• Refine Query
  • Source
  • Publication year
  • to
  • Language
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • Tagged with
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • About
  • The Global ETD Search service is a free service for researchers to find electronic theses and dissertations. This service is provided by the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations.
    Our metadata is collected from universities around the world. If you manage a university/consortium/country archive and want to be added, details can be found on the NDLTD website.
1

Kants Weg zur Lehre von Übergang

Becker, Dierk-Eckhard, January 1973 (has links)
Diss.--Universität Hamburg. / Bibliography: p. 176-180.
2

"From Apollonian to Dionysiac" /

White, David. January 1996 (has links)
Thesis (M.A.)(Hons)--University of Western Sydney, Nepean, 1996. / "A paper on Nietzsche's division of culture into two principal strains. "The Apollonian and the Dionysiac", and its application to the art of painting.--t.p.
3

Nancy與現代主體形上學之解構 / Nancy and deconstruction of modern metaphysics of subject

魏建國 Unknown Date (has links)
本論文說明儂希對現代主體形上學的解構,並將之區分為「現代主體的發展與闡述」、「解構的起始-根源條件」、「主體以及共同體的解構」三個主題。在「現代主體的發展與闡述」中,本論文澄清儂希對現代主體的理解:儂希闡述了主體的自我完成,並進一步說明主體觀念在政治上的貫徹執行。儂希根據共同體的自我實現來解釋集權主義,以及它在20世紀造成的歷史與社會災難。在「解構的起始-根源條件」中,本論文澄清儂希對解構思想的探討。儂希探索了存有的離棄狀態,詳述了存有的有限性與延異。儂希以存有的意義來取代存有的真理,並以存有意義來作為解構的根源。實存與世界奠立在存有意義之中,後者將實存向外暴露以及敞開了世界的開放性。在「主體以及共同體的解構」中,本論文澄清儂希的解構策略與運作。儂希將書寫與自我完成對立起來,藉由書寫來干擾主體的自我完成。書寫產生了無作品性,並以無作品性敞開了主體。書寫重複了意義,它讓意義重新開始,並發生成為意義事件。儂希強調共在的重要性,共在分享了存有的虛無,它不是作品,它抵抗著共同體的自我實現。共在聚集著無本質的所有實存,它暴露出每個實存的它者性,並構成了它者的共同體。 / This dissertation discusses Nancy’s deconstruction of modern metaphysics of subject and divides into three themes which are “development and elaboration of modern subject”, “archi-originary condition of deconstruction” and “deconstruction of subject and community”. In “development and elaboration of modern subject”, dissertation clarifies Nancy’s understanding of modern subject: Nancy explicates the self-completion of subject and the political effectuation of the idea of subject. Based on the self-fulfillment of community, Nancy explains totalitarianism that caused historical and social disaster in the 20th century. In “archi-originary condition of deconstruction”, dissertation clarifies Nancy’s discussion of deconstructive thought. Nancy explores the abandonment of Being and illustrates the finitude and différance of Being. Nancy replaces the truth of Being with the sense of Being and designates the sense of Being as the origin of deconstruction. Existence and world grounded in the sense of Being which exposes existence outside and spaces the openness of world. In “deconstruction of subject and community”, dissertation clarifies Nancy’s strategy and operation of deconstruction. Nancy opposes writing to self-completion and interrupts the self-completion of subject through writing. Writing produces the worklessness that spaces the subject. Writing repeats sense, begins sense anew and happens as the event of sense. Nancy emphasizes the importance of being-with that shares the nothing of Being. Being-with is not a work and resists the self-fulfillment of community. Being-with gathers all existences that are without essence, exposes the otherness of every existence and constitutes the community of others.
4

Normes et objets du savoir dans les premiers essais leibniziens / Norms and objects of knowledge in Leibniz’s early writings

