No description available.

Portraits of the Marquise de Maintenon by Louis Ferdinand Elle II and Pierre Mignard are frequently reproduced in the various factual and fictional biographies of Maintenon, but have only been significantly mentioned by art historians in broader studies of the period or in comparison to other portraits. In this thesis, these portraits will be significantly and singularly addressed in a larger study of Maintenon as patron. Both portraits have connections to events occurring in the life of Maintenon at the time of their creation and can be clearly understood as representations of her intended public identity. In addition, each seems to have an interesting relationship to both negative contemporary criticism of Maintenon and to her subsequent legacy. The chapters are ordered chronologically and each involves a discussion of the meaningful visual elements in each portrait. As the earliest portrait that can be firmly considered part of Maintenon's constructed public identity, Louis Elle's Marquise de Maintenon and her Niece is the focus of the first chapter. An analysis of the many possible layers of meaning within this portrait is discussed in relation to Maintenon's complicated legacy. The second chapter centers upon revealing the original function of Mignard's Marquise de Maintenon as St. Frances of Rome and its relationship to the controversy involving Quietism with which Maintenon was involved at the time of the portrait's creation. In the final chapter, the way in which these portraits influence Maintenon's legacy is analyzed. Finally, in the conclusion, the obstacles involved in the study of representations of Maintenon are discussed and suggestions are made of issues requiring further study.

Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, prédicateur éminent de son temps, tient un rôle de premier plan à la Cour de Louis XIV et travaille à l’unité de l’Église. Port-Royal, en soutenant une doctrine jugée trop rigoureuse par les autorités politiques et religieuses, s’attire leur l’hostilité. Malgré cette opposition apparente, cette étude se propose d’exposer dans leur diversité les points de contact entre l’évêque de Meaux et Port-Royal, les grandes controverses du second XVIIe siècle agissant comme un révélateur, afin de démontrer que ces débats « temporels » permettent de mettre en évidence deux théologies qui n’avouent pas leur proximité. / Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, the preeminent preacher of his time, enjoys at the court of Louis the XIV, a prominent position, which enables him to work in favor of the Church unity. Port-Royal while defending a too rigorous doctrine toward the political and religious authorities of the time is bound to incur their anger. But in spite of this apparent opposition, this particular study aims to offer a variety of converging points between the Bishop of Meaux and Port-Royal, which are parts of the second half of the XVIIe century’s big controversies and work as a telltale to demonstrate that those « temporal » debates allow revealing two theologies denying their propinquity.

Le débat sur le libre arbitre continue depuis des siècles, réfractaire à toute tentative de solution positive. Cette thèse présente une contribution visant à dissoudre le problème plutôt qu’à le résoudre. L’approche négative et « thérapeutique » du travail est d’inspiration largement wittgensteinienne : son noyau réside dans la thèse selon laquelle les problèmes philosophiques – y compris le problème du libre arbitre – ont pour origine une confusion dans l’usage des mots. Dans les deux premiers chapitres, j’examine le débat analytique sur le libre arbitre et l’approche récente de la philosophie expérimentale. Je montre que la difficulté d’arriver à un niveau d’accord même minimal sur les questions principales du débat rend déraisonnable de vouloir le poursuivre. Dans le troisième chapitre, je présente l’approche négative des problèmes philosophiques défendue par Paul Horwich dans son travail sur Wittgenstein et dans ses échanges avec Timothy Williamson et Richard Rorty. Dans le quatrième chapitre, j’applique la thèse wittgensteinienne de la confusion linguistique à la question du libre arbitre. Au centre du cinquième chapitre se trouve la position défendue par Peter Strawson dans son article « Freedom and Resentment » (1962), dont je présente une lecture pragmatique. Selon cette interprétation inspirée par Rorty, Strawson montre que le scepticisme à l’égard de la responsabilité morale représente une forme de politique culturelle vouée à l’échec. / Philosophical attempts to solve the free will conundrum have proven unsuccessful across the centuries. In this work I aim at dissolving rather than solving the problem. The negative and “therapeutic” approach I adopt is inspired by Wittgenstein, its core being the thesis that such philosophical problems as free will stem from linguistic confusion. In the first and second chapter I examine the contributions on free will provided within analytic philosophy and within the so called experimental philosophy. I argue that it is not reasonable to pursue this debate, insofar as it is by now clear that its main questions admit of no shared solutions. In the third chapter I present the negative approach to philosophical problems defended by Paul Horwich in his work on Wittgenstein and in his exchanges with Timothy Williamson and Richard Rorty. In the fourth chapter I apply to the free will issue an approach focused on Wittgenstein’s thesis concerning linguistic confusion. In the fifth chapter I provide a pragmatic reading of the position defended by Peter Strawson in his « Freedom and Resentment » (1962). According to this interpretation inspired by Rorty, Strawson shows that scepticism about moral responsibility comprises an unfruitful form of cultural politics.

