Carlo Michelstaedter's Persuasion and Rhetoric (1910) is one of best examples of what Massimo Cacciari calls the early twentieth century "metaphysics of youth." Persuasion and Rhetoric is the result of Michelstaedter's academic investigation on the concepts of "persuasion" and "rhetoric" in Plato and Aristotle. Michelstaedter saw in Plato's corpus the gradual abandonment of Parmenidean "being" and Socrates' dialogical philosophy. He reinterpreted the notions of "persuasion" and "rhetoric" terms of a radical dichotomy, using them to represent two opposed ontological modalities, two epistemological attitudes, and two existential alternatives. If "rhetoric" comprehends language, institutional knowledge, and all manifestations of empirical life, then "persuasion" is defined as the unity of the individual with Parmenidean being. Persuasion is an impossible choice: "lifeless life." Being a decisive alternative to rhetoric, persuasion - much like Platonic mania - can neither be articulated nor communicated. Nevertheless, Michelstaedter speaks, aware of his inevitable failure: he will not persuade anyone.

As a whole, this work serves to illuminate the tragic as a fundamental human phenomenon and an objective fact that is distinct not only from comedy and irony but from other forms of calamity and modes of failure. I consider three distinct sources of philosophical knowledge on tragedy. The first is tragic drama and literature, the second is the theory of the tragic and the third source consists of the employment of the concept of tragedy to discuss events or characters that one encounters in life. I carefully draw upon the first two sources to thicken the elaborations of four different facets of the third. In this process, I extrapolate Szondi’s notion that tragedy is a specific dialectic in a specific space. In the course of this work, I place a greater emphasis upon this general concept of the tragic as opposed to a poetics of tragedy. The dissertation bears out, however, that it is ultimately poetics - and not the dialectic as general concept - that provide us with the richer insights into tragedy as it unravels in life. The specific dialectic of tragedy unravels so as to cause the irreplaceable loss of something of great value. This provides me with a structuring element that ties the four central chapters together. In terms of content, I emphasize also upon the tragic flaw as a set of character traits (manifested by an individual or some form of collective) which keep tragedy in place. The consideration of the figure of Willy Loman allows me to examine the tragedy of failure of expectations which is a distinct category of the tragic and yet it oscillates such that ties together the other themes. A central idea that emerges from an analysis of the overlapping themes is that prior to tragedy is the investment of the deepest inner resources into a process. This investment gives rise to identity and to expectations. As a tragedy unfolds, the source of the identity or of expectation becomes also the birth place or the generator of all threats to this identity and the collapse of long nurtured expectations.

The strong part of Horkheimer and Adorno&rsquo / s philosophy is their critique of the Enlightenment. They argue that the consequent of the Enlightenment has been the destruction of the Enlightenment itself. There are two main reasons in the background of this destruction. First of them is the destruction of individual because of the understanding of reason in the Enlightenment. Individuals cannot define their existence beyond the determined roles of society any more. The second reason is the certain distinction between the human beings and nature. The epistemology of the Enlightenment makes nature an object of knowledge and views the world as a summation of facts. This understanding makes subjects passive in providing the objectivity of knowledge. Accordingly, the subject is alienated from his or her knowledge. Horkheimer and Adorno&rsquo / s critical thinking provides possibility for the human autonomy. It tries to understand human beings and society in a dialectical process. It considers the relation between parts and the whole as a mutual relation. According to Horkheimer and Adorno, the relation between subject and object is neither an absolute duality nor an absolute unity.

Is alienation a process of self-discovery or is it a loss of reality? The subject of this thesis is how alienation is discussed in Hegel and Marx&rsquo / s philosophies in terms of this question. In Hegel&rsquo / s philosophy, alienation is part of the process of self-creativity and self-discovery. For Marx, it is the result of the capitalist mode of production. While Hegel explains the existence of the human being through focusing on its ontological dimension, Marx evaluates the term alienation in terms of the economic dimension which he claims that Hegel ignores. The understanding of these philosophers about how they make understandable the process, circumstances and results of alienation is significant for the subject of this thesis. The thesis concludes that, Marx, in spite of his criticisms of Hegel is closer to Hegel than is thought. An additional claim is that Marx&rsquo / s criticisms of Hegel complement Hegel&rsquo / s philosophy rather than overcoming it. The supporting analysis of the thesis is the discussion of whether Marx&rsquo / s criticisms related to Hegel&rsquo / s understanding of alienation as abstract, mystifying, and nonsense are right or wrong. Hegel&rsquo / s conception of alienation has thus been examined by way of Marx&rsquo / s criticisms.

Thesis--Heidelberg. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 133-142).