Picon, Marina 11 December 2015 (has links)
La doctrine leibnizienne de la science repose-t-elle sur une théorie de la connaissance? Après avoir montré, dans des travaux préalables, qu’une telle dépendance ne se rencontre pas dans l’œuvre de la maturité, nous nous intéressons ici aux premiers écrits de Leibniz. La Nova Methodus discendae docendaeque Jurisprudentiae (1667) dresse, suivant l’exemple de Bacon, un inventaire raisonné des disciplines que doit réunir la nouvelle encyclopédie. Comme dans les projets leibniziens ultérieurs, cet inventaire est précédé de la distinction entre types de savoir en fonction des critères logiques selon lesquels les propositions se répartissent entre histoires, observations et théorèmes. Nous nous attachons en particulier à la définition de ceux-ci comme propositions « démontrables ex terminis ». Cette norme de la science étant posée, quels fondements in re Leibniz entend-t-il donner au savoir démonstratif ? Prenant pour fil conducteur sa polémique avec l’humaniste Marius Nizolius, nous étudions sa tentative pour fonder la validité des propositions de vérité éternelle sur des universaux subsistant indépendamment de l’existence des individus. Ce n’est cependant que dans les premiers écrits parisiens (1672-1673) que se dégage sa réponse définitive à ce problème : apparue d’abord comme un autre nom de la signification qu’« exprime » une définition, la notion d’idée y prend consistance en tant qu’archétype subsistant en Dieu. Les principaux traits de la théorie leibnizienne de la science sont ainsi fixés, indépendamment de toute « doctrine de l’entendement ». / Does Leibniz’s doctrine of demonstrative knowledge rest upon a theory of cognition? Having shown in previous articles that such was not the case in his mature works, we now turn to his early writings. The Nova Methodus discendae docendaeque Jurisprudentiae (1667) contains a reasoned inventory of the disciplines that should constitute the new encyclopaedia. As in later projects, Leibniz precedes this inventory with a classification of the types of knowledge based on the logical criteria according to which propositions are divided in histories, observations and theorems. Particular attention is given to the definition of the latter as propositions « demonstrable ex terminis ».This norm of scientific necessity once defined, what real (in re) foundation does Leibniz give to demonstrative knowledge? Following the various threads offered by his polemic against the Italian humanist Marius Nizolius, we study Leibniz’s attempt to ground the validity of propositions of eternal truth on universals subsisting independently of the existence of individuals. But one has to wait until the first Paris writings (1672-1673) to see the emergence of his mature answer to that problem: first conceived after the model of the significatio which a definition « expresses », the notion of idea reaches its latter ontological status as an archetype subsisting in God’s mind. The principal features of Leibniz’s theory of demonstrative knowledge are thus in place, prior to and independently of what he will later call his « doctrine of the understanding ».
5

Technik und Bildung in der verwissenschaftlichten Lebenswelt

Lumila, Minna 02 June 2023 (has links)
Die Studie versucht, Husserls Modell einer nicht-wissenschaftlichen Lebenswelt für pädagogische Untersuchungen zum Verhältnis von Technik und Bildung in der verwissenschaftlichen Welt zu öffnen. Sie diskutiert Entwicklungsprobleme der Spätmoderne unter pluralen Fragestellungen und führt Ansätze und Traditionen zusammen, die unterschiedliche Wege zur Weiterentwicklung der modernen Bildungstheorie beschritten haben. Im Zentrum steht die Frage, wie moderne Technik einerseits als lebensweltliche Entfremdung des Menschen problematisiert und andererseits als Produkt menschlicher Freiheit und Weltgestaltung gewürdigt werden kann. In vier Kapiteln werden die methodischen Ansätze und Antworten vorgestellt, die der Philosoph und Pädagoge Eugen Fink (1905–1975), der Philosoph Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), der Philosoph und Erziehungswissenschaftler Theodor Litt (1880–1962) und der Soziologe Helmut Schelsky (1912–1984) auf die Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Bildung und Technik gegeben haben. Im Durchgang durch ihre Positionen wird ein Konzert erarbeitet, dessen Originalität darin liegt, Abstimmungsprobleme von Bildung, Technik und Lebenswelt aus postdualistischer, praxistheoretischer sowie posthumanistischer Perspektive zu thematisieren. / The study attempts to open Husserl's model of a non-scientific lifeworld for pedagogical investigations of the relationship between technology and “Bildung” in the scientific world. It discusses developmental problems of late modernity under plural questions and brings together approaches and traditions that have taken different paths to the further development of modern “Bildungs”-theory. The central question is how modern technology can be problematized on the one hand as the alienation of human beings from the world of life and on the other hand be appreciated as a product of human freedom and the shaping of the world. Four chapters present the methodological approaches and answers that philosopher and educator Eugen Fink (1905–1975), philosopher Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), philosopher and educationalist Theodor Litt (1880–1962), and sociologist Helmut Schelsky (1912–1984) have given to the question of the relationship between education and technology. In the course of their positions, a concert will be developed whose originality lies in addressing the coordination problems of “Bildung” (education), “Technik” (technology) and “Lebenswelt” (lifeworld) from a post-dualist, praxis-theoretical as well as post-humanist perspective.

Page generated in 0.253 seconds