Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2017-04-03T21:33:41Z No. of bitstreams: 1 RobertoSolinoDeSouza_DISSERT.pdf: 463652 bytes, checksum: 4bfb3031965a398a25930a0fc1ccf9f5 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-04-10T19:24:31Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 RobertoSolinoDeSouza_DISSERT.pdf: 463652 bytes, checksum: 4bfb3031965a398a25930a0fc1ccf9f5 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-04-10T19:24:31Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 RobertoSolinoDeSouza_DISSERT.pdf: 463652 bytes, checksum: 4bfb3031965a398a25930a0fc1ccf9f5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-12-12 / Este trabalho examina a possibilidade de que S?crates esteja atacando um homem de palha no Teeteto, 152a, quando explica o dito de Prot?goras de que ?o homem ? a medida de todas as coisas? como sendo express?o de um relativismo vulgar que iguala o conhecimento ? mera percep??o. Parte da sugest?o de Leo Strauss de que os grandes escritores do passado fizeram uso de uma t?cnica peculiar, que ele denomina metaforicamente de ?escrita entre linhas?, visando defender suas ideias heterodoxas da persegui??o pol?tica, enquanto expressam abertamente ideias conformadas ?s opini?es amplamente aceitas na sociedade. Busca demonstrar que a sugest?o de Strauss ? v?lida e que na maior parte da hist?ria da filosofia a escrita entre linhas foi aceita amplamente e s? recentemente esquecida. Busca clarificar a sugest?o de Strauss e extrair regras m?nimas que possam orientar uma leitura do trecho citado do Teeteto. Considera ao final que uma leitura entre linhas do citado trecho pode indicar que a hip?tese examinada est? correta e sugere a chamada ?digress?o? (172c?177c) como ponto de partida para uma interpreta??o straussiana do di?logo como um todo. / This work examines the possibility that Socrates is attacking a straw man in the Theaetetus, 152a, when he explains Protagoras's dictum that ?man is the measure of all things? as embracing a vulgar form of relativism which takes knowledge as being merely perception. It begins with Leo Strauss?s suggestion that the great writers of the past made use of a peculiar technique, that he names metaphorically as ?writing between the lines,? aiming to protect their heterodox views from political persecution while expressing openly other views that conform to generally accepted opinion. It seeks to demonstrate that Strauss?s suggestion is a valid one and that writing between the lines was recognized throughout most Philosophy?s history and only recently forgotten. It also seeks to clarify Strauss?s suggestion and identify a minimal set of rules to guide the reading of that Theaetetus?s passage. In the end, it considers that reading between the lines of the said passage can point to the conclusion that the examined hypothesis is correct and suggests the so called ?Digression? (172c? 177c) as a starting point from where to begin a Straussian interpretation of the dialog as a whole.

Este trabalho busca desvelar e sistematizar claramente os princípios straussianos de filosofia política clássica e, especificamente, os princípios straussiano-platônicos do melhor regime. Isto é, este trabalho busca desvelar o que Leo Strauss acredita ser o começo da filosofia política clássica, o que Leo Strauss acredita ser a “metodologia” clássica à filosofia política e, especificamente, as conclusões de Platão sobre o melhor regime. Os primeiros são princípios straussianos, porque advêm da interpretação de Leo Strauss sobre vários filósofos clássicos; os últimos são straussiano-platônicos, pois advêm de uma interpretação straussiana de Platão. Por fim, a análise de Leo Strauss sobre a crise da modernidade e sobre a historiografia da filosofia são apresentadas a fim de que possamos entender por que e como trilhar o caminho straussiano aos clássicos. / This work intends to state and arrange clearly the Straussian principles of classical political philosophy and, especially, the Straussian-Platonic principles of the best regime. That is, this work intends to state what Leo Strauss thought to be the beginnings of classical political philosophy, what Leo Strauss thought to be a classical “methodology” for political philosophy and, finally, Plato's conclusions about the best regime. The first two are Straussian principles because they ensued from Leo Strauss' interpretation of various classical political philosophers and the last ones are Straussian-Platonic because they ensued from a Straussian interpretation of Plato. That being said, Leo Strauss' analysis of the crisis of modernity and Leo Strauss' historiography of philosophy are presented as requirements for a better understanding of what consists the Straussian way back to the classics.

