Obzwar einige wenige Arbeiten über Dürrenmatts theoretische Prosa erschienen sind, erweisen sich diejenigen, die sich ausschliesslich auf sie stfitzen, als zu unvollstSndig und unkritisch; andere, darunter recht aufschlussreiche Arbeiten behandeln entweder kurz Einzelaspekte der Theorie, oder aber verbin-den diese vorwiegend mit seinem dichterischen Werk. In unserer Untersuchung hatten wir uns eine Doppelaufgabe gestellt; auf der einen Seite versuchten wir, die zahlreichen ira Gesanitwerk verstreuten dra-maturgischen und theatertheoretischen Ausserungen Dürrenmatts unter drei As-pekte einzuordnen: Als erstes wird die Auseinandersetzung des Dramatikers mit der Bühne diskutiert, die auf die Uberbrfickung der traditionellen Antithetik von Dichterischem und Szenischem im Schauspiel mit Hilfe eines "Teams" von Autor und Theaterensemble hinausläuft. Der zweite und umfassendste Teil unserer Arbeit beschSftigt sich mit der Auseinandersetzung Dtfrrenmatts mit der Welt, d. h. mit seinen Ansichten üiber das Verhältnis von Kunst und Wirklich-keit und üiber die Aufgabe des Theaters heute; hier werden mit ästhetischen auch weltanschauliche Uberlegungen des Dramatikers besprochen, bestimrat doch die Art seines Erlebnisses der gegenwärtigen Welt die Art seines dramaturgi-schen Denkens„ Der dritte Teil behandelt Dürrenmatts Auseinandersetzung mit dem Stoff, d. h. den eigentlichen Gestaltungsprozess, der aus einem Einfall eine dramatische Welt erbaut. Die andere Seite der gestellten Doppelaufgabe bestand darin, üiber diese Materialordnung hinaus die oft als widersprfichlich bezeichneten theoretischen Ausserungen Dürrenmatts in einem Leitthema zu vereinheitlichen, wodurch sein dramaturgisches Denken im Lichte der Dialektik gesehen wurde. Doch sollte damit weder eine philosophische Auslegung unternommen, noch eine ideologi-sche Zuordnung des Dramatikers zum Marxismus etwa angedeutet werden; der Komödienautor ist weder Philosoph noch Politiker. Es sei hier einzig seine spe-zifische Denktechnik als Draraatiker gemeint, seine dialektische Methode zum Aufbau seiner KomHdienspiele sowie zur Erkenntnis und DewSltigung der Welt. Als konstruktives Prinzip wurde die Dialektik eirunal in der draraati-schen Form nachgewiesen, da der Komödienautor die Wirklichkeit am Unwirk-lichen, im fiktiven Modell sichtbar zu machen sucht; als sog. Berufst'-fti-ger hat er darait die Aufgabe der Kunst, aus der Bildlosigkeit der Gegenwart ein Bild zu machen, erffJllt. Zum anderen zeigt sich Dürrenmatts dramaturgisch dialektisches Denken im Inhalt, so etwa in der Dramatisierung des Menschen als Doppelwesen, der sich als einzelner von seinem existentiellen Begriff her als Glied der Gesellschaft ihr gegenüiber verantwortlich ffihlt, sich dann aber, als er sich als ein solches Gesellschaftswesen in seinem logischen Begriff schmerzhaft erfShrt, als einzelner zu einer ihm gemcfssen Daseinsform durch-ringt; die schlimmst-mtfgliche Wendung, ein zufcflliges Missgeschick, das die-sem vernfiftig planenden Menschen dabei zum notwendigen Schicksal wird, ist die tragischste Wende, gerade weil es die in die Komrjdie ist. Durch diese Doppelkonzeption vora Menschen wird die Dürrenmattsche KoraHdie zugleich zu einem gesellschaftskritischen, grotesken Zeitstfick und einem individualisti-schen Welttheater von der tragikomischen condition humaine. Ausserdem ver-wiesen wir auf die Dialektik im Gestaltungsprozess selbst, wodurch einer-seits ffir den Btlhnenautor Schreiben und Inszenieren, andererseits bewusste FUgung und ins Blaue hinein entwerfende Fabulierfreude miteinander verzahnt werden. Beztlglich der Wirkung besteht die Dialektik Dürrenmatts in der Ver-bindung von Illusions- und Verfremdungstheater im KomOdienspiel, das gerade durch seine Unverbindlichkeit als reines Theater etwas Verbindliches wird. In dieser unwillkfirlichen Moralitift liegt die erkenntnistheoretische und weltbewifltigende Funktion der Dürrenmattschen Dialektik als Doppelung von pflichtbewusster Analyse und leieht fertigern Spiel üiber die Welt und mit ihr; statt In einer ideologisch ongagierten Dramaturgic von der Aussage her sucht dor Autor in komOdiantischen Gebilden eine Anleitung zu geben, spie-lerisch Uber die Wirklichkeit kritisch nachzudenkcn0 Eine Deutung des als absurdistisch erfahrenen Daseins will er nicht geben, der Sinn seiner Spiele liegt in seinem Spiel mit Sinn. Dieses Spiel will er vora ernstgenommenen Humor her verstanden wissen, wobei dieser Humor als eine Gegenbewegung dem Opti-mismus und dem Pessimismus gegenuber, d. h. als freiwilliger Verzicht auf eine endgiLltige Weltkonzeption und als eine lebensnotwendige Dialektik, als ein positives Trotzdem gewertet werden soil. / Arts, Faculty of / Central Eastern Northern European Studies, Department of / Graduate

