Mistificări istoriografice. Un scaun episcopal neocupat de „ctitorul de frunte al Filocaliei”. Cum să împiedici intelectualii și cohortele de tărani să-l aculte pe Sfântul de la Sâmbăta care „predica dumnezeiește”. Rectitorirea Mănăstirii Prislop a urmat rectitoririi Mânăstirii Brâncoveanu. Lagăre și închisori de exterminare unde a pătimit Starețul de la Sâmbăta si apoi de la Prislop. Dresații învățământului post-comunist și stupefianta lor credulitate. Părintele Arsenie Boca își vedea propriile suferințe viitoare. Securitatea sovietică nu l-a gasit vinovat. Mărturia unui elev trecut prin (...) „Moara lui Kalușek”. Minciuni securiste văzute de cercetătorii de azi ca adevăr revelat. Lățirea minciunii în spusele călugărului Teofil Pârâian. Paradigma „Arsenie Boca – Părăian” după modelul Eliade -Culian’ si Noica – Liicean’ de promovare a „înlocuitorilor”. Uciderea în anii ‘80 a unui preot polonez asemănătoare cu schingiuirea Părintelui Arsenie Boca la 79 de ani. Mărturii în răspăr cu istoria prefabricată în arhivele Securității și difuzată prin pangare, prin librării și prin internet de cercetători precum A.N. Petcu, G. Enache, V. Manea, F. Bichir etc. (shrink)

Tradução para o português do artigo de Richard H. Popkin "Did Hume Ever Read Berkeley?", publicado em "The Journal of Philosophy". Volume LVI, número 12, 1959, pp. 535-545.

Tradução para o português do artigo de Richard H. Popkin, "So, Hume Ever Read Berkeley?", publicado originalmente em "The Journal of Philosophy". Volume LXI, número 24, 1964, pp. 773-778.

This thesis justifies the need for and develops a new integrated model of practical reasoning and argumentation. After framing the work in terms of what is reasonable rather than what is rational (chapter 1), I apply the model for practical argumentation analysis and evaluation provided by Fairclough and Fairclough (2012) to a paradigm case of unreasonable individual practical argumentation provided by mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik (chapter 2). The application shows that by following the model, Breivik is relatively (...) easily able to conclude that his reasoning to mass murder is reasonable – which is understood to be an unacceptable result. Causes for the model to allow such a conclusion are identified as conceptual confusions ingrained in the model, a tension in how values function within the model, and a lack of creativity from Breivik. Distinguishing between dialectical and dialogical, reasoning and argumentation, for individual and multiple participants, chapter 3 addresses these conceptual confusions and helps lay the foundation for the design of a new integrated model for practical reasoning and argumentation (chapter 4). After laying out the theoretical aspects of the new model, it is then used to re-test Breivik’s reasoning in light of a developed discussion regarding the motivation for the new place and role of moral considerations (chapter 5). The application of the new model shows ways that Breivik could have been able to conclude that his practical argumentation was unreasonable and is thus argued to have improved upon the Fairclough and Fairclough model. It is acknowledged, however, that since the model cannot guarantee a reasonable conclusion, improving the critical creative capacity of the individual using it is also of paramount importance (chapter 6). The thesis concludes by discussing the contemporary importance of improving practical reasoning and by pointing to areas for further research (chapter 7). (shrink)

In the light of Halliday's Ideational Grammatical Metaphor, Rhetoric and Critical Discourse Analysis, the major objectives of this study are to investigate and analyze Barack Obama's 2012 five speeches, which amount to 19383 words, from the point of frequency and functions of Nominalization, Rhetorical strategies, Passivization and Modality, in which we can grasp the effective and dominant principles and tropes utilized in political discourse. Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis frameworks based on a Hallidayan perspective are used to depict the orator’s (...) deft and clever use of these strategies in the speeches which are bound up with his overall political purposes. The results represent that nominalization, parallelism, unification strategies and modality have dominated in his speeches. There are some antithesis, expletive devices as well as passive voices in these texts. Accordingly, in terms of nominalization, some implications are drawn for political writing and reading, for translators and instructors entailed in reading and writing pedagogy. (shrink)

Language and politics go hand in hand and learning and comprehending political genre is to learn a language created for codifying, extending and transmitting political discourse in any text/talk. Drawing upon the theoretical framework of Fairclough’s CDA and Rhetoric, the current study aims at investigating Donald Trump’s First Speech, from the point of frequency and functions of some rhetorical strategies (Parallelism, Anaphora and the Power of Three, Antithesis and Expletive, etc.), Nominalization, Passivization, We-groups and Modality as well as Lexical (...) and Textual Analysis, presented to the UN delivered on Sep. 19, 2017. Specifically, the study seeks to determine: (1) how President Trump succeeded in conveying his notions and assumptions to his intended audience, and in convincing and negotiating, (2) how he attempted to explicitly and implicitly pass his attitudes on his targets, and (3) how those orientations, intended notions and assumptions were seamlessly presented to his addressees in discoursal and lexico-grammatical levels; (4) and finally in this underlying trend how he achieved his own ends. The results of the study hope to enhance reading comprehension and writing in academic registers for EFL/ESL students. (shrink)