161 |
Phénoménologie de l'espace politique : chez Maurice Merleau-Ponty et Jean Patocka / Phenomenology of political spaceDi Fazio, Caterina 24 May 2018 (has links)
Phénoménologie de l'espace politique est une étude à la fois généalogique et phénoménologique d'un sujet auquel la philosophie ne se confronte que rarement, à savoir l'espace politique. Les principaux acteurs en sont Maurice Merleau-Ponty et Jan Patočka. Il s'agit donc d'une thèse de philosophie contemporaine, pour ce qui concerne les auteurs étudiés, tandis que l'objet de notre recherche est politique - comme en témoigne le fait que même l'expression «espace politique» n'est pas utilisée dans le domaine philosophique. Puisque notre objectif est de conduire une recherche à la fois politique et phénoménologique sur l'espace politique, il sera essentiel de l'aborder simultanément de ces deux points de vue. Il s'agira en effet de tracer une généalogie de l'espace politique, précédée par une étude phénoménologique du concept d'espace et de celle de mouvement. Nous en tirerons l'idée centrale de la partie plus proprement politique, à savoir l'opposition, dans la pensée politique moderne, entre apparition et représentation, ou en d'autres termes, entre immédiateté et médiation, que l'on peut trouver respectivement chez Machiavel et Hobbes et chez les auteurs qui, au XXe siècle, ont étudié leurs œuvres, notamment Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jan Patočka et Carl Schmitt. C'est à partir de ces concepts d'apparition et de représentation, et de leur opposition, que nous allons développer une analyse à la fois phénoménologique et politologique de l'espace politique. / Phenomenology of Political Space is an attempt to provide both a genealogical and a phenomenological account of a subject that philosophy rarely confronts, namely political space. Our analysis thus encompasses all the dimensions of political space - political, historical, geographical, and juridical - without dismissing any of them. It aims at showing the intrinsic connection between phenomenology and modern and contemporary political thought. It does so by identifying the two opposing models of political space, respectively shaped by Machiavelli and Hobbes, which we claim correspond to two opposing systems of visibility: a logic of appearance versus a logic of representation. It then moves to the contemporary phenomenological approach and gives both a phenomenology of movement and a phenomenology of political space. The central idea is the opposition, in modern and contemporary political thought, between appearance and representation, or in other words, between immediacy and mediation, as the terms are used respectively by Machiavelli and Hobbes, as well as by other authors who, in the twentieth century, studied their works (Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Jan Patočka, Carl Schmitt). Our current research focuses on both their conceptions of movement, desire and fear; and on their interpretation of political space.
|
162 |
Le choix du régime politique dans les temps modernes : Machiavel et sa postérité (XVIE-XVIIIE siècles)Andrieu, Elodie 02 November 2011 (has links)
Les récentes révolutions du « Printemps des pays arabes » attestent de la vivacité de l’idéal démocratique. Or ce régime est caractéristique d’une manière philosophique de penser le droit et les institutions. En effet, il se conforme mieux que nul autre à l’essence de l’Homme. Alors, malgré le succès des méthodes quantitatives en sciences humaines et l’autonomie désormais incontestée de la science du politique, nos temps contemporains seraient les héritiers d’une vision métaphysique plutôt que scientifique de la matière politique. Pourtant, la thèse explore l’histoire de la première « science des institutions » qui naît et se développe dans les Temps Modernes. Courant méconnu au cœur de l’histoire des institutions, ses tenants sont pourtant des figures incontournables et emblématiques de la pensée politique moderne, qu’il s’agisse de Machiavel, Hobbes, Montesquieu ou encore Hume. La thèse dévoile alors l’ambitieux projet de ces penseurs : proposer des institutions adaptées à la variété des mœurs, des histoires et des sociétés qu’ils étudient. Le choix du régime politique se doit d’être à la fois respectueux de l’humain et adapté à la variété des populations existantes. Dès lors l’universel et le particulier se rejoignent pour servir la première « science » de la Modernité. La thèse serpente les siècles et le continent européen. Au bout de son périple, une rencontre surprenante : celle de philosophes fascinés par les découvertes de ces premiers scientifiques du politique. De cette rencontre devait naître un nouveau régime politique, différent de son homologue athénien : la Démocratie moderne / The recent revolutions of the « Arab Spring » attest of the vivacity of the democratic ideal. Yet, this regime is characterised by a philosophical questioning on law and on institutions. In fact, it fits better than any other regime the essence of mankind. So despite the success of quantitative methods and the now undisputed autonomy of political sciences, modern times inherited a metaphysical point of view rather than a scientific way to address political questioning. However, the thesis explores the history of the first “science of institutions” that was born and developed in Modernity. Unknown current in the history of institutions, its proponents are paradoxically emblematic figures of modern political thinking, such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, Montesquieu or even Hume. The thesis unveils their ambitious project: to propose institutions adapted to the variety of the customs, behaviours, histories of the societies they study. The choice of the political regime should be respectful of human nature and at the same time adapted to the variety of the existing people. Therefore, the universal and the specific merge in order to serve the first real science of the modern era. The thesis research progresses through Europe from the XVIth to the XVIIIth centuries. At the end of its journey: a surprising encounter: the meeting of philosophers fascinated by the discoveries of these first political scientists. This encounter bore a new type of political regime, different from its Athenian counterpart: modern Democracy
|
163 |
Silence, Expression, Manifestation: Developing Female Desire and Gender Balance in Early Modern Italian, English, and Spanish DramaUnknown Date (has links)
