Es gibt Situationen, in denen das Leben seine Glaubwürdigkeit verliert. Lukian erfährt dies am eigenen Leib. Er kann nicht glauben, dass sein Großvater gestorben ist. Und dann liegt da auf einmal diese geheimnisvolle Papierrolle unter seinem Bett. Ihr Inhalt stellt all das in Frage, was Lukian bisher selbstverständlich erschien. Was ist der Mensch – nur eine Marionette in einem großen Theaterstück? Die Suche nach Antworten treibt ihn auf eine abenteuerliche Reise zu den Wurzeln unserer Kultur. Er trifft auf die großen Denker der Vergangenheit und diskutiert mit ihnen über die Freiheit des Willens und die Existenz des Ichs. Ein kleiner, unscheinbarer Spiegel begleitet ihn dabei. Zunächst erscheinen in ihm nur rätselhafte Umrisse. Doch nichts bleibt, wie es ist – auf dem Weg zum Ende der Welt.

This thesis explores the political reformation of “faction” in the political thought of Montesquieu, David Hume, and Edmund Burke, three thinkers whose works span what Pierre Manent calls “an exquisite moment of liberalism.” It examines the transformation of faction from one based largely on class to one based largely on political function and argues that as the political emphasis of “party” overtook that of class, a disconnect in constitutional theory appeared between the principles formerly associated with class, such as honor, and the principles now associated with parties. This disconnect is examined by focusing on the interrelated concepts of political principle, or that which motivates and regulates men, and faction, itself divided into two types, principled and singular. This thesis further considers the role of political principle to faction in each thinker’s thought in order to demonstrate how limited domestic political conflict could sustain itself via a party system. Each thinker recognized that limited political conflict did not weaken the state but rather strengthened it, if engendered by “principled faction” cognizant of a nominal sovereign. Accordingly, it is argued that a similar understanding of “principled faction,” though focused largely on aristocratic ideas of prejudice, self-interest, and inequality, better promoted political liberty within the state and contributed to a greater acceptance of party in political thought.

The subject of this thesis is the by now traditional grouping of certain innovative works of historiography produced in eighteenth-century Britain and France; namely the historical works of Voltaire, and the historical writings of the philosophes; and, in Britain, the histories of Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon. This thesis gives a historical and expository analysis of the individual strategies of literary self-fashioning and generic appropriation which underlie this impression of resemblance. It particularly demonstrates that the major characteristics of the contemporary vision of philosophic historiography – the idea of a European history of manners or l’esprit humain, and the insistence on the rejection of the practices of the érudits – which have become incorporated within scholarly definitions of ‘Enlightenment historiography’, are well-established generic tropes, adapted and affected in France as in Britain, by authors of diverse ambitions. The invitation to assume inauthentic connections contained within the practice of philosophic historiography is shown to be embraced by Gibbon, in a notable literary challenge to the paradigms of intellectual history. This study contrasts the textual evidence of these authors’ experience of literary, personal, and political challenges regarding the definition of their role as public, intellectual writers, to the acquired image of an ideal of ‘Enlightenment writing’. It considers the Frenchness of philosophie, and the potential Britishness of Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon. As part of its wider analysis of the practice of intellectual writing with a historical focus, its scope includes the writings of British clerics and writers on religion; of French academicians; and of the late philosophe Volney, and Shelley his interpreter. The major conclusion of this thesis is that eighteenth-century British and French history writing does not support any synthesis of an Enlightenment historical philosophy, narrative, or method; while it is suggested that one of the costs of the construct of ‘Enlightenment’, has been the illusion of familiarity with eighteenth-century intellectual culture, in France as well as Britain.

