Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Much of my thesis arose from competing intuitions I have about Stoicism.I am irresistibly attracted to Stoic esteem for rational agency, where rational agency is understood to be the ability to correctly interpret life, to appropriately judge which things have value, and correspondingly, judge how the presence or absence of these things can disrupt your capacity to live well.Here is a philosophy that is promising you that no matter what happens in life, no matter who you are, where you come from, nothing but your own judgement has the power to threaten your dignity and happiness.A big promise, but possibly, an empty one.I cannot help thinking that human experience gives us reason to be skeptical of this optimistic picture.Stoic or not, life events have the power to invade us in terrible ways, so much so that they can impair our capacity to judge and evaluate events correctly.Some traumas are so abrupt and intense that there is no way that the agent can experience them with the equanimity Stoic rational agency promises.I could not imagine, for example, a bereaved parent standing over the body of their child, thinking that this loss is not so great, after all; that this loss serves a purpose in the unfolding of the universe, and that they can simply carry on with their lives, undisturbed and tranquil.Contra the dictates of Stoic theory of value then, I am convinced that there are some events in life which we cannot face with ethical indifference.More strongly, I think that to do anything but feel invaded, powerless and sad in such situations seems to token an inappropriate, even pathological understanding of the world and human vulnerability.For the same reasons then that Stoicism is attractive, Stoicism becomes repulsive.Being Stoic vii seems to constitute an extreme violence against the self, against truth, and our common sense understanding of what really matters in life.I thought there is no better place to start examining this tension than in the corpus of the most eclectic Stoic philosopher: Lucius Annaeus Seneca.As a Stoic, Seneca is weird.Beyond his appeals to Epicurean thought in his letters and moral discourses; beyond his self deprecating confessions of moral weakness-particularly with respect to his proclivity towards the anti-Stoic passion of anger, and beyond his dissonant attachments to the accumulation of external wealth in his aristocratic life, Seneca wrote eight tragedies, all of which appear to challenge the Stoic vision of a providential rational universe, depicting the triumph of passion towards indifferent things, chaos, revenge and evil.Perhaps, I thought, Senecan tragedy has something important to tell me about my conflicting intuitions about Stoicism.I had hoped that a project on Stoic tragedy could resolve this tension in some way, such that I could have the best of both worlds.Stoic invulnerability on one hand, and the reality of human experience on the other.This is not quite what happened.Yet, following the spirit of my project as it has unfolded, I leave it to the reader to decide for themselves whether such a reconciliation is possible.Picking up on my conflicting intuitions about Stoicism, my thesis examines the compatibility of Senecan Stoicism with the tacit ethical content contained in tragedy and the tacit ethical content contained in Senecan tragedy proper.I attempt to develop a framework for thinking about Senecan aesthetics which could render these anti-Stoic tragedies coherent with the practical and ethical ends of Seneca Stoicism.I argue that viii aesthetic exposure to the tragedies served in some ways to the edify their audience and creator, ultimately contributing to a critical theorizing of the passions in human life.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,030 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».