Fundação de Apoio a Pesquisa e à Inovação Tecnológica do Estado de Sergipe - FAPITEC/SE / This research integrates the investigations with regard to the Anthropological Theory and seeks to identify convergences, divergences, incorporations and congenerous relations between two knowledges which are Structural Anthropology and the Psychoanalysis. To that, we took as empiric object the work of the french anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, exponent of the structuralism in Anthropology and we elected, by cutting off, his critics and parallels presented in some of his texts in relation to Sigmund's Freud work. The chapters were conducted by discussions such as the notion of unconsciousness, interdisciplinarity among the theories, incest's interdiction and consciousness' autonomy. / Esta pesquisa integra as investigações pertinentes à Teoria Antropológica e busca identificar convergências, divergências, incorporações e relações congêneres entre dois saberes, quais sejam, a Antropologia Estrutural e a Psicanálise. Para tanto, tomamos como objeto empírico a obra do antropólogo francês Claude Lévi-Strauss, expoente do estruturalismo na Antropologia e elegemos por recorte as suas críticas e paralelos presentes em alguns de seus textos em relação à obra de Sigmund Freud. Os capítulos foram norteados por discussões como noção de inconsciente, interdisciplinaridade nas teorias, interdição do incesto e autonomia da consciência.

Este trabalho busca desvelar e sistematizar claramente os princípios straussianos de filosofia política clássica e, especificamente, os princípios straussiano-platônicos do melhor regime. Isto é, este trabalho busca desvelar o que Leo Strauss acredita ser o começo da filosofia política clássica, o que Leo Strauss acredita ser a “metodologia” clássica à filosofia política e, especificamente, as conclusões de Platão sobre o melhor regime. Os primeiros são princípios straussianos, porque advêm da interpretação de Leo Strauss sobre vários filósofos clássicos; os últimos são straussiano-platônicos, pois advêm de uma interpretação straussiana de Platão. Por fim, a análise de Leo Strauss sobre a crise da modernidade e sobre a historiografia da filosofia são apresentadas a fim de que possamos entender por que e como trilhar o caminho straussiano aos clássicos. / This work intends to state and arrange clearly the Straussian principles of classical political philosophy and, especially, the Straussian-Platonic principles of the best regime. That is, this work intends to state what Leo Strauss thought to be the beginnings of classical political philosophy, what Leo Strauss thought to be a classical “methodology” for political philosophy and, finally, Plato's conclusions about the best regime. The first two are Straussian principles because they ensued from Leo Strauss' interpretation of various classical political philosophers and the last ones are Straussian-Platonic because they ensued from a Straussian interpretation of Plato. That being said, Leo Strauss' analysis of the crisis of modernity and Leo Strauss' historiography of philosophy are presented as requirements for a better understanding of what consists the Straussian way back to the classics.

No description available.

No description available.

Tableau d’honneur de la Faculté des études supérieures et postdoctorales, 2013-2014. / Le présent mémoire porte sur le traitement médiatique de trois affaires (affaire Nagy, affaire Banon et affaire du Sofitel) concernant des allégations de violence sexuelle à l’endroit de Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK), ancien directeur du Fonds monétaire international (FMI) et homme politique français. À partir de l’analyse d’articles parus en France et aux États-Unis entre 2008 et 2012, aux moments-clés de ces affaires, plusieurs constats ont été effectués. D’abord, le cadrage des évènements et des protagonistes a changé avec le temps. Ensuite, plusieurs débats ont été soulevés dans le contexte de ces affaires, notamment sur le féminisme et sur la distinction privé/public. Enfin, on observe des similitudes et des différences entre les médias français et américains dans le traitement de ces affaires. Le mémoire propose une réflexion sur la distinction privé/public et sur le concept de « scandale sexuel ». / This thesis is about the media coverage of three scandals (“affaire Nagy”, “affaire Banon” and “affaire du Sofitel”) in which allegations of sexual violence were brought against Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK), former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and French politician. Articles published in newspapers in France and the United States from 2008 to 2012, at the key moments of those scandals, were analyzed. From these, several conclusions were made. First, the framing of the events and of the protagonists changed over time. Second, many topics were debated in the context of those scandals, including feminism and the distinction between the public and the private. Third, similarities and differences were observed between the French and the American media. This thesis offers a reflection on the distinction between the public and the private and on “sex scandals”.

