, a consideration of the foundations of the legal system may have been inevitable. It was nonetheless with Soloviev that law in Russian thought ceases to be a specialty subject matter in the area of administration, disconnected from wider societal issues, and becomes inextricably linked to social and moral philosophy. Within Soloviev’s larger systematic philosophical project, the concept of all-unity is pervasive, both in its epistemological and social dimensions. An equally fundamental cornerstone of Soloviev’s thought is the concept of Godmanhood, through which the source of human dignity is ultimately expressed. Soloviev’s legal philosophy, for the most part contained in a treatise entitled The Justification of the Good: An Essay on Moral Philosophy (1897), is primarily concerned with the interplay between law and morality. While the object and scope of law can be directly deduced from moral principles, law cannot exactly coincide with morality given its limited, finite and compulsory nature. For Soloviev, law should enforce a minimum level of good in providing the basic conditions (e.g. rule of law, right to a dignified existence, freedom of conscience) for the free development of human faculties, without directly transposing into itself the complete fullness of the good. Soloviev’s primary motivation lies in the underlying theological premise that the good can never be fully subsumed except as a conscious act of personal freedom. In tandem, Soloviev emphasizes the progressive role of the state in liberally furthering human development. As such, Soloviev provides certain innovative pathways in working out the practical and theoretical relationship between law and religion. Unlike a compromise between objects, that is to say an intercultural type of arrangement lying somewhere between cultural fragmentation (ideological multiculturalism) and anti-religious assimilation (militant secularism), Soloviev presents us with the need for a temporal reconciliation, in the context of a much wider historical perspective, where secularism is not an ontologically crystallized finality as such, but part of the means with which the human destiny in the process of being actualized can be facilitated. Soloviev’s legal philosophical framework can be fruitfully placed in dialogue with contemporary authors such as Stephen L. Carter, Charles Taylor, John Witte Jr., Ronald Dworkin and Jürgen Habermas. Soloviev’s potential contribution to the place of religion in contemporary Russian society is also noted, with particular emphasis on critically reassessing the enduring legacy of the Byzantine notion of Church-State symphony. Finally, a theory of federalism inspired by Soloviev is developed based on comparatively applying theoretical advances in the field of global legal history to the constitutional evolution of Canada and Israel.