This study is an attempt to critique the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission from a theological ethical perspective. The central critique and argument of this study will be that, it is impossible to reconcile the dispossessor and the dispossessed or the oppressor and oppressed in the way the South African TRC did. As such, it will be befitting to start off this study which explores some of the noticeable lessons and challenges emerging from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereafter, the TRC) by elucidating that this study is an attempt to contribute to the on-going discussions on reconciliation. It is also vital to mention up front that this study attempts to contribute to the discussion on reconciliation which seeks to remove injustice at the root. It contributes to a discussion of the weeds of alienation and fragmentation, and it stands in contrast to the frequent use of reconciliation merely to reach some political accommodation and not to address the critical questions of justice, equality and dignity (Boesak & DeYoung 2012). It is also befitting to point out that two central themes – political pietism and Christian quietism – form the backdrop to this study (Boesak & DeYoung 2012). The study contends that reconciliation in South Africa was used merely to reach some political accommodation and did not address the three critical questions of justice, equality and dignity. These arrangements perpetually favour the rich and powerful but deprive the powerless of justice and dignity. Hitherto, this reconciliation is presented as if it does respond to the need for genuine reconciliation and employs a language that sounds like the truth, but it is in fact deceitful – and this we call political pietism. It is also vital to mention that “reconciliation” is a Christian concept, and as such, Christians’ measure matters of reconciliation with the yardstick of the gospel and therefore should know better. However, as it will be shown in this study, when Christians in South Africa discovered that the TRC was not really promoting reconciliation, they became complicit in a deceitful reconciliation. This may have been for reasons of self-protection, fear or a desire for acceptance by the powers that govern the world. Whichever way one looks at it, they tried to seek to accommodate the situation, to justify it and to refuse to run the risk of challenge and prophetic truth telling. As a result, they denied the demands of the gospel and refused solidarity with the powerless and oppressed. This is called Christian quietism (Boesak & DeYoung 2012:1). This study in its attempt to critique the South Africa TRC from a theological ethical perspective will point out that, the TRC which was obviously the product of the negotiated settlement needs to be understood against the background of the global struggle of particularly Third-World countries which were resisting authoritarian regimes put in place by the West for the benefit of the West. As such, this study will point out how the West, in their attempt to keep a grip on the Third-World countries – particularly on their resources – had to recommend and promote their notion of democracy. Democracy became the only option for Third-World countries as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union. It must, however, be mentioned that the problem is not democracy but the manifestation thereof under capitalism. This is because the notion of democracy was recommended to Third-World countries when capitalism was becoming global. As such, this presented some contradictions because democracy emphasizes joint interests, equality and common loyalties whilst capitalism is based on self-seeking inequality and conflicting individual and group interest (Terriblanche 2002). This means that a transition to democracy (especially constitutional democracy) means that the former oppressor or dispossessor will hold on to economic power. As such, the sudden interest of both the NP and the corporate sector in South Africa to a transition to democracy needs to be understood against this background. This study will argue and demonstrate how the ANC was outsmarted during the negotiations in that, at the formal negotiations, the ANC won political power whilst the NP/corporate sector in South Africa won economic power. This is mentioned to here to point out that both the elite compromise reached at the formal and informal negotiations and the influence of the Latin-American truth commissions led to the inability or unwillingness of the TRC to uncover the truth about systemic exploitation. As such, this study will argue and demonstrate that, on the one hand, reconciliation was not added to the truth commission for the purpose of confronting the country with the demands of the gospel and, on the other hand, the TRC was set up (from its inception) for failure. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / D.Th. (Theological Ethics)

