Academic literature on the topic 'Empédocle'

À travers le texte lacunaire des Poèmes de Parménide et d'Empédocle, la présente étude explore les théories de la cosmogenèse qui s'y dégagent. La nouveauté de l'approche consiste à revisiter ces auteurs non pas simplement comme des précurseurs de Platon, - car c'est à cela que l'on résume bien souvent leur importance, - mais comme des hommes profondément ancrés dans leur époque. Le fait de réunir dans une même étude Parménide et Empédocle nous aide précisément à mieux percevoir les échos immédiats de la théorie de l'Éléate. Parmi d'autres parallélismes que cette étude essaie de retracer figurent l'ancien Pythagorisme, les cultes déjà en place sur le sol de la Grande Grèce ou encore des récits de création venus de l'Orient. Une attention spéciale est accordée à l'examen de la seconde partie du Poème de Parménide, injustement négligée jusqu'à présent, qui offre un schéma cosmogonique complet quoique très corrompu aujourd'hui. L'approche est davantage terminologique dans le cas d'Empédocle et vise à rétablir la cohérence entre les différents genres de récits de la genèse (cycle cosmique, zoogonie, démonologie)<br>Dealing with the subsisting material of Parmenidian and Empedoclean poems, this work explores the theories of cosmic genesis embodied in them. While it is usual to approach both Parmenides and Empedocles as being the forerunners of Plato, - indeed their importance has often been understood in relation with later " philosophies ", - it has appeared to us supremely interesting to study them as being individuals of their own time and race. A range of comparative evidence includes the ancient Pythagoreanism, the mystery cults of the Magna Graecia, as well as some stories of creation coming from the East. Aware of the perils of interpreting the extraordinarily scanty material of the second part of the Poem of Parmenides, neglected up to now, we begin in an attempt to reconstruct the outlines of the Parmenidian cosmogony. As for Empedocles, we look first at the vocabulary of genesis and we analyze the different sorts of genesis accounts (cosmic cycle, zoogony, demonology) coherent with each other

Aristote régulièrement compare Empédocle et Anaxagore, matérialistes pluralistes : mais jusqu'ou leurs schèmes être/devenir convergent-ils ? Réduisant le changement aux mouvements d'union/dissociation, niant l'altération et la génération, leurs univers sont-ils au fond statiques, ce qui leur est reproche ? Partant de postulats communs, leurs axiomatiques sont singulières. Leur réfutation a pour Aristote des enjeux cruciaux. La matière d'Anaxagore, infiniment complexe et divisible, implique une rupture entre nouménal et phénoménal. Aristote l'attaque certes car elle pose l'infini en acte, mais surtout entraîne l'inintelligibilité pour nous du réel (en soi connaissable, mais ne pouvant être phénoménalement saisi" par les sens ni par l'esprit humain, qui discriminent. Les principes finis et déterminés d'Empédocle sont eux définissables, mais existant aussi toujours en acte, se juxtaposent sans se mêler : Aristote, n'y voit" qu'une contigulte, mais les effluves de l'Amour d'Empedocle etaient une force de cohesion dynamique.

Il s’agit d’examiner la signification du choix d’Empédocle d’exprimer son système philosophique dans un mètre, l’hexamètre dactylique, qui n’est pas seulement envisagé ici en tant que forme versifiée mais comme une tradition poétique. Les raisons de ce choix se laissent reconstituer de différents points de vue. D'abord, dans une perspective historique et comparative, l'usage de l'hexamètre inscrit l'œuvre d'Empédocle dans un moment particulier du développement de la « philosophie » ancienne. Le problème a également une dimension sociologique qui tient aux modalités traditionnelles de diffusion de la poésie hexamétrique, dans le cadre notamment des grands concours panhelléniques. De façon plus fondamentale encore, se pose le problème de déterminer le degré de nécessité du lien qui unit poésie et philosophie au sein de l'œuvre même d'Empédocle. Le mètre est-il l'ornement d'une pensée qui aurait tout aussi bien pu s'exprimer en prose ? Est-il un vernis artificiel, qui ne ferait que dissimuler la clarté du message philosophique ? Au contraire, le choix du vers témoigne-t-il d'une prise de position substantielle, qui signifierait que la compréhension du choix de la forme est indissociable de l'interprétation du message qui s'y déploie ? Les chapitres 1 à 4 examinent la théorie poétique développée par Empédocle. Les chapitres 5 à 7 étudient la façon dont ce projet se réalise dans la pratique poétique. Les chapitres 8 à 10 se proposent d’évaluer la signification du choix d’Empédocle dans le contexte du 5e siècle<br>The dissertation