Dissertation. / Includes bibliographical references.

Texte remanié de: Väitöskirja--Teologia--Helsingin yliopisto, 1990. / Résumés en anglais et en allemand. Bibliogr. p.214-252 dont celle de A. Meurman p.218-219.

Univ., Diss.--Heidelberg, 2000. / Hergestellt on demand. - Literaturverz. S. 222 - 231.

Zugl.: Saarbrücken, Univ., Diss., 2007

CM. Wieland created a style of writing which was new for the German novel of the late 18th century. It is the aim of this thesis to show the various means Wieland used in order to present to the reader works of psychological, educational and political content which would be read, not only for that content, but also for pleasure. Mainly on the basis of two of his major works, Die Geschichte des Agathon, (1767), and Der goldene Spiegel, (1772), but also on some theoretical and critical works by other authors, some of the more important features of Wieland's narrative style are analysed and illustrated with examples. The first work to be dealt with, Die Geschichte des Agathon, was written for the upper and upper middle classes. Turning directly to the reader, Wieland, following the trends of his times, often addresses the female reader endeavouring to further her education. Moreover, in order to be pedagigical without being pedantic, Wieland assumes many roles beside that of author. We find him donning the mask of editor, translator, commentator and sometimes even that of an imaginary reader engaged in dialogue with the author. Asking rhetorical questions and voicing different opinions according to the role he plays at the moment, he taunts the reader, who is thus forced not only to take a position toward the action presented by the author, but also to pass critical judgement on and give thoughtful appraisal to ideas which underlie it. Innumerable humourous references to works of other writers entice the reader to read these works and thereby broaden his knowledge, round out his education, making reading more enjoyable. The other novel, Der goldene Spiegel, addresses itself to another class, that of princes and other rulers, since it deals with government. Its aim is the education of princes. Instead of conversing directly with readers, as in Agathon, Wieland has here chosen for his medium a narrative within a narrative. The characters of the various narrators serve for the most part, the functions which Wieland elsewhere discharged in his many disguises. So here, also, questions are asked and commentaries given in the form of conversation between the narrators, but in fact aimed at the reader, who may resemble the characters of either narrative. Wieland himself plays several roles. The most important is that of the philosopher Danischmend in the introductory narrative. He also gives comments and explanations, often of a humourous nature, by introducing various translators who in the course of centuries have translated the 'work' into several languages and commented on it. Each novel is of a different tenor. In the Agathon, where he is speaking to his own class, Wieland seems to be less restrained, whereas in the goldene Spiegel, since it pertains to matters of the great of this world, he uses a more subtle approach to make his own ideas more palatable without being offensive. The enjoyable and intelligent alternation among the disguises of his didacticisms serves to bring the reader closer to the problems which Wieland has at heart without presenting mere facts. The reader is so skilfully coaxed that the conclusions at which he will arrive will be at least similar to those aimed at by Wieland. That the reader may reach a high level of insight and humanity is the immanent goal of the novels. Added to his pedagogical purpose are his fluent style and mastery of language which give Wieland's novels an air of freshness and liveliness unknown to other German novels of his time. / Arts, Faculty of / Central Eastern Northern European Studies, Department of / Graduate

在「有」與「意見」對立的傳統背景下，那些「萬有」如何與「意見」區別？如果「萬有」涉及了「多」和「差異」，那麼「多」和「差異」要結合成同一個，並且當失去了這個結合後，同一個不會再是自己。以這種關於「結合而成為一」或「結合而是」的問題，就涉及到以「生成」為主的變動的處理：所有「結合而是」的東西通過「進入存有」或「生成」的過程，成為它自己，那麼，要通過如何的觀照、要如何地把在「進入存有」或「生成」的過程中表現出來的許多差異的內容，把它們關連到作為「有」的「萬有」上，而不是作為「意見」的「萬有」上？ 這些萬有若要被帶入認知，則「自然」將被談論為這些變動的原因。此即是亞理斯多德的《自然學》卷前三章所面對的問題，亦即第二哲學作為「知識」而被建立的問題。 亞理斯多德從「physis」這個字的多重意涵著手，開始了把「生成」關連到「有」的策略：「physis」在傳統上所帶的「生長」（das Wachstum）和「本質」（das Wesen）的意義下，他把「自然」標舉為對於生長之「驅力」的擁有，使得擁有這種驅力的東西被看作它們既是生成的、又是自己有能力生成的，並且這種能力被包含在這些東西之作為它們自己的本質裡。據此，對運動變化的內容的觀照，得到了一條途徑可以通往「自然」，「自然」則作為一種活動的能力在本質上，就是本質自己的實現。亞理斯多德轉而把運動變化視為自然或本質自己對自己的某種揭露，並且能把整個觀照轉向到對擁有活動之能力的本質的掌握。隨後他設立一種「目的的視野」而以「相」來觀看如此之本質：他一方面通過對數學家之觀看的評論，批評了柏拉圖學院對的設定，亦即他們不觀看生成，卻分離地設定了生成之能力的實現；另一方面則藉助了與技術的類比而論證了「目的的觀看」——正如在技術的活動裡，質料和相結合地被帶到「為了目的」的瞭解上，在自然的活動裡，本質之能力的活動的結構也完整地在這樣的視野中，以「為了目的」的觀看而被掌握。因此，「目的」就作為某某之活動能力的「界定」，作為其活動能力之展現的諸差異的「共同擁有者」，由此成立「必然」的意義。最後亞理斯多德將「相」作為本質之存有的以及能力的結構，從中分解出原因的途徑，並透過這些而與變動的內容關連起來。如此一來完成了將生成帶入對本質掌握裡，進而把這些結合而是的萬有以如此的觀看步驟關連到「有」而排除了與「意見」的關連。根據上述步驟，第二哲學以「看起來的善」而非「自身善」為條件成立了其限定的知識，據此界線而與第一哲學劃分。 本論文帶著一個仔細分解上述所有步驟的意圖，針對這段文獻進行逐句解釋的工作，最後期望在一個完整的意義上建立亞理斯多德之談論的論理程序。

Zugl.: Oslo, Universiẗat, Diss., 2006.