Submitted by Hellen Luz (hellencrisluz@gmail.com) on 2018-03-06T19:51:51Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Dissertacao_CriticaDavidHume.pdf: 2037363 bytes, checksum: b505aee84f338294e6cfbe421fccc594 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Edisangela Bastos (edisangela@ufpa.br) on 2018-03-12T15:03:47Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Dissertacao_CriticaDavidHume.pdf: 2037363 bytes, checksum: b505aee84f338294e6cfbe421fccc594 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-12T15:03:47Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 0 bytes, checksum: d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e (MD5) Dissertacao_CriticaDavidHume.pdf: 2037363 bytes, checksum: b505aee84f338294e6cfbe421fccc594 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-08-11 / Nosso objetivo com este trabalho é desenvolver uma exposição da crítica que David Hume lança contra os céticos pirrônicos na obra Investigação Sobre o Entendimento Humano, mostrando que se mantém de pé à luz da contemporânea compreensão que se tem do ceticismo esboçado por Sexto Empírico no Livro I das Hipotiposes Pirrônicas. Veremos por qual argumento Sexto defende, ao pirrônico, uma vida sem crenças. Então cotejamos o trabalho de Sexto com, principalmente, as conclusões do debate travado entre Michael Frede e Myles Burnyeat (interpretações urbana e rústica) sobre a possibilidade de o pirrônico ser coerente com seu pirronismo, i. é, o modus vivendi pirrônico sem crenças, endossando a posição de Burnyeat sobre sua inviabilidade. Apresentaremos, ainda, uma bibliografia virtual pela qual Hume poderia ter-se educado sobre Sexto e seu pirronismo, objeções apresentadas por Julia Annas à compreensão de Hume do ceticismo antigo e, finalmente, ponderaremos a posição de alguns comentadores que veem no ceticismo mitigado de Hume, antes de tudo, uma espécie de pirronismo. Munidos dessas análises, na medida em que o cerne da crítica de Hume é a suspensão total das crenças pelos pirrônicos, como assim também a inescapável natureza humana calcada no mecanismo instintivo do hábito ou costume como gerador de crenças relativas aos objetos empíricos de nossos raciocínios, então, não se pode negar a validade da crítica de Hume. / Our goal with this work is to develop a exposition of the David Hume’s criticism against the Pyrrhonean Skeptics in the work An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, showing that it stands in the light of the contemporary understanding of skepticism outlined by Sextus Empiricus in Book I of Outlines of Pyrrhonism. We will see by what argument Sextus argues, in the side of the pyrrhonist, a life without beliefs. Then, we compare the work of Sextus with, mainly, the debate’s conclusions between Michael Frede e Myles Burnyeat (urbane and rustic interpretations) concern the possibility of the pyrrhonist engage coherently in his Pyrrhonism, t. is, the Pyrrhonean modus vivendi without beliefs, endorsing the Burnyeat’s position about it infeasibility. We will present, furthermore, a virtual bibliography by which Hume could have educated himself concerning Sextus and his Pyrrhonism, objections presented by Julia Annas against the comprehension of Hume about ancient skepticism and, finally, we will ponder the position of some commentators who see in the mitigated skepticism of Hume, first of all, a sort of Pyrrhonism. Armed with this analyzes, to the extent that the core of Hume’s criticism is the total suspension of beliefs by the pyrrhonists, as well as the inescapable human nature grounded in the instinctive mechanism of habit or custom as the generator of beliefs concerning the empirical objects of our reasoning, then, one cannot deny the validity of Hume’s critique.

At first glance, Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a tale that reinforces binaries. One of these is the self/other binary that is central to David Hume's and Adam Smith's theories of sympathy that conceive of a self imaginatively identifying and experiencing fellow-feeling for an other. However, this notion is complicated because Jekyll and Hyde are the same person. Further, many critics argue that Stevenson actually challenges binary thinking. While Hume and Smith do not challenge the self/other binary in connection with sympathy, trauma theory critics do challenge a self/other binary that lies at the heart of sympathy: the victim/perpetrator binary. Noted trauma theorist Dominick LaCapra develops a method of empathizing called empathic unsettlement where a secondary witness listens with empathy to a victim's traumatic witness while recognizing the difference of his or her position as a witness. He argues that perpetrators may also warrant understanding, but this understanding does not come through empathy. However, one of the hallmarks of empathic unsettlement is that it does not neatly resolve or replace traumatic narratives. Therefore, I argue that empathic unsettlement could also be a useful method for allowing a perpetrator to witness. While practicing empathic unsettlement for a perpetrator may not be worth the risk in real life, performing a thought experiment in literature can test how using empathy might provide a better way to theorize perpetration. Using two witnesses who attempt to practice empathic unsettlement for Jekyll and Hyde, Dr. Hastie Lanyon (who fails), and Mr. Gabriel John Utterson (who succeeds), I will show how empathic unsettlement could be used for both a victim and perpetrator to tease out the complexities of assessing a traumatic situation.