intends to examine the signification of Empedocles’ choice to express his philosophical system into a peculiar meter, the dactylic hexameter, which is not only considered here as a poetic form but also as a poetic tradition. The reasons why Empedocles made this choice may be studied from several points of view. From a historic and comparative point of view, Empedocles’ use of the dactylic hexameter has his philosophy embedded into a particular moment of the development of ancient « philosophy ». Another, sociological, dimension of this problem pertains to the traditional modes of diffusion of dactylic poems, within the frame of panhellenic competitions for instance.More fundamental even is the question of how necessary is the link between poetry and philosophy in Empedocles’ work itself. Is the dactylic meter merely ornamental for a thought that could have been expressed in prose? Is it some artificial varnish, whose only effect would be to obscure the philosophical message? Or does the use of verses show, on the contrary, a substantial stance, meaning that the interpretation of the poetic features and the interpretation of the philosophical doctrine cannot be dissociated?The poetic theory of Empedocles is examined in chapters 1 to 4. Then, a study of the poetic realization of this project takes place in chapters 5 to 7. Finally, an evaluation of the meaning and relevance of Empedocles’ choice in the context of the 5th century is done through the last 3 chapters

La thèse traite de la problématique du feu comme instrument de la création plastique contemporaine. En effet, depuis les années 1960, on observe une utilisation accrue de l’élément feu dans de nouvelles formes d’expression artistique. L’accent est mis particulièrement sur le feu de la guerre qui, en transformant la vie des artistes, fait également évoluer leur création. Tout au long de la thèse, l’analyse des oeuvres personnelles vient appuyer ce constat et sont explorées sur la base de l’expérience de la guerre vécue par l’auteur. Les parties de la thèse font référence à des figures mythiques en relation avec l’image du feu. Ainsi, se classent-elles « Sous le signe de Prométhée », « Sous le signe du Phénix » et « Sous le signe d’Empédocle »<br>This Ph.D. dissertation deals with the problem of fire used as a tool in the contemporary plastic art creations. In fact, since the 1960s, an increased use of fire is noted within new forms of artistic expression.The emphasis is put particularly on the “fire of war” which, by changing the lives ofthe artists, transforms their creations as well .Throughout the dissertation, the analysis of personal pieces of art, observed through the context of the war experienced by the artist, confirms the above finding. The sections of the dissertation refer to some mythical characters with close relationship with the image of fire. Hence, they are referenced “Under the sign of Prometheus”,“Under the sign of the Phoenix” and “Under the sign of Empedocles”

Dissertação (mestrado)—Universidade de Brasília, Instituto de Ciências Humanas, Departamento de Filosofia, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia, 2013.<br>Submitted by Elna Araújo (elna@bce.unb.br) on 2013-07-26T21:31:32Z No. of bitstreams: 1 2013_ErycDeOliveiraLeao.pdf: 1021699 bytes, checksum: 2eb6606cb68b3f44925043bd08728cf2 (MD5)<br>Approved for entry into archive by Luanna Maia(luanna@bce.unb.br) on 2013-07-29T14:44:06Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 2013_ErycDeOliveiraLeao.pdf: 1021699 bytes, checksum: 2eb6606cb68b3f44925043bd08728cf2 (MD5)<br>Made available in DSpace on 2013-07-29T14:44:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 2013_ErycDeOliveiraLeao.pdf: 1021699 bytes, checksum: 2eb6606cb68b3f44925043bd08728cf2 (MD5)<br>Essa dissertação de mestrado tem como objetivo principal fornecer evidências de ordem filosófica, sociológica, filológica e historiográfica, para o fato da unidade temática dos dois poemas de Empédocles, intitulados “Sobre a Natureza” e “Purificações”. Tal fato encontra-se registrado na evidência direta do texto de Empédocles conhecido como Papiro de Estrasburgo, publicado por Martin-Primavesi (1999). Para ficar apenas com o exemplo mais importante, no conjunto d do Papiro de Estrasburgo, por exemplo, ocorre uma transição temática de ordem científica para mística, mostrando claramente que tais aspectos da filosofia de Empédocles não foram concebidos por ele como incompatíveis ou incoerentes. Dada a estrutura temática dos versos de Empédocles, o desenvolvimento desse trabalho passa pelo estudo das relações, em contexto arcaico, entre ideias e crenças de ordem mística e ideias e crenças de ordem científica. Foram escolhidos aqueles aspectos considerados centrais