The article manifests and analyzes the process of decentration of the Author, which corresponds to a number of trends, such as: decentration of the subject, dividualization, decentralization of information systems, etc., which determine contemporary transformations of the Lifeworld of a human, who appears precisely as a decentralized, multilayered, split, multiple being. It is noted that the model of authorship, which was constituted according to the concept of a centered/holistic subject/individual, which, in particular, is embodied in copyright, needs to be reconsidered. (...) The meaning of such a model, which is conceptualized in the figure of "authenticity of an authoritative author", is reduced to the creation of Surplus Value with behalf of the author of the product/work/goods. The article presents the stages of decentration of the Author, authority and authenticity, which are personified by the figures of S. Kierkegaard, M. Duchamp, and R. Stallman. For Kierkegaard, it is fundamental to separate the function of the author from authority and the formation of existence/singularity, which, in particular, is embodied in his use of pseudonyms. Duchamp problematizes the author as a producer of a product, contrasting him with the practice of using ready-made objects, and contrasts the tradition of the author's signature with the multiplication of names/signatures. Duchamp exposes the exploitative essence of work even in relation to artistic creativity, manifesting as an alternative to laziness/"lazy activity", which allows shifting the emphasis from the production of things to the process of becoming subjectivity. In the end, the author as integrity and unity loses its meaning in the context of the development of contemporary technologies and network communication. Stallman presents a strategy of friendly exchange of free software instead of selling it based on copyright (intellectual property). This is what should increase productive activity and free up time, and in the long run, creativity should hardly be distinguished from laziness. These three examples testify to the possibility and necessity of overcoming the repressive component of authorship and copyright as a way of controlling/restricting human life, which is not a totality, does not have substantial authenticity, does not require authority, and does not focus on authorship. (shrink)

This essay argues for a formative, and not simply abstract, aspect to the philosophy of religion by attending to the practices of writing employed in Søren Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous work Repetition . By locating this text within an ethical tradition that focuses upon the practices that form subjects, rather than simply the formulation of a theory, its seemingly literary performances can be viewed as exercises. In particular, this text deploys and transforms the Stoic practices of self writing, in the form of (...) keeping notebooks and letter writing, so as to cultivate capabilities. This indirect ethical instruction does not, however, lead to the formation of autonomous ethical subjects, but to the cultivation of capabilities that are only possible in the relational space of vulnerability, service and dependence. (shrink)

Pretendemos neste artigo analisar a relação entre tragédia antiga e moderna tal qual se apresenta na obra _Ou-Ou_, de Kierkegaard. Assim, analisando o conceito de tragédia na antiguidade e sua mudança na modernidade, afigura-se como problema mostrar de que maneira a reflexão acerca do trágico aponta uma condição para que a arte moderna tenha significado. Levando em conta, então, que a tragédia antiga é caracterizada pela ação no seio do Estado, da família e da religião e que, por outro lado, (...) a tragédia moderna é determinada pela reflexão, procura-se mostrar que o pesar ligado à ação e suas consequências, torna-se angústia ligada à reflexão e à possibilidade de uma vida trágica. Para tal, primeiro analisa-se o conceito de tragédia antiga e moderna de acordo com o exposto por Hegel em seus _Cursos de Estética_, desse modo, pode-se melhor ver de que modo Kierkegaard se apropria do exposto por Hegel, mas também de que maneira diverge deste. Isto feito, será possível ver que enquanto Hegel vê na tragédia uma reconciliação das forças opostas, Kierkegaard acentua o caráter esteticamente ambíguo da mesma, afastando-se de qualquer reconciliação. E que, ao assim fazê-lo, indica que a arte moderna só ganha significado com o renascimento do trágico na modernidade. (shrink)