The primary purpose of this inquiry is to examine the techniques of indirect ethical communication which Fielding invented, adapted, and perfected, and which may be seen at work in his novels, developed to meet what he understood to be the special needs of his readers. His innovations in the fictional communication of ethical value are explained in the context of the widespread agreement in his own time that the direct communication of ethical and religious conviction was difficult, if not impossible, because real conviction depends upon a frank, reasonable, and voluntary assent to the terms of belief. The enquiry examines two kinds of indirect ethical discourse, which have been termed dialogue and dialectic. Dialogue in fiction consists in the interchange of ideas in conversation, including series of conflicting or complementary examples or illustrations, implicit references to other texts, and encounters between rival definitions of evaluative terms. The focal points of Fielding's dialogues are matters of some moment, such as the duties of charity, temperance, the respect due to the clergy, marriage, prudence, and the origin and scope of law. Because the reader of satire is invited to compare what is ridiculed with a social normative referent, satire is a kind of dialogue. But certain dialogic patterns are designed to entrap the reader, forcing him to reconsider the assumptions by which he interprets the novels. This process becomes dialectical when the program of reader-implication stimulates an inward turning. The philosophical context includes both the Platonic assumption that the Good is latent in each individual, and the Anglican doctrine of assent lpersonal rsponsibility for belief) . The reader is an appropriate target for the indirect stimulation of the potential faculty of Good Nature, beginning with the reduction of cormnon but erroneous opinion (elenchus), and reaching completion with the Socratic method of "intellectual midwifery" (maieusis), which assists the reader to bring latent ideas into active life. The enquiry undertakes a close reading of Joseph Andrews and Tom Jones, considering questions of comedy and the admixture of jest and earnest, deliberate artificiality of form, narrative technique, irony, reader response, and ethical discourse. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Historically, dialectics is the general method of (early) philosophy. The philosophy rhetoric controversy of modern dialectics (or argumentation theory) is reducible to a persuasion-knowledge gap. It's addressed in five parts. First, disputes in discourse (dialectics). Critical discussion or debate involves disagreement and contention. An agent's position on an issue includes an opinion (or claim) and ground. A ground is strategically developed in a contest of strengths using psycho-social influence and persuasion. This depends on the conveyance of meaning. Dispute resolution occurs where there is preponderance and a dominant position. The remaining parts selectively elaborate this framework. Second, persuasion (rhetoric). Persuasion involves the use of appeals e.g. rhetorical devices, arguments etc. to influence the propositional attitudes of agents. A hormic-hedonic infrastructure of mind suggests that psycho-social influence occurs through interest-satisfaction and results in an attitude (acceptance-withholding or rejection) toward a proposition. An agents internally operate according to an opinion-persuasion relation with thresholds, which most likely belong to the class of sigmoid functions. Benchmarks (thresholds) are set by a standard of establishment or proof. Satisfying a good standard is a preferred condition for action. Third, reason (dianoetics). Reason is impassioned rationally-principled semi -- autonomous intellect. The hormic-hedonic infrastructure of mind suggests it's a source (ideas) and an influence (pro-rational passions). Rationality rests on concepts and principles that regulate conduct (thought, feeling and action). Rational discourse isn't fully understood game-theoretically. A jurisprudential metaphor offers proof-based decision-making as an approach. Fourth, conduct (strategics). The aim of dispute involves both persuasion and dominance in a contest of strength. Arguments are an important class of appeals; they have cogency as their strength attribute. Strategically, conduct involves argumentative strategic criticism. A universal argumentation scheme describes conduct generally and is the basis for strength aggregates. Ideally, dispute resolution occurs when one position satisfies the standard of establishment or proof. Game-theoretically, establishment- or proof-based decision-making involves scores, voting and Arrow's theorem. Fifth, the dialectics of alethic inquiry (epistemics). This is the application of dialectics to claims. Internally, they are beliefs or knowledge. Difficulties (e.g. the