Renaissance and Baroque drama offers a view into gender dynamics of the
time. What is seen is a development in the allowed expression and manifestation of
desire by females, beginning from a point of near silence, and arriving at points of
verbal statement and even physical violence. Specifically, in La Mandragola by
Niccolò Machiavelli, Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, and Fuenteovejuna
by Lope de Vega, there appears a chronological progression, whereby using desire
and its expression as a metric in conjunction with modern concepts of gender and
sexuality to measure a shift in relation to what is and is not allowed to be expressed
by women. / Includes bibliography. / Thesis (M.A.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2016. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection
|
164 |
The earthly structures of divine ideas : influences on the political economy of Giovanni BoteroBobroff, Stephen 22 August 2005
Giovanni Boteros (1544-1617) treatise <i>The Reason of State</i> (1589) seemed somewhat uncharacteristic of sixteenth-century political thought, considering the pride of place given to economics in his text. The Age of Reformation constituted not only a period of new ideas on faith but also one of new political thinking, and as the research into the influences on Boteros economic thought progressed, I began to consider the period as one where economic thinking was becoming more common among theologians of the reforming churches and bureaucrats of the developing states. Having been trained in the schools of the Jesuits, Botero was exposed to one of the most potent and intellectually uniform of all the reforming movements of the period, and I argue it was here that he first considered economics as an aspect of moral philosophy. While it cannot be proven positively that Botero studied or even considered economics during his association with the Jesuits (roughly from 1559-1580), the fact that a number of those who shaped the Jesuit Order in its first few generations discussed economics in their own treatises leads one to a strong circumstantial conclusion that this is where the economic impulse first rose up in his thinking. Indeed, it was this background that readied Botero to consider economics as an important part of statecraft with his reading of Jean Bodins (1530-1596) <i>The Six Books of the Republic</i> (1576), in which economics is featured quite prominently. Bodins own economic theory was informed primarily by his experience as a bureaucrat in the Parlement of Paris, where questions on the value of the currency and on the kings ability to tax his subjects were in constant debate among the advocates. I argue further that, upon his reading of Bodins <i>Republic</i>, Botero saw how economics could be fused with politics, and he then set out to compose his own treatise on political economy (although he certainly would not have called it such). In <i>The Reason of State</i>, Botero brought his Jesuit conception of economic morality together with Bodins writings on political economy to create a work, neither wholly Jesuit nor wholly Bodinian, which in the end outlined an overall political and economic structure of society quite distinct from the sum of its parts.
|
165 |
The earthly structures of divine ideas : influences on the political economy of Giovanni BoteroBobroff, Stephen 22 August 2005 (has links)
Giovanni Boteros (1544-1617) treatise <i>The Reason of State</i> (1589) seemed somewhat uncharacteristic of sixteenth-century political thought, considering the pride of place given to economics in his text. The Age of Reformation constituted not only a period of new ideas on faith but also one of new political thinking, and as the research into the influences on Boteros economic thought progressed, I began to consider the period as one where economic thinking was becoming more common among theologians of the reforming churches and bureaucrats of the developing states. Having been trained in the schools of the Jesuits, Botero was exposed to one of the most potent and intellectually uniform of all the reforming movements of the period, and I argue it was here that he first considered economics as an aspect of moral philosophy. While it cannot be proven positively that Botero studied or even considered economics during his association with the Jesuits (roughly from 1559-1580), the fact that a number of those who shaped the Jesuit Order in its first few generations discussed economics in their own treatises leads one to a strong circumstantial conclusion that this is where the economic impulse first rose up in his thinking. Indeed, it was this background that readied Botero to consider economics as an important part of statecraft with his reading of Jean Bodins (1530-1596) <i>The Six Books of the Republic</i> (1576), in which economics is featured quite prominently. Bodins own economic theory was informed primarily by his experience as a bureaucrat in the Parlement of Paris, where questions on the value of the currency and on the kings ability to tax his subjects were in constant debate among the advocates. I argue further that, upon his reading of Bodins <i>Republic</i>, Botero saw how economics could be fused with politics, and he then set out to compose his own treatise on political economy (although he certainly would not have called it such). In <i>The Reason of State</i>, Botero brought his Jesuit conception of economic morality together with Bodins writings on political economy to create a work, neither wholly Jesuit nor wholly Bodinian, which in the end outlined an overall political and economic structure of society quite distinct from the sum of its parts.
|
166 |
Recognition Denied: An Examination of UK and US Foreign Policy towards the Republic of CroatiaLjubic, Maria Christina 02 May 2013 (has links)
This thesis examines the development of decision making taken by two countries, the United Kingdom and the United States, in response to Croatia’s declaration of independence from Yugoslavia. The focus is on the recognition process and the reasoning and rationale used by the government officials and diplomats of the United Kingdom and United States to arrive at their policy decisions and opinions. The concentration is mainly on events from the early 1990s until mid 1992. Topics explored include matters such the politics behind non-recognition, democratic social norms, respect for human rights and Western national interests.
