As an emerging great/super power, what the world needs to know about the rise of China? Unfortunately, many efforts to develop a comprehensive and detailed perspective on the rise of China are clouded, and even distorted. That is why and where this dissertation comes in. In order to help readers understand how observers interpret the rise of China; furthermore, what should be prepared to deal with a China led by the Chinese Communist Party(CCP), this study mainly concentrates on discourses on the rise of China, especially reflecting on the CCP¡¦s leaders¡¦ discourses from the perspective of identity and action. Based on the perspective of identity and action, this study reviewed the key concepts and logic as follows firstly: China, rise, identity, action, actor, rationality, imagine, and the logic of antithesis. Secondly, this study made a recombination of these concepts and the logic of antithesis to develop a theoretical framework, and named it ¡§the framework of identity-action positions.¡¨ Thirdly, in looking at the period from lat-Qing Dynasty to the present, this study applied the framework to analyze discourses on the rise of China, and particularly try to discover their common origin. Finally, this study argues that the origin of discourses on the rise of China is Chinese leaders¡¦ ambitions. However, there is a crucial difference between the CCP and other Chinese leaders. Continuous struggle, inevitably, is the essence of the CCP and its leaders¡¦ mindset. Thus, understanding the CCP and its leaders¡¦ continuous struggle for survival and development, in observing the rise of China, is what the world needs to know behind the scenes.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Divinity School, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 306-321). Also available on the Internet.

La Phèdre de Sénèque au regard de la tradition antithétique : personnages, espace, temps. / Seneca's Phaedra as a complex system of antithesis. / La Phaedra di Seneca all'incrocio di tradizioni antitetiche : antitesi spaziali, "naturam sequere" e vita contro natura, conflitto parentale, parola e silenzio.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-03-15T19:46:39Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Mirlane Moreira Gomes.pdf: 139607 bytes, checksum: 654aef948ff06dc6c3c9886fb1037075 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-02-14 / Fundo Mackenzie de Pesquisa / This research has as main subject the study of the workmanship Grande Sertão: veredas, representative of the Brazilian Modernism and Neomodernism, written for mining author Guimarães Rosa, whose objective is, particularly, the analysis of three feminine figures that are part of this romance, under the point of view of the Analysis of the Speech. In this work, the Analysis of the Speech intends to contribute so that some aspects are observed, what it is of interest for the Literature and the Analysis of the Speech. The workmanship presents twenty women and great it is the importance of the feminine figures for Rosa, however, three of them all constitute the fulcrum of the course of the plot of the romance, for this reason, Diadorim, Otacília and Nhorinhá are the personages chosen for analysis of the speech elements that impersonate them. The proposal theoretical is to demonstrate to the origins and trends of the Analysis of Speech (AD) and, for this, some authors as Maingueneau, Orlandi and Foucault are cited by being representative of current proposals of analysis that place the AD ones as science to interdisciplinary. The dialogism and the polyphony, according to Bakhtin, are concepts presented and analysed in the parts selected for the composition of the corpus. This complete procedure the biggest question of this research that is to demonstrate as the antithesis, the dialogism and the polyphony are resources of great prominence for the Speech Formation of the studied feminine figures. / Esta pesquisa tem como principal o estudo da obra Grande Sertão: veredas, representante do Modernismo e Neomodernismo brasileiros, escrita pelo autor mineiro Guimarães Rosa , cujo objetivo é, particularmente, a análise de três figuras femininas que fazem parte deste romance, sob o ponto de vista da Análise do Discurso. Neste trabalho, a Análise do Discurso pretende contribuir para que alguns aspectos sejam observados, o que é de interesse para a Literatura e para a Análise do Discurso. A obra apresenta vinte mulheres e grande é a importância das figuras femininas para Rosa, porém, três delas constituem o fulcro do andamento do enredo de todo o romance, por esta razão, Diadorim, Otacília e Nhorinhá são as personagens escolhidas para análise dos elementos discursivos que as personificam. A proposta teórica é a de demonstrar as origens e tendências da Análise do Discurso( AD) e, para isso, alguns autores como Maingueneau, Orlandi e Foucault são citados para serem representantes de propostas atuais de análises que colocam a AD como ciência interdisciplinar. O Dialogismo e a Polifonia, segundo Bakhtin, são conceitos apresentados e analisados nas partes selecionadas para a composição do Corpus. Este procedimento completa a maior questão desta pesquisa que é a de demonstrar como a Antítese, o Dialogismo e a Polifonia são recursos de grande destaque para a formação discursiva das figuras femininas estudadas.

