Suchergebnisse

Foundations and contours -- Liberty -- Servitude -- Militancy -- Arts as powers and as dominations -- The fragility of liberalism -- Reflections on self-government, democracy, and justice -- Santayana on communism -- Conclusions and further reflections on why culture matters.

Numbers in square brackets refer to chapters: This dissertation studies the relation between myth and demystification in post-revolutionary France, notably in the literary depiction of Paris. I argue that, in this period, the functions of myth in society were being redefined by literature in the light of a new, 'secularised' conception of the sacred. I begin by focusing on the social functions of myth (maintaining social cohesion and identity), particularly through the constitution of 'collective memory' I also examine the downside of this need for social cohesion: alienation [1]. I then look at the framework of modern myth-making that combines poetics, politics, history and myth. I show how new forms of the sacred emerged in the century of rationalism and disenchantment, and how Michelet in particular contributed greatly to the construction of the myth of 1789 [2]. For it is indeed 1789 that explains Paris's unique status. I am focusing on Hugo in this regard to understand the sacralisation of Paris as the capital of the revolution [3]. Hugo also illustrates a general tendency in the post-revolutionary depiction of Paris: its darkness and claustrophobia seem to illustrate the condition of modern man [4]. But beyond a material glance at the city, Hugo's vision sends a more disturbing message: in exile, the poet-seer redefines the march of history and offers new means of demystification [5]. This analysis then extends to looking at Hugo's central character, the People, and its difference from the equally mythical populace. In fact the confusion between the two will lead to the end of Paris as a myth, which coincides with the Commune and the debacle of Paris [6]. That ultimate defeat will prompt Hugo to go back and seek the origins of modern France, focusing this time on 1793 in a last attempt to oppose the seer's parole to that of the state, with the very definition of the republic at stake [7].

A few years ago, the editors of a volume on 'interpretive social science' propagated the 'interpretive turn' in social science and tried to 'inspire practitioners and students of social inquiry to violate the positivist taboo against joining evaluative concerns with descriptions of facts.' According to the editors, 'the interpretive turn refocuses attention on the concrete varieties of cultural meaning, in their particularity and complex texture, but without falling into the traps of historicism or cultural relativism.' In this respect, interpretative social science involves a reflexive, that is to say, a theoretical, posture toward sociohistorical reality. This posture is called 'interpretation.' It is carried out according to specific principles and methodological procedures that, from the multifaceted realm of human existence, extract a concept of 'truth' concerning the constitution of the sociohistorical world and the human condition-both considered in the context of a reflection on reality in the most comprehensive sense of the term. Adapted from the source document.

The President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko in his communication with international partners actively uses such form of diplomacy as phone calls. The most vital dialogue was conducted with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The purpose of this article is to profoundly study its content and other features. The intensity peak of these contacts occurred in the third week of June and the third week of August, 2014. However, there is a tendency to decrease activity of communications in view of its redundancy. This is indirectly confirmed by the evidence that the German side did not inform about more than 40 percent of contacts with Ukrainian counterparts. Despite the specificity of preparation of the official reports which is explained by the different technology of their preparation in the official Kyiv and Berlin, the conducted comparative analysis shows several significant differences in interpretation the approaches of negotiators. The reasons of those inconsistencies should be firstly found in the lack of professionalism of the staffs from the relevant departments of the Presidential Administration, the prevailing mood among them «to pretend, and not achieve the result» that sometimes bordering with the manipulation of public opinion. Second reason is based on the fact that there is some belief on the Bankova street that thesis proclaimed by the Ukrainian President during the contacts with his foreign partners clearly perceived by them. Finally, dare to assume that third reason is explained by sometimes elementary misunderstanding of terms and concepts Key words: President of Ukraine; Federal Chancellor of Germany; Ukrainian-German dialogue; phone diplomacy. ; Президент України Петро Порошенко активно застосовує у спілкуванні з міжнародними партнерами таку його форму, як телефонні розмови. Доволі жвавий діалог налагоджений із Федеральним канцлером Німеччини Ангелою Меркель. Досліджено його змістовні та інші особливості.Пік інтенсивності їхніх контактів припадає на третю декаду червня та третю декаду серпня. Утім спостерігається тенденція до поступового зменшення активності комунікації через, як видається, її надмірність. Опосередковано про це свідчить той факт, що німецька сторона не інформувала про понад 40 відсотків контактів.Специфіка офіційних повідомлень, пов'язана з особливостями технології їхньої підготовки у Києві та Берліні, їхній порівняльний аналіз засвідчують низку суттєвих відмінностей інтерпретації підходів учасників переговорів.Причини цих неспівпадінь слід шукати, по-перше, у недостатньому професіоналізмі співробітників відповідних структурних підрозділів Адміністрації Президента, пануючих серед них настроях «вдавати, а не досягати», які подекуди межують з маніпуляцією громадською думкою.По-друге, в існуючому на Банковій переконанні, що проголошену Президентом перед іноземними партнерами тезу, безумовно, вони сприймають.По-третє, в подекуди елементарному нерозумінні іншомовних термінів та понять.Ключові слова: Президент України; Федеральний канцлер Федеративної Республіки Німеччина; українсько-німецький діалог; телефонна дипломатія.

El propósito de esta investigación es doble. Por una parte, trataré de mostrar que la hermenéutica gadameriana es ontológica y política al mismo tiempo. Por otra parte, y para lograr este primer objetivo, habré de mostrar hasta qué punto resulta determinante la interpretación que Gadamer realiza de la ética aristotélica. Tanto de su filosofía práctica tomada en conjunto, como sabiduría humana, como, en particular, de la φρονησιζ. De esta manera, la presente investigación contribuye a destacar el carácter ontológico y político de la hermenéutica filosófica, mostrando como ambas notas son solidarias e inseparables. Igualmente este trabajo ilumina el fundamento ético sobre el que se construye el proyecto ontológico-político gadameriano. Por último, hay en este estudio un esbozo de comprensión de la naturaleza y alcance de la interpretación gadameriana de la ética aristotélica. ; The aim of this research is twofold. On the one hand, I attempt to show that Gadamer's hermeneutics is at the same time both ontological and political. On the other hand, and to achieve this aim, I intend to show to what extent Gadamer's interpretation of Aristotelian ethics is decisive, both in his practical philosophy as a whole, taken as human wisdom, and of φρονησιζ in particular. This research thus contributes to emphasise the ontological and political character of philosophical hermeneutics, showing how both strands are solidary and inseparable. This paper also clarifies the ethical basis on which Gadamer's ontological-political project rests. Finally, this study includes an outline of the nature and scope of Gadamer's interpretation of Aristotelian ethics.