No description available.

Made available in DSpace on 2017-07-10T18:26:18Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Celia Machado Benvenho.pdf: 546815 bytes, checksum: 94730d5eece11060862c817881f759dc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-06-25 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The tragic thought while philosophical reflection about the human condition makes part of a whole movement of valorization of the old Greek art for the Germans in the end of the century XVIII. In spite of that, Nietzsche comes in his last texts as the first tragic philosopher. The objective of this work is to understand and to justify this statement of Nietzsche, even though his thought about the tragic, although it is one of the best knowing among us, it is not the only one. Which innovation is presented by Nietzsche in his interpretation of the tragic that would define him as the first tragic philosopher? We will try to show that, to Nietzsche, the tragedy is a piece of art considered supreme for making possible, at the same time, a metaphysics, a knowledge opposed to the socratic and a redemption. Nietzsche's tragic philosophy, in the end, allows the affirmation of the existence under an aesthetic point of view, which means, it makes possible an aesthetic justification of the existence. / O pensamento trágico enquanto reflexão filosófica sobre a condição humana faz parte de todo um movimento de valorização da arte grega antiga pelos alemães no final do século XVIII. Apesar disso, Nietzsche se apresenta em seus últimos textos como o primeiro filósofo trágico. O objetivo deste trabalho é entender e justificar essa afirmação de Nietzsche, já que seu pensamento sobre o trágico, embora seja um dos mais conhecidos entre nós, não é o único. Qual a novidade apresentada por Nietzsche na sua interpretação do trágico que o definiria como primeiro filósofo trágico? Tentaremos mostrar que, para Nietzsche, a tragédia é uma obra de arte considerada suprema por possibilitar, ao mesmo tempo, uma metafísica, um modo de conhecimento que se opõe ao socrático e uma redenção. A filosofia trágica de Nietzsche, enfim, permite a afirmação da existência sob um ponto de vista estético, ou seja, possibilita uma justificativa estética da existência.

Mit der Behauptung, dass seine eigene Philosophie als »umgedrehter Platonismus« verstanden werden soll, stellt Nietzsche seine Beziehung zum platonischen System dar. Dieses Forschungsprojekt sucht nach einer neuen Variation dieser Darstellung, um die philosophischen Analogien beider Autoren aufzuspüren. Das erste Kapitel beschäftigt sich mit einer Erläuterung des Begriffes „umgedrehter Platonismus“, womit die Differenz zwischen diesen beiden Systemen definiert wird. Diese Diskrepanz ist spürbar in vier verschiedene Bereichen: metaphysisch, axiologisch, gnoseologisch und ästhetisch. Das zweite Kapitel behandelt die Rolle des Apollinischen und des Dionysischen in der nietzscheschen Theorie. Die beiden Konzepte werden mit dem des platonischen Eros verglichen, da diese es dem Menschen ermöglichen, die sinnliche Welt zu verlassen und eine Ur-Realität kennenzulernen. Das dritte Kapitel analysiert die Verurteilung der Kunst in Platon’s „Staat“. Der griechische Philosoph strebt die wahre Kenntnis an und verbindet seine ästhetischen Überlegungen mit der Idee der Wahrheit. Nietzsche bearbeitet diese Verbindung zwischen Ästhetik und Erkenntnistheorie unter dem Begriff »amor fati«. Das vierte Kapitel ist der Physiologie der Liebe gewidmet. Nietzsche verwandelt der Erkenntnisprozess in eine leidenschaftliche Liebe. Die Erkenntnis nimmt die Form einer Passion an und kristallisiert sich allmählich und nach einem langen Prozess mit Höhen und Tiefen in »amor fati«. »Amor fati« schafft eine Ästhetisierung der Erkenntnis und Epistemologiesierung der Ästhetik. Somit liegt Nietzsches Erkenntnistheorie parallel zu jener Platons. / By claiming that his philosophy should be understood as “inverted Platonism” Nietzsche defined his relationship to the Platonic system. This research project aims to articulate a new understanding of this relationship by analyzing philosophical similarities between the two authors'' respective philosophies. The first chapter is dedicated to the explanation of the term “inverted Platonism” and articulates the differences between Plato''s and Nietzsche''s systems. These discrepancies are manifested in four main areas: the metaphysical, the axiological, the gnosiological and the aesthetic. The second chapter deals with the roles of the Apollonian and the Dionysian in Nietzschean theory. Both concepts are compared with the Platonic Eros, as they invite man to abandon the sensual world and instead to commune with the very origin of reality. The third chapter analyzes Plato´s denunciation of art in “The Republic”. The Greek philosopher seeks true knowledge and connects his aesthetic concerns with the idea of Truth. Nietzsche refers to the cynosure between aesthetics and cognitive theory as “amor fati”. The fourth chapter is dedicated to the physiology of love. Nietzsche transforms the cognitive process into a passionate love. Cognition assumes the shape of passion, slowly crystallizing over time, with many twists and turns, into “amor fati”. “Amor fati” aestheticizes cognition and epistemologizes aesthetics. Therefore Nietzsche''s cognitive theory is actually equivalent to that of Plato.

This thesis examines key concepts from philosophers Nishida Kitaro, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Fredriche Nietzsche and applies them to elements of Michael Chekhov’s practice of acting. The three philosophers, in different ways, suggest an ‘optimal’ state, beyond a dualistic separation of the fictive from the real and the visible from the invisible, that challenges seemingly unbridgeable dualisms between inner and outer, subject and object, being and becoming and experiencer and experienced. The purpose of this thesis is to analyze and understand these selected ‘optimal’ modes of consciousness in performance and, therefore, open up new ways of thinking about Michael Chekhov’s acting processes; in particular the ‘Psychological Gesture’. The thesis asks the following questions: 1. How can the application of selected philosophical paradigms to the Psychological Gesture through theory and practice further our understanding of Michael Chekhov’s work? 2. How do selected aspects of the fields of phenomenology, post-phenomenology, cognitive sciences, consciousness studies and philosophy of mind, aid in developing an articulation and understanding of an ‘optimal’ state of consciousness as a necessary aspect of the actor’s performance in Michael Chekhov’s work and theatre practice? 3. How can this project develop the way we are able to talk about Michael Chekhov’s work and wider acting processes?