Thesis (M.A.)--York University, 1999. Graduate Programme in Philosophy. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 103-107). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pMQ39201

The purpose of this essay is to read Philebus based on three central themes – The Soul dialectic, the esoteric elements and some ethical problems, as well as to seek a comprehensive interpretation, rather than investigating, analyzing and interpreting individual concepts. Some questions that the essay aims to follow up are: 1) how can the dialogue on desire and rational knowledge highlighting Plato's ideas about the good life? 2) What are Plato’s real messages in the exposition of the good life? 3) Why are ethical questions related to esoteric elements of Plato's dialogues, and in general? The method is a reading between the lines; a hermeneutic interpretation process. Some patterns and contradictions were discovered during the reading, which shows an overall seemingly contradiction between ethics and metaphysics, but which with the the perspective of the dialectics be possible to reconcile. The final interpretation focuses on three concepts from Plato's own ranking of the good; beauty, proportion and truth. Together they constitute the good life in which pain plays an important role. Furthermore, it is possible to reach in Philebus about the good life, and the messages that one should always be true to oneself and to live modestly and always weigh reason to desire and choose wisdom. The ethical problems are both hidden in the shadows and elusive in Plato's dialogues, which can be a result of caution, but also a fear of losing oneself. Plato´s thinking is consistently dialectic, which is in this essay best illustrated by the allegory of the Cave.

The following thesis outlines Hegel’s interpretation of Socrates in order to prove that as a negative dialectician, Socrates constitutes both a world historic personality who met a fate (Schicksal) which was tragic and practiced a philosophy which was tragically ironic. In this undertaking, Hegel’s Theory of Tragedy takes central importance which defines tragedy as two equally justified opposing forces which clash and destroy one another. This Theory of Tragedy is extended to show that through Socrates’ absolutely free will he brought himself to a tragic clash with the Athenian Ethical Life (Sittlichkeit), the Sophists’ arbitrary will, and the phenomenological will of uneducated Athenians. This clash is described in terms of a Hegelian Tragedy within which both Socrates and Athens were right and just in their actions against one another, but in the end were destroyed through those actions. His Method and Dialectic is then argued represent a negative dialectic which through the negation of negativity becomes positive as a midwifery of the consciousness. Next, because his Method and Dialectic begin in negativity and end in positivity, Socratic Elenchus is argued to not be representative of what has been termed “the Socratic Irony,” but instead only the negative moment of the Socratic Method. Finally, the Socratic Irony which Hegel argues is representative of both Socratic Philosophy and world history is defined as a Tragic Irony which sublates the finite consciousness of the phenomenological will, and the Ethical Life (Sittlichkeit), and the infinite arbitrary will of the Sophists in order to become a trans-subjective absolutely free will which becomes infinite itself like the Sophists’ will through reflection on the Ethical Life (Sittlichkeit).

Le projet d’une théorie dialectique de l’œuvre d’art est sans doute un des plus complexes que Theodor Adorno ait tenu en haleine, projet qui table sur les horizons théoriques les plus diversifiés du philosophe de Francfort. Il ne s’agit donc pas ici d’en résumer la pertinence et les prémisses, de rendre justice à sa pleine complexité. Ce que je propose bien plutôt de faire c’est de développer trois façons inter-reliées de comprendre ce projet. En partant d’abord de la situation de l’esthétique contemporaine à Adorno, nous voudrions regarder en face la solution qu’offre la Théorie esthétique pour revitaliser l’esthétique philosophique. Il s’agit donc d’abord de questionner les catégories traditionnelles de l’esthétique qui semblent inadéquates à la réalité de l’art moderne « à l’époque où il devient objet de réflexion ». Le second aspect concerne l’interprétation et la méthode de présentation. « L’essai comme forme » qu’Adorno exécute et développe de pair avec la tendance parataxique de la poésie d’Hölderlin est l’objet des Notes sur la littérature. Ces travaux font écho à des notions clefs de la Théorie esthétique, déjà en germes dans « L’actualité de la philosophie » : l’interprétation, le contenu de vérité et le caractère énigmatique. Je propose finalement de restituer une certaine évolution du matériau-dissonance, ce qui recoupe et « matérialise » les deux premières perspectives. / The project of a dialectical theory of the artwork is probably one of the most complex aspects of Theodor Adorno’s thought. The aim of this thesis is neither to summarize this project nor to do justice to its full complexity. What I propose, more specifically, is to present three interrelated ways of understanding Adorno’s project. The first concerns the aim and relevance of contemporary philosophical aesthetics. The question here is how Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory contributes to a revitalization of philosophical aesthetics. By juxtaposing traditional categories, which seem inappropriate to the experience of modern art, and contemporary aesthetic experience, I show how Adorno’s negative dialectical philosophy provides a relay of sorts between the traditional and the modern, made necessary by modern art itself "at a time when it is becoming an object of reflection". The second perspective concerns questions of interpretation and presentation, centered on Adorno’s explorations of the essay as “form” and the concept of parataxis, as discussed in Notes to Literature. Here I focus on how these explorations intersect with key concepts in his Aesthetic Theory and his early essay on “The Actuality of Philosophy”: interpretation, truth content, and enigmaticity. Finally, I propose a more specific reflection on dissonance that illustrates and “materializes” aspects of the first two perspectives.

No description available.