para a compreensão da estrutura unitária dos versos de Empédocles, deixando de lado os temas e evidências que não contribuíssem para o entendimento do modo como Empédocles, em particular, e alguns de seus contemporâneos, em geral, compreendiam a dinâmica cósmica em seus aspectos físicos e éticos. Seguindo essa abordagem, foi analisada a estrutura organizacional dos fragmentos de Empédocles do ponto de vista das evidências filológicas disponíveis no atual momento histórico, de modo a estabelecer os fatos historiográficos básicos em relação aos quais seja possível estabelecer uma interpretação coerente dos fragmentos de Empédocles. Em seguida, levando em consideração as evidências da relação entre a filosofia de Parmênides e a filosofia de Empédocles, foram analisados os fragmentos necessários para tomar uma posição com relação ao tipo de monismo estabelecido por Parmênides, bem como os fragmentos que apontam para as características do pluralismo de Empédocles, mostrando que existe uma leitura possível que torna essas duas abordagens metodológicas compatíveis entre si. Assumindo essa estrutura lógica, foram levantados os pontos de contato entre a filosofia de Empédocles e uma série de contextos de ordem mística e científica, tais como, de um lado, a magia, o xamanismo, o orfismo e o pitagorismo, e de outro, a teoria dos quatro elementos, os experimentos científicos mentais e os aspectos científicos comparáveis às categorias científicas modernas que influenciaram a tradição de pensamento que culminou com o surgimento da ciência atual. Após a exposição e delimitação dessas categorias, elas foram usadas para interpretar a epistemologia, a ética e a física de Empédocles, em seus aspectos científicos e místicos, contribuindo para a história, tanto da filosofia quanto das religiões, bem como para as discussões relacionadas à relação dialética entre a história dos eventos e a história das ideias. _________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT<br>The main goal of this master thesis is to provide philosophical, sociological, philological and historiographical evidences to the fact of the thematic unit of the two poems of Empedocles, entitled “On Nature” and “Purifications”. This fact is recorded in the direct evidence of Empedocles’ text known as the Strasbourg Papyrus, published by Martin-Primavesi (1999). To illustrate that it is enough to quote the example of Papyrus’ ensemble d where there is a thematic transition between scientific and mystical themes, what clearly proves that Empedocles’ philosophy were not conceived by him as incompatible or inconsistent. Given the thematic structure of Empedocles’ verses, the development of this work passes through the study of the relations, in archaic context, between mystical ideas and beliefs, and scientific ideas and beliefs. Were chosen those aspects considered as central to understanding the unitary structure of the Empedocles’ verses, leaving aside the issues and evidences that did not contribute to the understanding of how Empedocles, in particular, and some of his contemporaries, in general, understood the cosmic dynamic in its physical and ethical aspects. Following this framework, were analyzed the organizational structure of Empedocles’ fragments from the standpoint of philological evidences available in the current historical moment, in order to establish the basic historiographical facts in respect of which it is possible to establish a coherent interpretation of the Empedocles’ fragments. Then, taking into account the evidence of the relationship between Parmenides’ philosophy and Empedocles’ philosophy, were analyzed the fragments needed to take a position with respect to the kind of monism established by Parmenides, as well as the fragments that points to the characteristics of Empedocles’ pluralism, showing that there is a possible reading that makes these two methodological approaches compatible. Assuming this logical structure, were raised the points of contact between the Empedocles’ philosophy and a variety of scientific and mystical contexts, such as, on one hand, magic, shamanism, orphism and pythagoreanism, and on the other, the theory of the four elements, the scientific mental experiments and the scientific aspects comparable with modern scientific categories that influenced the tradition of thought that culminated in the emergence of modern science. After exposure and delineation of these categories, them were used to interpret Empedocles’ epistemology, ethics and physics, in its scientific and mystical sides, contributing to the history both of philosophy and religion as well as for discussions related to the dialectical relationship between the history of the events and the history of the ideas.