The purpose of this study is to assess the cogency of Francis Schaeffer‘s apologetic in light of John Frame‘s triperspectival epistemology, giving special attention to the existential perspective evident throughout Schaeffer‘s trilogy. The study achieves this aim by employing the instrumental case study method to meet five specific objectives. First, the study determines the extent to which Schaeffer‘s existential perspective is recognized within the apologetic literature that critically engages with his ideas. Based on these sources, the study determines that this perspective is recognized in Schaeffer‘s work but not as an integral component within a broader perspectival approach to apologetics. Second, the study discovers the ways in which Frame‘s triperspectivalism may be used in analyzing apologetic systems to reveal their strengths, weaknesses and cogency. By giving attention to Frame‘s system as a meta-apologetic, it is evident that this tool is applicable to Schaeffer and to other apologists. This establishes Frame‘s perspectivalism as an appropriate theoretical model to use in an instrumental case study on apologetics. Third, the study analyzes the ways in which Frame‘s triperspectivalism is reflected in Schaeffer‘s trilogy, highlighting the existential perspective. Meeting this objective establishes the central theoretical argument of the study, showing that Frame‘s epistemology reveals the underlying cogency of Schaeffer‘s apologetic credibly (?) and does so most profoundly with respect to the existential perspective. Fourth, the study compares Schaeffer‘s existential perspective with that of E.J. Carnell and secular existentialism, which both apologists confronted. On the basis of Carnell‘s critique of existentialism and his existential apologetic of personal rectitude, credible support is offered for Schaeffer‘s engagement with this philosophical movement and his own existential perspective. Fifth, support is offered for the current relevance of Schaeffer‘s apologetic of personal rectitude by showing how the postmodern situation he anticipated is best addressed using the apologetic tools he offers. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Dogmatics))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012

Throughout the twentieth century, the relationship between representation and abstraction has been regarded predominantly in terms of opposition. One of the prominent early twentieth-century defenders of this approach is Wilhelm Worringer (1881-1965), who introduces representation and abstraction as antithetic modes of art-making in Abstraction and Empathy. A Contribution to the Psychology of Style (1908). However, while he distinguishes between abstraction and representation on theoretical grounds, Worringer also observes that, in the history of art, these modes of art-making coexist. The current thesis examines Worringer’s approach to the writing of art history and theory, inquiring into his perspective on the personal responses of viewers and artists to the world, and the manifestations of these responses in art. Abstraction and Empathy addresses issues of empathy, form, and will, in aesthetics and art-making; it discusses and extends the writings of Theodor Lipps, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Alois Riegl. At the beginning of the twentieth century, Worringer’s book attracted much attention: like its sequel, Form in Gothic (1910), it was often associated with the rise to prominence of Expressionism in Germany. Later in the twentieth century, Worringer’s thought came under the scrutiny of Rudolf Arnheim, who criticized Worringer’s emphasis on abstract-representational opposition. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari praised Worringer’s approach to antithesis, yet questioned the terms Worringer proposed as opposites. For Arnheim, Deleuze and Guattari, alternatives to the antithesis between abstraction and representation became visible. Indeed, in Worringer’s time, artists such as Adolf Hildebrand, Ferdinand Hodler, Paul Cézanne, Claude Monet and Wassily Kandinsky underscored the common grounds between representation and abstraction. Exploring Worringer’s Abstraction and Empathy and Form in Gothic, as well as the words and works of Hildebrand, Hodler, Cézanne, Monet and Kandinsky, this thesis aims to highlight abstract-representational interplay as observable in early twentieth-century writing and art-making.

The purpose of this study is to assess the cogency of Francis Schaeffer‘s apologetic in light of John Frame‘s triperspectival epistemology, giving special attention to the existential perspective evident throughout Schaeffer‘s trilogy. The study achieves this aim by employing the instrumental case study method to meet five specific objectives. First, the study determines the extent to which Schaeffer‘s existential perspective is recognized within the apologetic literature that critically engages with his ideas. Based on these sources, the study determines that this perspective is recognized in Schaeffer‘s work but not as an integral component within a broader perspectival approach to apologetics. Second, the study discovers the ways in which Frame‘s triperspectivalism may be used in analyzing apologetic systems to reveal their strengths, weaknesses and cogency. By giving attention to Frame‘s system as a meta-apologetic, it is evident that this tool is applicable to Schaeffer and to other apologists. This establishes Frame‘s perspectivalism as an appropriate theoretical model to use in an instrumental case study on apologetics. Third, the study analyzes the ways in which Frame‘s triperspectivalism is reflected in Schaeffer‘s trilogy, highlighting the existential perspective. Meeting this objective establishes the central theoretical argument of the study, showing that Frame‘s epistemology reveals the underlying cogency of Schaeffer‘s apologetic credibly (?) and does so most profoundly with respect to the existential perspective. Fourth, the study compares Schaeffer‘s existential perspective with that of E.J. Carnell and secular existentialism, which both apologists confronted. On the basis of Carnell‘s critique of existentialism and his existential apologetic of personal rectitude, credible support is offered for Schaeffer‘s engagement with this philosophical movement and his own existential perspective. Fifth, support is offered for the current relevance of Schaeffer‘s apologetic of personal rectitude by showing how the postmodern situation he anticipated is best addressed using the apologetic tools he offers. / Thesis (Ph.D. (Dogmatics))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012