This study is an attempt to critique the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission from a theological ethical perspective. The central critique and argument of this study will be that, it is impossible to reconcile the dispossessor and the dispossessed or the oppressor and oppressed in the way the South African TRC did. As such, it will be befitting to start off this study which explores some of the noticeable lessons and challenges emerging from the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereafter, the TRC) by elucidating that this study is an attempt to contribute to the on-going discussions on reconciliation. It is also vital to mention up front that this study attempts to contribute to the discussion on reconciliation which seeks to remove injustice at the root. It contributes to a discussion of the weeds of alienation and fragmentation, and it stands in contrast to the frequent use of reconciliation merely to reach some political accommodation and not to address the critical questions of justice, equality and dignity (Boesak & DeYoung 2012). It is also befitting to point out that two central themes – political pietism and Christian quietism – form the backdrop to this study (Boesak & DeYoung 2012). The study contends that reconciliation in South Africa was used merely to reach some political accommodation and did not address the three critical questions of justice, equality and dignity. These arrangements perpetually favour the rich and powerful but deprive the powerless of justice and dignity. Hitherto, this reconciliation is presented as if it does respond to the need for genuine reconciliation and employs a language that sounds like the truth, but it is in fact deceitful – and this we call political pietism. It is also vital to mention that “reconciliation” is a Christian concept, and as such, Christians’ measure matters of reconciliation with the yardstick of the gospel and therefore should know better. However, as it will be shown in this study, when Christians in South Africa discovered that the TRC was not really promoting reconciliation, they became complicit in a deceitful reconciliation. This may have been for reasons of self-protection, fear or a desire for acceptance by the powers that govern the world. Whichever way one looks at it, they tried to seek to accommodate the situation, to justify it and to refuse to run the risk of challenge and prophetic truth telling. As a result, they denied the demands of the gospel and refused solidarity with the powerless and oppressed. This is called Christian quietism (Boesak & DeYoung 2012:1). This study in its attempt to critique the South Africa TRC from a theological ethical perspective will point out that, the TRC which was obviously the product of the negotiated settlement needs to be understood against the background of the global struggle of particularly Third-World countries which were resisting authoritarian regimes put in place by the West for the benefit of the West. As such, this study will point out how the West, in their attempt to keep a grip on the Third-World countries – particularly on their resources – had to recommend and promote their notion of democracy. Democracy became the only option for Third-World countries as a result of the fall of the Soviet Union. It must, however, be mentioned that the problem is not democracy but the manifestation thereof under capitalism. This is because the notion of democracy was recommended to Third-World countries when capitalism was becoming global. As such, this presented some contradictions because democracy emphasizes joint interests, equality and common loyalties whilst capitalism is based on self-seeking inequality and conflicting individual and group interest (Terriblanche 2002). This means that a transition to democracy (especially constitutional democracy) means that the former oppressor or dispossessor will hold on to economic power. As such, the sudden interest of both the NP and the corporate sector in South Africa to a transition to democracy needs to be understood against this background. This study will argue and demonstrate how the ANC was outsmarted during the negotiations in that, at the formal negotiations, the ANC won political power whilst the NP/corporate sector in South Africa won economic power. This is mentioned to here to point out that both the elite compromise reached at the formal and informal negotiations and the influence of the Latin-American truth commissions led to the inability or unwillingness of the TRC to uncover the truth about systemic exploitation. As such, this study will argue and demonstrate that, on the one hand, reconciliation was not added to the truth commission for the purpose of confronting the country with the demands of the gospel and, on the other hand, the TRC was set up (from its inception) for failure. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / D. Th. (Theological Ethics)