Ce travail consiste en une édition, une traduction française et un commentaire du traité pseudo-aristotélicien Περὶ ἀτόμων γραμμῶν. L'édition est faite à partir de la recension effectuée par D. Harlfinger en 1971 de tous les manuscrits connus contenant ce traité. Dans l'édition, le plus souvent, la lecture des manuscrits a été préférée aux éventuelles corrections des éditeurs et commentateurs. La traduction se veut la plus proche possible du texte grec nonobstant son caractère très elliptique et, parfois, syntaxiquement fautif. Le commentaire s'attache en premier lieu à contextualiser ce texte (hypothèses de datation à défaut de pouvoir l'attribuer indiscutablement à tel ou tel auteur) et à déterminer les liens qu'il y a entre lui et, d'une part, les autres textes du corpus aristotélicien et, d'autre part, les traités philosophiques qu'il réfute. En outre, le commentaire permet de justifier les choix éditoriaux et de traduction en comparant la leçon retenue aux variantes existantes et aux corrections apportées par les éditeurs et commentateurs successifs du traité. L'objectif du Περὶ ἀτόμων γραμμῶν est de démontrer l'impossible existence de lignes indivisibles. Il prend place dans une réfutation générale de l'atomisme dans l'école aristotélicienne. Aristote avait réfuté l'existence des atomes dans le domaine physique, y opposant une théorie continuiste, l'auteur de ce traité reprend ce problème en l'appliquant aux objets géométriques. Il démontre l'impossibilité qu'une ligne soit indivisible ou composée d'indivisibles, puis, après avoir défini le point, l’impossibilité qu'une ligne en soit composée. Enfin, l'auteur établit une distinction entre limite et articulation<br>This works aims to propose an edition, a translation into French and a commentary of the pseudo-aristotelian treatise Περὶ ἀτόμων γραμμῶν. The edition is based on D. Harlfinger's 1971 manuscripts review known to bear the treatise. Most of the time, in the edition the readings of the manuscripts were favoured to the editors' and commentators' emendations. The translation is as close as possible to the Greek text despite its very elliptical wording and its occasional defective syntax. Initialy, the commentary tries to set the background to this text (dating hypothesis in spite of attributing it to a precise and definite author) and to define the links which exist between the text and, on the one hand, the other Aristotelian treatises and, on the other hand, the philosophical works that are refuted. The commentary then helps to justify the editorial choices and translations in comparison to existing variants and corrections suggested by previous editors and commentators.The aim of the Περὶ ἀτόμων γραμμῶν is to prove the impossibility of indivisible lines. It belongs to a more general confutation of atomism in the Aristotelian school. Aristotle previously refuted the existence of atoms in the physical field, setting up a theory of continuity. The author of this treatise takes up the issue confronting it to geometrical objects. He proves impossible the indivisibility of a line or the fact that a line may be composed of indivisible elements. After having defined the point, he proves that a line can neither be composed of points. To conclude, the author draws the distinction between a limit and a joint

Le but de la thèse présente consiste en la réévaluation de la pensée théologique de Xénophane à plusieurs égards. Tout d'abord, Xénophane est le premier penseur à avoir fait la distinction épistémologique entre le discours sur le dieu et le discours sur la nature, se démarquant ainsi de ses prédécesseurs ioniens, qui ont considéré leur principe premier cosmologique comme divin. De l'autre coté, tout en adoptant la langue épique, Xénophane exerce une critique contre l'anthropomorphisme des dieux chez les poètes épiques. Sur la base de cette critique il parvient à formuler ses doctrines théologiques, qui sont à l'origine de l'ontologie parménidéenne selon Platon et Aristote, dans la mesure où dieu d'après Xénophane est considéré comme unique et immuable. En outre, la nature purement noétique que Xénophane reconnaît à son dieu unique et immuable, par laquelle il met toute chose en mouvement, non seulement préconise l'immuabilité noétique de l'Etre parménidéen, mais elle fait aussi directement écho au dieu empédocléen considéré comme un Intellect, qui dirige toute chose par sa pensée, en anticipant aussi sur le premier moteur immobile de la métaphysique aristotélicienne. En guise de conclusion, en adoptant la langue épique afin de véhiculer leur pensée, Xénophane, Parménide et Empédocle se distinguent de leurs prédécesseurs ioniens qui ont fait de la physique dans le sens de l'historié, dans la mesure où eux font de la "théologie" en ce sens qu'ils évoquent dieu, afin de répondre à des questions sur les choses divines qui échappent à l'expérience et à la connaissance humaine<br>The aim of the present thesis