There is a lively academic debate concerning US foreign policy in the post-Cold War era and especially after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Neoconservatism has become a cause celebre in the literature of international relations with a variety of scholars disagreeing as to its supposed impact on Washington's world affairs approach and the Bush administration's decision to remove Saddam Hussein, from power manu militari. This thesis is an analysis of the way this political ideology was interpreted in the European elite media. It will be demonstrated how a significant section of key opinion-forming newspapers of Britain, France, Germany and Italy framed neoconservatism during the administration of Bill Clinton and partly that of George W. Bush. There will be an exploration of whether and how newspapers vary in their coverage. The thesis will outline that the influence of the neoconservatives in US foreign policy can be disputed and will suggest that their ideas can be hardly considered as revolutionary ones. It will then focus on the media coverage and will show that the prominence devoted to neoconservatism by the accessed print sources is a relatively recent phenomenon. The findings indicate that the newspapers differed in their representation of the political ideology only in the period before 9/11 when they mainly discussed it in the context of domestic affairs. By contrast, after the terrorist atrocities and especially since 2003 they linked neoconservatism to US foreign policy and largely focused on it - as opposed to competing international relations theories -, representing it in a remarkably similar way. With the exception of The Times, which followed a comparatively balanced approach, they constructed it as a driving force behind George W. Bush's international politics approach and the war on Iraq. The media emphasis on neoconservatism will be attributed to different factors - such the scapegoat theory - which maybe influenced the journalistic work. The general consensus as to their understanding of neoconservatism and its supposed impact will not support the claim of a European public sphere but will be considered as a positive step towards its possible creation.

Nosso objetivo neste trabalho é analisarmos a construção e as transformações da ideia de história do antropólogo norte-americano Marshall Sahlins, entre as décadas de 1950 e 1980. Acreditamos que este período é importante pelo fato de encontrarmos nele os princípios de uma forma de pensar a história que continuará a dominar a obra de Sahlins nas décadas seguintes. Para analisarmos sua ideia de história, bem como suas transformações, interpretaremos os princípios teóricos que a define enquanto tal. Argumentaremos que Sahlins adotará duas ideias de história durante este período: uma que terá a palavra "evolução" como princípio teórico central e outra em que os termos "cultura" e "estrutura" serão seus princípios teóricos mais importantes. Estas ideias de história serão analisadas também no contexto da sociedade e das ideias que tiveram um papel central na vida intelectual de Sahlins. Defenderemos também que, neste contexto, as obras dos antropólogos Leslie White e Claude Lévi-Strauss terão uma grande importância. E esperamos, deste modo, dar duas contribuições: uma para a compreensão da ideia de história de Sahlins; e outra para o atual debate sobre a relação entre História e Antropologia. / Our objective in this work is to analyze the construction and the transformations of the idea of history of the American anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, between de decades of 1950 and 1980. We believe that this period is important because we can find in it the principles of a way of thinking about history that will continue to dominate Sahlins work in the following decades. In order to analyze his idea of history, as well as its transformations, we will interpret the theoretical principles that define it as such. We will argue that Sahlins will adopt two ideas of history during this period: one that will have the word "evolution" as its central theoretical principle and another where the words "culture" and "structure" will be its most important theoretical principles. These ideas of history will also be analyzed in the context of the society and the ideas that had a central role in Sahlins intellectual life. We will also defend that, in this context, the works of Leslie White and Claude Lévi-Strauss will have a great importance. And we hope, in this way, to give two contributions: one for the understanding of Sahlins idea of history; and another to the current debate about the relationship between History and Anthropology.

<p>The present study has a twofold purpose: Firstly, it is an analysis of the Karbalā´ Drama—i.e. the death of Ḥusayn b. `Alī in the hands of an army which had been sent out by the Umayyad authorities, at Karbalā´ in 60/680—as it is retold by the Muslim jurist and historiographer Abū Ja`far Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923). Despite its importance, especially to Shī`ite Islam, this text as such has received relatively little attention among scholars of Islam. In this study, the Karbalā´ Drama is regarded as a myth and the method used to analyze it is inspired by the structuralism of Claude Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Straussian structuralism has probably never before been applied to early Arabic material to the extent that it is used here. The second purpose of the study, then, is to investigate to what extent and in what mode such a method is applicable to this material.</p><p>A portion of the text, called the “Text of Reference,” has been selected and thoroughly analyzed. In that analysis, a number of structural features such as codes, oppositions, mediations, and transformations have been identified and made the basis for a more cursory study of the rest of the story. An important structural feature that is detected in this way is the way the argument of the story is forwarded. By the transformation of metaphors into metonyms, the story attempts to make arbitrary relationships look natural and intrinsic. Such a relationship is that between water and blood—two liquids which are at times shed, at times withheld in the story. Husayn takes a mediating position in that he <i>gives</i> his water and his blood. He acts as mediator both in a negative sense (he establishes the basic Islamic opposition of good and evil), and in a positive sense (as religious guide he acts as a bridge between them).</p>