Hans Jonas (1903-1993) foi um filósofo judeu-alemão que sob os auspícios de Martin Heidegger desenvolveu uma leitura existencialista do fenômeno do gnosticismo, visto por ele como uma religião dualista cujos contornos antecedem e influenciam o Cristianismo Primitivo. Esta leitura tem ecos ainda hoje na reconstrução histórica do gnosticismo, ainda que alguns autores modernos como Michael Williams (1996) e Karen King (2001) tenham feito duras críticas. Na presente dissertação, verificamos que a análise de Jonas é permeada por conceitos antitéticos na formulação do problema gnóstico. São eles: oriente e ocidente, mito e misticismo, mitologia e filosofia, conhecimento e fé, princípio gnóstico e princípio de responsabilidade. Os conceitos antitéticos são limitativos, pois são assimétricos, isto é, a contraparte que pretendem definir é inferiorizada. (KOSELLECK, 2006) Embora Jonas tenha se voltado ao problema do organismo como ontologia após a experiência traumática da Segunda Guerra Mundial, o princípio gnóstico foi a pedra de toque para a formulação de outro princípio em seu período de maturidade: o princípio responsabilidade. Portanto, concordamos com Wadelstein (2000) quando afirma que a franca hostilidade ao princípio gnóstico do Jonas filósofo da natureza e da responsabilidade não permitiu que sua leitura do gnosticismo avançasse, não obstante a possibilidade de contato com os novos documentos de Nag Hammadi. / Hans Jonas (1903-1993) was a German-Jew philosopher who developed an existentialist view to the gnostic phenomena under the scope and orientation of Martin Heidegger, which is a dualistic religion which boundaries had preceded and influenced the Early Christians. Such understanding has yet today played an important role on the historical reconstruction of Gnosticism, even though it has gathered heavy criticism from current scholars such as Michael Williams (1996) and Karen King (2001). In this dissertation is verified that Jonas‘analysis over Gnosticism is trespassed by non-ethical concepts in the basis to the development of the Gnostic construct. So they are: East and West; Myth and Mysticism; Mythology and Philosophy, Faith and Knowledge, Gnostic Principle and Responsibility Principle. Such non-ethical concepts are restrictive itselves since they are asymmetrical, namely, the counterpart they are supposed to define is diminished by them (KOSELLECK, 2006). Although Hans Jonas had turned to face the problem of the self as an ontological one, after World War II, it was the Gnostic Principle the linking point to the construction of his other Principle on his later days: the Responsibility Principle. So that, in accordance to Wadelstein (2000), it was due to the plain hostility towards Jonas’ construct on Gnostic Principle that prevented his understanding over gnosticism from advancing further, despite the possible conection of his ideas with the new-found Nag Hammadi papers.