Gettier challenge) with the standard justified true belief (JTB) model leads to alternatives like cognitivism, gradualism and thresholdism. What is proposed is an open contested certified true belief model that makes use of a claim-persuasion relation with thresholds. It is underwritten by a progressive rational regimentation of influences that is naturally based on a common ground of pragmatic reliabilism. This requires a preference for persuasive over non-persuasive influences. Thus, knowledge is belief with proof where proof-based decision-making rests on the cogency of arguments and case. Finally, by bridging the persuasion-knowledge gap, the philosophy-rhetoric controversy is settled and a reconciliation of philosophy (representing dialectics) and rhetoric is achieved. Rhetoric is a sub-discipline of dialectics. An implication is a denial of the incommensurability of theories associated with critical discussion and debate in discourse.

Historically, dialectics is the general method of (early) philosophy. The philosophy rhetoric controversy of modern dialectics (or argumentation theory) is reducible to a persuasion-knowledge gap. It's addressed in five parts. First, disputes in discourse (dialectics). Critical discussion or debate involves disagreement and contention. An agent's position on an issue includes an opinion (or claim) and ground. A ground is strategically developed in a contest of strengths using psycho-social influence and persuasion. This depends on the conveyance of meaning. Dispute resolution occurs where there is preponderance and a dominant position. The remaining parts selectively elaborate this framework. Second, persuasion (rhetoric). Persuasion involves the use of appeals e.g. rhetorical devices, arguments etc. to influence the propositional attitudes of agents. A hormic-hedonic infrastructure of mind suggests that psycho-social influence occurs through interest-satisfaction and results in an attitude (acceptance-withholding or rejection) toward a proposition. An agents internally operate according to an opinion-persuasion relation with thresholds, which most likely belong to the class of sigmoid functions. Benchmarks (thresholds) are set by a standard of establishment or proof. Satisfying a good standard is a preferred condition for action. Third, reason (dianoetics). Reason is impassioned rationally-principled semi -- autonomous intellect. The hormic-hedonic infrastructure of mind suggests it's a source (ideas) and an influence (pro-rational passions). Rationality rests on concepts and principles that regulate conduct (thought, feeling and action). Rational discourse isn't fully understood game-theoretically. A jurisprudential metaphor offers proof-based decision-making as an approach. Fourth, conduct (strategics). The aim of dispute involves both persuasion and dominance in a contest of strength. Arguments are an important class of appeals; they have cogency as their strength attribute. Strategically, conduct involves argumentative strategic criticism. A universal argumentation scheme describes conduct generally and is the basis for strength aggregates. Ideally, dispute resolution occurs when one position satisfies the standard of establishment or proof. Game-theoretically, establishment- or proof-based decision-making involves scores, voting and Arrow's theorem. Fifth, the dialectics of alethic inquiry (epistemics). This is the application of dialectics to claims. Internally, they are beliefs or knowledge. Difficulties (e.g. the Gettier challenge) with the standard justified true belief (JTB) model leads to alternatives like cognitivism, gradualism and thresholdism. What is proposed is an open contested certified true belief model that makes use of a claim-persuasion relation with thresholds. It is underwritten by a progressive rational regimentation of influences that is naturally based on a common ground of pragmatic reliabilism. This requires a preference for persuasive over non-persuasive influences. Thus, knowledge is belief with proof where proof-based decision-making rests on the cogency of arguments and case. Finally, by bridging the persuasion-knowledge gap, the philosophy-rhetoric controversy is settled and a reconciliation of philosophy (representing dialectics) and rhetoric is achieved. Rhetoric is a sub-discipline of dialectics. An implication is a denial of the incommensurability of theories associated with critical discussion and debate in discourse.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington. / Bibliography: l. [365]-385.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2008. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on July 27, 2009) Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis--Freie Universität, Berlin. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. i-vi).