No description available.

Thin amorphous films of binary aluminum-chromium alloys have been produced by flash evaporation and characterized by means of electron diffraction and measurements of transport properties. Beside the known effect of hybridization on the phase stability an additional structure forming mechanism could be identified in the aluminum-chromium alloys and other amorphous binary aluminum-transition-metal alloys as well. A systematical influence of the transition-metal-d-electrons on the plasma resonance energies was found. / Es wurden amorphe Schichten von binären Aluminium-Chrom-Legierungen mit Hilfe abschreckender Kondensation aus der Gasphase hergestellt und einer elektronischen und strukturellen Charakterisierung unterzogen. Neben dem bereits bekannten Einfluss von Hybridisierungsmechanismen auf die Strukturbildung und Stabilität der amorphen Aluminium-Übergangsmetall-Legierungen, konnte ein weiterer Ordnungsmechanismus bei hohen Chrom-Anteilen gefunden werden. Im Vergleich mit anderen, bereits früher untersuchten, binären amorphen Aluminium-Übergangsmetall-Lergierungen, konnte gezeigt werden, dass dieses Verhalten auch dort auftritt. Desweiteren konnte eine Systematik im Einfluss der Übergangsmetall-d-Elektronen auf die Plasmaresonanz der Aluminium-Übergangsmetall-Legierungen gefunden werden.

Esta dissertação pretende mostrar que a tese de Hume de que nós estamos inevitavelmente determinados a crer na existência de objetos externos tem a circunscrição de seu significado condicionada à identificação e à resolução de uma inconsistência presente na teoria humeana da crença inevitável em objetos externos. Essa inconsistência se expressa pela incompatibilidade entre a tese de que (P1) nós inevitavelmente cremos em objetos externos e a tese de que (P2) não podemos conceber objetos externos. Essas teses são incompatíveis se se considera que, para Hume, (P4) não podemos crer em algo que não podemos conceber. Esse problema só emerge se se supõe um uso unívoco da expressão "objeto externo" por parte de Hume em (P1) e (P2), e se se supõe que (P4) é o caso para Hume, o que se mostra ser um ponto de partida razoável. Os resultados indicam que as duas interpretações gerais do significado da tese de que nós inevitavelmente cremos em objetos externos, o naturalismo cético e o realismo cético, chegam a conclusões insatisfatórias porque ignoram esse problema. Por fim, conclui que não há, de fato, uma inconsistência na teoria humeana da crença em objetos externos porque não é o caso que não possamos ter uma concepção de objetos externos para Hume. Essa concepção se origina de um sentimento ou instinto original da mente. / This paper aims to show that Hume's claim that we are unavoidably determined to believe in the existence of external objects has the delimitation of our meaning conditioned to the identification and resolution of an inconsistency present in Hume's theory of the unavoidable belief in external objects. This inconsistency expresses itself by the incompatibility between the claim that (P1) we unavoidably believe in external objects and the claim that (P2) we can't conceive external objects. These claims are incompatible if we recognize that Hume claims as well that (P4) we can't believe in something that we can't conceive. This problem arises only if we suppose that Hume univocally uses the expression "external object" in (P1) and (P2), and if we suppose that (P4) is the case, a reasonable starting point. The results indicate that both general views of the meaning of the claim that we unavoidably believe in external objects, the skeptical naturalism and the skeptical realism, arrives at unsatisfactory outcomes because they ignore that problem. Finally, concludes that there's not, actually, an inconsistency in Hume's theory of belief in external objects because it's not the case that we can't conceive external objects. This conception of external existences arises out of a sentiment or natural instinct of the mind.