consists in re-evaluating, in several important respects, theological thought of Xenophanes. First of all, Xenophanes is the first thinker to have adopted an epistemological distinction between discourse concerning god and discourse concerning nature, thus distancing himself from his Ionian predecessors who identified the divine with their primary cosmological principle. On the other hand, in adopting epic language and form of expression, Xenophanes criticised the anthropomorphic notion of god implicit in the works of the epic poets. On the basis of that critique he formulated his theological doctrines that lie at the basis of the Parmenidean ontology (as both Plato and Aristotle attest) to the extent that Xenophanes was the first to describe god as unique and immutable. Furthermore, purely noetic nature that Xenophanes attributed to his unique and immutable god, by means of which he sets everything in motion, not merely prefigures the noetic immutability of Parmenides' being, but is also directly echoed in the god of Empedocles. The latter is considered as an intellect which through his thought directs everything that is, thus anticipating the primary unmoved mover of Aristotle's metaphysics. By the way of the conclusion we argue that, in adopting epical language to convey their thought, Xenophanes, Parmenides and Empedocles distance themselves from their Ionian predecessors who practised physics in the sense of Historiê to the extent that the former practised 'theology' - they invoked god in order to answer the questions concerning divine reality which escapes human experience and knowledge

Submitted by Adelice Souza (adelicesouza@oi.com.br) on 2016-10-20T14:18:16Z No. of bitstreams: 1 TESE ADELICE SOUZA. Drama-oração, o Yoga e o Sagrado na Dramaturgia.pdf: 4109323 bytes, checksum: 84d2c3c370a5228e4c9101de26751427 (MD5)<br>Approved for entry into archive by Ednaide Gondim Magalhães (ednaide@ufba.br) on 2017-02-01T13:52:19Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 TESE ADELICE SOUZA. Drama-oração, o Yoga e o Sagrado na Dramaturgia.pdf: 4109323 bytes, checksum: 84d2c3c370a5228e4c9101de26751427 (MD5)<br>Made available in DSpace on 2017-02-01T13:52:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 TESE ADELICE SOUZA. Drama-oração, o Yoga e o Sagrado na Dramaturgia.pdf: 4109323 bytes, checksum: 84d2c3c370a5228e4c9101de26751427 (MD5)<br>CNPq<br>RESUMO Drama-oração: O Yoga e o sagrado na dramaturgia é o estudo e a criação de três textos dramatúrgicos (O jardim de Empédocles, Doutora Damiana Sabujá e De Empédocles) que se utilizam dos elementos do Yoga, do sagrado, da natureza e da Lírica em sua construção. O drama-oração traz uma dramaturgia que utiliza, em seus princípios, uma estreita relação com os elementos terra, água, fogo e ar, que são as raízes de todas as coisas. Empédocles, o filósofo grego pré-socrático, que se lançou ao vulcão Etna para encontrar-se com o Pai, é a personagem principal deste drama. Foi ele quem primeiro descreveu o conceito da estrutura do nosso mundo elemental. Através deste poeta, mago, curador, taumaturgo que se fez mito no Ocidente através da sua morte, o drama-oração aqui representado, apresenta o Yoga e o sagrado como elementos constituintes de uma dramaturgia que também dialoga com a musicalidade e o Si presentes na Lírica. Exercitando o laboratório prático e o estudo sistemático dos elementos do Yoga; e abordando o percurso das escrituras sagradas, a partir do exame das obras clássicas e de importantes indólogos como Mircea Eliade, Sivananda e Jonh Woodroffe, a pesquisa traz como encenação, a escrita da trilogia sagrada sobre Empédocles e no decorrer da tese são apresentadas as fundamentações do processo criativo.<br>ABSTRACT Drama-prayer: Yoga and the sacred in the drama is the study and the creation of three dramaturgical texts (The Garden of Empedocles, Dr. Damiana Sabujá and De Empedocles) that use of the elements of Yoga, the sacred, the nature and Lyric in its construction. The drama-prayer brings a drama that uses, in its principles, a close relationship with the earth, water, fire and air. Empedocles, the Greek philosopher pre-Socratic, which fell on Mount Etna to meet with the Father, is the main character in this drama. It was he who first described the concept of the structure of our elemental world. Through this poet, magician, healer, medicine man, miracle worker who became myth in the West, drama-prayer represented here, presents the Yoga and the sacred as components of a drama that also speaks to the musicality and the „Self‟present in the Lyric. Exercising practical laboratory and the systematic study of Yoga elements; and addressing the route of the holy scriptures, from the examination of classical works and indólogos important as Mircea Eliade, Sivananda and John Woodroffe, research has as acting, writing the sacred trilogy about Empedocles and during the study presents the foundations the creative process.