Martin Heidegger and Hans-Georg Gadamer both advanced a philosophical hermeneutics. These two thinkers, as teacher and student, share much in common, yet their hermeneutics are also divergent. I argue that their commonalities and differences are both markedly present in their contrasted interpretations of Plato. Heidegger argued that Plato was the founder of onto-theological metaphysics because Socrates’ program of education in the Republic required a reorientation of the soul to the Idea of the Good. In this educational reorientation of the soul to the Good, Heidegger claimed Plato effectively sublimated a-letheia to correctness. As his student, Hans-Georg Gadamer shared and attempted to further Heidegger’s interest in primordiality. However, whereas Heidegger “liquefied” Plato, Gadamer’s hermeneutics sought to recover an ontological Plato, one who stood against the tradition as a proponent of primordial a-letheia. Gadamer emphasized the transcendence of the Idea of the Good in Plato’s Republic as evidence that the Good is not an entity like all other Ideas. Through a reading of Plato’s Philebus, Gadamer argued that the Good discloses itself to humans engaged in dialectic in the beautiful unity and proportion of all things. Dialectic is disclosure and concealment of the Good in the matter under discussion. By interpreting Plato as a partner in ontology, Gadamer departed from Heidegger and his reading of the allegory of the cave while also offering a Heideggerian interpretation of Plato.

Today's globalized world presents challenges for formulating language education policies in multilingual countries, and postcolonial Nigeria presents a dramatic illustration because of ongoing colonial influences as well as neocolonial factors. This study focused on dialectical relations over time among languages in Nigeria's National Policy on Education (NPE), published in 1977, 1981, 1998, 2004, 2013, and 2014. The title of the study harks to Chinua Achebe's novel, Things Fall Apart, which described the disruption of tribal cultures and languages when Europeans brought their culture and language to Nigeria. Attention in this dissertation, which examined Nigerian education policy over four decades, was also on things falling apart, being resolved in some way, and then falling apart again. Four major dialectical tensions can be seen as the NPE went through revisions in language of instruction and language of study. First, relations between English and indigenous languages showed the increasing importance of English despite ostensible attempts to promote indigeneity through language. Particularly important was the influence of globalization, which emphasized neoliberal values and initiatives associated with global English. Second, relations among the various indigenous languages showed three languages—Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba—to be privileged over 522 other languages that were marginalized but retained as "mother tongue" or "language of immediate environment." Third, relations between French, which became the second official language, and English revealed that, although both now have the same "official" status, the two are by no means equal. The addition of French was largely a political move that had little effect on language education policy. Fourth and finally, relations between Arabic and other languages showed Arabic, which had been largely ignored in the policy, gaining some visibility in later versions but remaining in the role of "other." Of particular significance in the policy over time has been English, which was the colonizers' language and is now the world's global language, Dialectical relations between languages of education in Nigeria, including English, can also be seen as tensions between global and local, colonizer and colonized, and privileged and marginalized.

No / The Leverhulme Trust (UK), the Spanish Psycologists’ Association (Consejo Nacional de Colegios Oficiales de Psicólogos, COP-CV and COP’s Division on Work, Organizations and Personnel Psychology), the Valencian Government (Conselleria de Educación, Generalitat Valenciana), the University of Valencia and the European Association of Work, and Organizational Psychology (EAWOP) for their kind funding contributions