The thesis first hypothesizes, then analyses, which International Relations theory, that is, realism or constructivism, possesses the best capacity explain why these nations initially withheld their recognition of Croatia’s independence before moving to accept the Republic of Croatia as an independent state. The role of the International Relations theories is to offer an interpretation and understanding of these events and decisions. Subsequently, they are judged on their ability to do so. The thesis finds that via the insight of scholars, analysts and theoretical perspectives that both the John Major government of the UK and the George H.W. Bush Administration of the United States behaved mostly according to realist principles, with some instances of constructivist manner. / Graduate / 0615 / 1616 / 0335 / cljubic9@gmail.com
|
167 |
Teologické myšlení anglického krále Jindřicha VIII. / The theological mind of the english king Henry VIIIKRAMEROVÁ, Lenka January 2014 (has links)
The first chapter of this degree work presents some personalities of Henry´s age. These personalities influenced him. Apprises there with Machiavelli´s The Prince, More´s Utopia a some Luther´s works. At the second chapter we learn something of lifes of Henry and Luther and of their important works, Luther´s On the babylonish captivity of the church and Henry´s Defence of the Seven Sacraments. This work finishes with summary of reformation in England.
|
168 |
Conflit civil et imaginaire social : une approche néo-machiavélienne de la démocratie par l'espace public dissensuel / Civil conflict and social imaginary : a neo-Machiavellian approach of democracy through dissensual public spaceRoman, Sébastien 24 November 2011 (has links)
Le point de départ des travaux entrepris est la définition lefortienne de la démocratie par opposition au totalitarisme. Le totalitarisme est l’institution d’une société organique, une et homogène, dans laquelle aucune division sociale, aucun désaccord avec l’idéologie véhiculée par le parti ne sont possibles. La spécificité de la démocratie, a contrario, est de s’enrichir de la désintrication du pouvoir, du droit, et du savoir. Les citoyens, dotés de droits fondamentaux, sont juges de la légitimité du pouvoir établi. Leurs désaccords ainsi que l’antagonisme entre les classes sociales nourrissent l’exercice d’un commun litigieux. De là, une question fondamentale : une telle définition de la démocratie est-elle historiquement datée, ou continue-t-elle d’être pertinente aujourd’hui ? Doit-on encore concevoir la démocratie, pour la rendre authentique, par le conflit civil érigé en principe politique, ou faut-il l’envisager de manière consensualiste au lendemain de son opposition avec le totalitarisme ? Claude Lefort s’inspirait de Machiavel pour dépasser les limites du marxisme et repenser la démocratie par la valorisation du conflit civil, indissociable de la figure de l’imaginaire social. La thèse ici soutenue adopte différemment une perspective néo-machiavélienne. Elle revient à proposer un espace public dissensuel à partir du modèle machiavélien de l’entente dans le conflit, par confrontation avec l’espace public habermassien et d’autres conceptions du tort et du conflit dans les démocraties contemporaines. Comment concevoir aujourd’hui les figures du conflit civil et de l’imaginaire social, en s’inspirant paradoxalement de Machiavel pour interroger la démocratie ? / The starting point of the present work is the Lefortian definition of democracy as opposed to totalitarism. Totalitarism is the institution of an organic society, one and homogeneous, where no social division, no disagreement with the party’s ideology are possible. On the contrary democracy’s specificity consists in enriching itself with the disentanglement of power, law and knowledge. Citizens, endowed with fundamental rights can judge of the legitimacy of the power in place. Their disagreements as well as the antagonism between social classes fuel the dispute about common good.Hence a fundamental question: is such a definition of democracy historically dated or is it still relevant today? To make it authentic should democracy be seen through civil conflict made into a political principle or should it be viewed in a consensualist way just after its opposition to totalitarism? Claude Lefort drew from Machiavelli to go beyond the limits of Marxism and rethink democracy by giving more importance to civil conflict as an integral part of the theme of social imaginary. The present dissertation adopts in a different way a neo-Machiavellian perspective. It amounts to proposing a dissensual public space on the Machiavellian model of understanding within conflict by confronting it with the Habermassian public space and with other conceptions of wrong and conflict in contemporary democracies.Today how can the themes of civil conflict and social imaginary be viewed – paradoxically drawing from Machiavelli- to question democracy?
|
Page generated in 0.0643 seconds