@book{Troeger2013,
  author    = {Tr{\"o}ger, Alexander},
  title     = {Hermetische Offenheit},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-77258},
  publisher      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {94},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {„Ein Buch f{\"u}r Alle und Keinen" heißt es auf dem Titelblatt von Nietzsches Also sprach Zarathustra. Was wie ein Paradoxon anmutet, verweist jedoch auf den manifesten strukturellen Gehalt eines Werkes, welches der Forschung gr{\"o}ßtenteils nur mit seinem reichhaltigen narrativen Inhalt entgegentritt. An Nietzsches Also sprach Zarathustra soll in Bezug auf die Kl{\"a}rung des Untertitels untersucht werden, inwiefern die Struktur oder Form des Textes als philosophischer Gehalt verstanden werden kann. Gezeigt werden soll, dass der Zarathustra nicht nur selbstreferentiell den Schl{\"u}ssel zu seinem Verst{\"a}ndnis in sich birgt, sondern auch unabh{\"a}ngig von seinem Inhalt Informationen transportiert, die eigentlich unter einem vermeintlichen methodischen Ausschluss der M{\"o}glichkeit des Verstehens, einen philosophischen Sinnhorizont er{\"o}ffnen. Es soll gezeigt werden, dass der Zarathustra eine Eigendynamik aufweist, welche im Selbstvollzug ihren philosophischen Gehalt entfaltet. Dabei soll sich zeigen, dass der Text sich in einem Verweisungsgeflecht von in dieser Arbeit herauszuarbeitenden Textebenen in einem Akt der Selbsterf{\"u}llung aufl{\"o}st. Dar{\"u}ber hinaus wird herausgestellt, wie dies geschieht, warum der herauszuarbeitende philosophische Gehalt dieser Dynamik die strukturelle Anforderung an den Text stellt und wie der Untertitel gleichsam als Chiffre, als Leseanweisung, sowie auch als ein den Text manipulierender Katalysator jener skizzierten Dynamik fungiert. Im Laufe dieser Untersuchung wird sich erh{\"a}rten, was hier als Pr{\"a}misse angef{\"u}hrt wird: In der Dynamik der Aufl{\"o}sung des Textes sowie in dem im Vollzug des Textes sich ergebenden Ausschluss kommunizierbarer einheitlicher Wahrheiten l{\"o}sen sich ebenso die vermeintlichen philosophischen Schwergewichte des Zarathustra, wie der Topos des {\"U}bermenschen, der Willen zur Macht oder die Ewige Wiederkunft auf, sodass von Lehren oder gar Philosophemen im Also sprach Zarathustra nicht die Rede sein kann. Diese Arbeit wird zeigen, dass der Text weniger inhaltlich als vielmehr im Vollzug seiner Struktur von philosophischer Bedeutung ist und gar als das folgerichtige Paradigma einer Philosophie angesehen werden kann, welche die Dichotomie des bin{\"a}ren Diskurses von ‚wahr' und ‚falsch' der abendl{\"a}ndischen Epistemologie kritisch {\"u}berwunden zu haben scheint.},
  language  = {de}
}
@article{Ungelenk2022,
  author    = {Ungelenk, Johannes},
  title     = {Kiss me (not!), Cressida - or: the social touch of lips and tongue},
  series = {Arcadia : international journal of literary culture},
  volume    = {57},
  journal   = {Arcadia : international journal of literary culture},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {De Gruyter},
  address   = {Berlin},
  issn      = {0003-7982},
  doi       = {10.1515/arcadia-2022-9051},
  pages     = {25 -- 46},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {The article is dedicated to the problem of social bonds that is negotiated in Troilus and Cressida. Troilus and Ulysses embody an old, traditional order of the world that is out of joint, while Cressida's behaviour and her way of interacting indicate a different and new regime of social regulation that is about to take over. With its complex superposition of (touches of) love and war, Troilus and Cressida brings together rituals of touch, anarchic speech acts, and a gendered perspective on the world that associates touch and temporality with 'frail' femininity and temptation. With unrivalled intensity, the play puts to the spectator that the basic condition of touch, i.e. exposing oneself to another, entails an incalculable risk. Hector tragically falls for the vulnerability inherent in touch and the audience suffers with him because they share this existential precondition on which modern society is 'founded.' The gloomy, inescapable atmosphere of societal crisis that Troilus and Cressida creates emphasises the fact that the fragility of touch is not to be overcome. The fractions - no matter whether Greek, Trojan, or those of loving couples - cannot simply be reunited to form a new, authentic entity. Generating at least some form of social cohesion therefore remains a challenge.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Zur2018,
  author    = {Zur, Avichai},