Hans Jonas (1903-1993) foi um filósofo judeu-alemão que sob os auspícios de Martin Heidegger desenvolveu uma leitura existencialista do fenômeno do gnosticismo, visto por ele como uma religião dualista cujos contornos antecedem e influenciam o Cristianismo Primitivo. Esta leitura tem ecos ainda hoje na reconstrução histórica do gnosticismo, ainda que alguns autores modernos como Michael Williams (1996) e Karen King (2001) tenham feito duras críticas. Na presente dissertação, verificamos que a análise de Jonas é permeada por conceitos antitéticos na formulação do problema gnóstico. São eles: oriente e ocidente, mito e misticismo, mitologia e filosofia, conhecimento e fé, princípio gnóstico e princípio de responsabilidade. Os conceitos antitéticos são limitativos, pois são assimétricos, isto é, a contraparte que pretendem definir é inferiorizada. (KOSELLECK, 2006) Embora Jonas tenha se voltado ao problema do organismo como ontologia após a experiência traumática da Segunda Guerra Mundial, o princípio gnóstico foi a pedra de toque para a formulação de outro princípio em seu período de maturidade: o princípio responsabilidade. Portanto, concordamos com Wadelstein (2000) quando afirma que a franca hostilidade ao princípio gnóstico do Jonas filósofo da natureza e da responsabilidade não permitiu que sua leitura do gnosticismo avançasse, não obstante a possibilidade de contato com os novos documentos de Nag Hammadi. / Hans Jonas (1903-1993) was a German-Jew philosopher who developed an existentialist view to the gnostic phenomena under the scope and orientation of Martin Heidegger, which is a dualistic religion which boundaries had preceded and influenced the Early Christians. Such understanding has yet today played an important role on the historical reconstruction of Gnosticism, even though it has gathered heavy criticism from current scholars such as Michael Williams (1996) and Karen King (2001). In this dissertation is verified that Jonas‘analysis over Gnosticism is trespassed by non-ethical concepts in the basis to the development of the Gnostic construct. So they are: East and West; Myth and Mysticism; Mythology and Philosophy, Faith and Knowledge, Gnostic Principle and Responsibility Principle. Such non-ethical concepts are restrictive itselves since they are asymmetrical, namely, the counterpart they are supposed to define is diminished by them (KOSELLECK, 2006). Although Hans Jonas had turned to face the problem of the self as an ontological one, after World War II, it was the Gnostic Principle the linking point to the construction of his other Principle on his later days: the Responsibility Principle. So that, in accordance to Wadelstein (2000), it was due to the plain hostility towards Jonas’ construct on Gnostic Principle that prevented his understanding over gnosticism from advancing further, despite the possible conection of his ideas with the new-found Nag Hammadi papers.

Hans Jonas (1903-1993) foi um filósofo judeu-alemão que sob os auspícios de Martin Heidegger desenvolveu uma leitura existencialista do fenômeno do gnosticismo, visto por ele como uma religião dualista cujos contornos antecedem e influenciam o Cristianismo Primitivo. Esta leitura tem ecos ainda hoje na reconstrução histórica do gnosticismo, ainda que alguns autores modernos como Michael Williams (1996) e Karen King (2001) tenham feito duras críticas. Na presente dissertação, verificamos que a análise de Jonas é permeada por conceitos antitéticos na formulação do problema gnóstico. São eles: oriente e ocidente, mito e misticismo, mitologia e filosofia, conhecimento e fé, princípio gnóstico e princípio de responsabilidade. Os conceitos antitéticos são limitativos, pois são assimétricos, isto é, a contraparte que pretendem definir é inferiorizada. (KOSELLECK, 2006) Embora Jonas tenha se voltado ao problema do organismo como ontologia após a experiência traumática da Segunda Guerra Mundial, o princípio gnóstico foi a pedra de toque para a formulação de outro princípio em seu período de maturidade: o princípio responsabilidade. Portanto, concordamos com Wadelstein (2000) quando afirma que a franca hostilidade ao princípio gnóstico do Jonas filósofo da natureza e da responsabilidade não permitiu que sua leitura do gnosticismo avançasse, não obstante a possibilidade de contato com os novos documentos de Nag Hammadi. / Hans Jonas (1903-1993) was a German-Jew philosopher who developed an existentialist view to the gnostic phenomena under the scope and orientation of Martin Heidegger, which is a dualistic religion which boundaries had preceded and influenced the Early Christians. Such understanding has yet today played an important role on the historical reconstruction of Gnosticism, even though it has gathered heavy criticism from current scholars such as Michael Williams (1996) and Karen King (2001). In this dissertation is verified that Jonas‘analysis over Gnosticism is trespassed by non-ethical concepts in the basis to the development of the Gnostic construct. So they are: East and West; Myth and Mysticism; Mythology and Philosophy, Faith and Knowledge, Gnostic Principle and Responsibility Principle. Such non-ethical concepts are restrictive itselves since they are asymmetrical, namely, the counterpart they are supposed to define is diminished by them (KOSELLECK, 2006). Although Hans Jonas had turned to face the problem of the self as an ontological one, after World War II, it was the Gnostic Principle the linking point to the construction of his other Principle on his later days: the Responsibility Principle. So that, in accordance to Wadelstein (2000), it was due to the plain hostility towards Jonas’ construct on Gnostic Principle that prevented his understanding over gnosticism from advancing further, despite the possible conection of his ideas with the new-found Nag Hammadi papers.