A presente dissertação tem como objetivo mostrar que o ceticismo resultante do Livro I do Tratado da Natureza Humana não pode ser fundado na suposta descoberta, por parte de Hume, de uma oposição entre os princípios que considera fundamentais para a natureza humana. Isso porque a factualidade dessa oposição seria defectiva para a filosofia humeana, uma vez que solapa a distinção entre princípios universais e princípios variáveis, essencial para a distinção entre princípios que devem ser aceitos e que devem ser rejeitados; porque um ceticismo dessa natureza é próprio do fideísmo corrente na Renascença e na Modernidade; e porque a impossibilidade do conhecimento resultante dessa oposição acarretaria na eliminação do estímulo à filosofia. Para negar tal oposição, é preciso afirmar que Hume nega a distinção ontológica entre as qualidades primárias e secundárias, que é a sua raiz. Isso pode ser feito a partir da apreciação da Parte 2 do Livro I do Tratado da Natureza Humana. É também preciso mostrar a possibilidade da existência dos corpos, o que é feito a partir da análise de trechos da Parte 4 do Livro I. Isso feito, uma nova perspectiva sobre a filosofia humeana se apresenta concernindo à natureza do seu ceticismo – um que se constitui pela insegurança – e à relação entre a razão e os instintos naturais – uma relação harmônica, antes que conflituosa. / This work aims to show that the resulting skepticism of Book I of the Treatise of Human Nature cannot be founded on the alleged discovery, by Hume, of an opposition between the principles which he considers fundamentals to human nature. This because the factuality of this opposition would be defective for the Humean philosophy as it undermines the distinction between universal principles and changeable principles, essential to distinguish between those principles which must be accepted and those which must be rejected; because a skepticism of this nature is proper of the current Fideism in the Renaissance and Modernity; and because the impossibility of knowledge that is consequence of this opposition would lead to the removing of the stimulus to philosophy. To deny such opposition, we must affirm that Hume denies the ontological distinction between primary and secondary qualities, that is its root. This can be done from the consideration of Part 2 of Book I of the Treatise of Human Nature. It is also necessary to show the possibility of the existence of bodies, what is done by the analysis of excerpts of Part 4 of Book I. That done, a new perspective on the Humean philosophy about the nature of its skepticism – one that is constituted by insecurity – and about the relation between reason and natural instincts – a harmonic relation, rather than confrontational – is presented.

Esta dissertação pretende mostrar que a tese de Hume de que nós estamos inevitavelmente determinados a crer na existência de objetos externos tem a circunscrição de seu significado condicionada à identificação e à resolução de uma inconsistência presente na teoria humeana da crença inevitável em objetos externos. Essa inconsistência se expressa pela incompatibilidade entre a tese de que (P1) nós inevitavelmente cremos em objetos externos e a tese de que (P2) não podemos conceber objetos externos. Essas teses são incompatíveis se se considera que, para Hume, (P4) não podemos crer em algo que não podemos conceber. Esse problema só emerge se se supõe um uso unívoco da expressão "objeto externo" por parte de Hume em (P1) e (P2), e se se supõe que (P4) é o caso para Hume, o que se mostra ser um ponto de partida razoável. Os resultados indicam que as duas interpretações gerais do significado da tese de que nós inevitavelmente cremos em objetos externos, o naturalismo cético e o realismo cético, chegam a conclusões insatisfatórias porque ignoram esse problema. Por fim, conclui que não há, de fato, uma inconsistência na teoria humeana da crença em objetos externos porque não é o caso que não possamos ter uma concepção de objetos externos para Hume. Essa concepção se origina de um sentimento ou instinto original da mente. / This paper aims to show that Hume's claim that we are unavoidably determined to believe in the existence of external objects has the delimitation of our meaning conditioned to the identification and resolution of an inconsistency present in Hume's theory of the unavoidable belief in external objects. This inconsistency expresses itself by the incompatibility between the claim that (P1) we unavoidably believe in external objects and the claim that (P2) we can't conceive external objects. These claims are incompatible if we recognize that Hume claims as well that (P4) we can't believe in something that we can't conceive. This problem arises only if we suppose that Hume univocally uses the expression "external object" in (P1) and (P2), and if we suppose that (P4) is the case, a reasonable starting point. The results indicate that both general views of the meaning of the claim that we unavoidably believe in external objects, the skeptical naturalism and the skeptical realism, arrives at unsatisfactory outcomes because they ignore that problem. Finally, concludes that there's not, actually, an inconsistency in Hume's theory of belief in external objects because it's not the case that we can't conceive external objects. This conception of external existences arises out of a sentiment or natural instinct of the mind.