  title     = {פרדוקס 'הידיעה והבחירה' במשנת ר' צדוק הכהן מלובלין},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-412201},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  pages     = {371, xxxiii},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {This research deals with R. Zadok's innovative writings. According to most scholars R. Zadok continues the doctrine of his rabbi R. Mordechai Yosef Leiner of Izbica and introduces existential fatalism: man has the freedom to act against the customary law, according to God's will which is revealed in his heart, even in his passions, which exceed the Halacha; however, man does not determine the will that is revealed in the root of his soul, but only uncovers it. Many expressions, in content and form, of this fatalism can be found in R. Zadok's writings; yet, he also introduces many remarks about human free choice and its creative power to establish and determine man's root and re-establish and influence the Divine worlds and this world. This research focuses on these passages whose centrality has been so far neglected by research. Hence, its renewed understanding of his doctrine. R. Zadok's position can be explained by means of the paradoxical perception, which claims the full strength of the two opposites and even a mutual influence between them, which creates a difficult yet fertile tension: as opposed to the a priori intellectual and formal process of fatalism where Divine Foreknowledge eliminates free choice, R. Zadok introduces fatality which identifies in reality itself the Divine foreknowledge and will that exist in all things. In R. Zadok's fatality, Divine foreknowledge does not eliminate free choice; on the contrary, without Divine foreknowledge, nothing has existence. Therefore, only the existence of Divine foreknowledge within free choice enables its true and indeed free fulfillment. R. Zadok's ontological perception is realized not only in the direct content of his words but also indirectly, in the method of his exegesis and the sense he gives to the concepts he discusses. Therefore the fatality is revealed in other areas in which there is a gap between the absolute dimension ('Yedi'ah') and the contingent dimension ('Bechirah'): the lie, imagination, evil, sin, suffering etc., indeed contingent compared with the absoluteness of truth, good, etc.; however, according to R. Zadok, God wants them as such - that is to say, they have an essential existence and actuality that are not absolute, but rather as such: as contingent, temporary and relative. However, these essential existence and actuality do not confirm them as they are but create a transformation within them. For example, evil does not become absolute good or remains evil but rather turns into 'Very Good' (Tov Me'od) which includes evil and according to Rabbi Zadok is greater than regular good. From this, rises also the opposite influence: that of free choice, or contingent Bechira in general, on Divine Foreknowledge, or absolute Yediah in general. According to R. Zadok, when the contingency and relativity of "Bechirah" received its essential existence and actuality, it has the power so to speak, to add dynamism to the permanent Divine absoluteness of the 'Yedi'ah': the affliction (Nega; נגע) of sin or suffering turns by itself, by interchanging its letters, into pleasure (Oneg; ענג) which is greater than regular delight. Man has the power to influence the upper worlds by decreeing decrees or by canceling Divine decrees; he also has the power to influence the daily novelties of this world, by the novellaes of the Oral Law and the sanctification of the new month which is capable of changing the movement of the zodiac. The human creativity of the novellae of the Oral Law is included in the Divine truth which is hidden in the Written Law and it only reveals and interprets the latter; but on the other hand, according to R. Zadok, the source of the dynamic vital novellaes of the Oral Law is higher than the source of the permanent absoluteness of Written Law and they are those which create and determine the latter. R. Zadok introduces two main concepts for his paradox: On the ontological perception - Yichud Gamur, the Ultimate Unification of God, in which the contingent duality (between God and His creation, and the choice it enables) of the Lower Unification paradoxically exists with the absolute unification and Divine Foreknowledge of the Upper Unification. On the perception of man's existential situation - HaShoresh HaNe'elam, The Hidden Root: unlike Rabbi Mordechai Yosef, his rabbi, rabbi Zadok claims that man determines his destiny by his willful contingent actions - yet, simultaneously, like his rabbi, he also claims that the man's permanent root is determined by God and His Foreknowledge and it is what determines his actions for better or worse. But above these R. Zadok points to an additional Hidden Root which is higher than the permanent one: it is indeed an absolute root (Yediah) yet is determined and established by man's willful actions (Bechira), similar to the Divine creation of 'ex nihilo'.},
  language  = {mul}
}