This paper concentrates on some aspects of the history of the analytic-synthetic distinction from Kant to Bolzano and Frege. This history evinces considerable continuity but also some important discontinuities. The analytic-synthetic distinction has to be seen in the first place in relation to a science, i.e. an ordered system of cognition. Looking especially to the place and role of logic it will be argued that Kant, Bolzano and Frege each developed the analytic-synthetic distinction within the same conception of scientific rationality, (...) that is, within the Classical Model of Science: scientific knowledge as cognitio ex principiis . But as we will see, the way the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments or propositions functions within this model turns out to differ considerably between them. (shrink)

Acquaintance with the name of argument against the vacuum, the present syllogism in René Descartes’ The Principles of Philosophy of 1644 must be extended to any form of continuum space. This article studies it from the point of view of Logic, with the purpose of revealing its petitio principii in relation with the analytical judgments. Hereby, as a result of review the foremost historic sources from where Kant obtains his famous division of the judgments in analytical and synthetic, we will (...) be able to understand the best method to discern about them and to demonstrate the subdivision that we need to establish inside the analytical judgments. (shrink)

My aim in this paper is to discuss Mill’s notions of logic and argument and to highlight the epistemic dimension that for Mill has every argument and that, it is in the light of this epistemic dimension, that an argument should be assessed. By taking into account these considerations, I focus on his criticism against deductive arguments to the effect that they commit the fallacy of begging the question. I try to show that this idea relies on his radical empiricism (...) and argue that he is wrong. He particularly fails to recognize how we can gain knowledge from deductive arguments, though their conclusions are already contained in the premises. Finally, I point out the fact that, by his insisting in the epistemic dimension of arguments, Mill’s ideas are closer to those of argumentative theorists. (shrink)

Justification or criticism of the processes or the results of reasoning may involve, inter alia , questions of meaningfulness, of truth (or of reliability), of consistency, and of formal correctness (or conclusiveness). We shall concentrate on the two last mentioned criteria in the present section.

At De Principiis II, p. 75.10-11 Westerink, Damascius states that ‘Being will be that which provides being itself to each thing, καὶ καθ’ ὅ τι ὄν ἐστι’. The modern reference translation of the De Principiis, that of Joseph Combès for the Collection des Universités de France, renders the phrase left here in Greek as ‘et selon ce qu’elle est comme être’. Combès interprets it by stating that being is here conceived of as the constitutive unity of each form, (...) at once responsible for both its essence and existence. I argue that both a translation and an interpretation of καθ’ ὅ τι ὄν ἐστι of the type suggested by Combès are untenable and I defend an alternative construal. The two other main modern translations, those of Ahbel-Rappe and Galpérine, are also critically assessed. The translation of the relevant phrase I propose is: ‘and in virtue of which something is a being’. I argue that being – that is the property bestowed by the Kind or Form of Being, a notion that Damascius draws from Plato’s Sophist – is here conceived of as that which is metaphysically responsible only for the fact that something is (or is a being), not also for what something is. This construal does justice to the grammar of Damascius’ text and fits better with the argument of De Principiis II, pp. 56-99 Westerink. (shrink)

La división de las causas en el De principiis naturae 5 de Tomás de Aquino establece de cuántas maneras pueden distinguirse las cuatro clásicas causas aristotélicas. El texto presenta varias dificultades y las principales son la determinación del número de las divisiones y la no necesaria contemporaneidad del ser en potencia de una causa y de su causado. Nuestro objetivo es resolverlas a través de un análisis pormenorizado del texto latino, que resulta en un comentario completo al capítulo, lo (...) cual es un aporte secundario. A través de este análisis resolvemos las dificultades principales. Primero, al descubrir una distinción tácita entre divisiones de causas en cuanto consideradas en sí mismas y en cuanto conocidas y verbalizadas por los seres humanos, el número de las divisiones es finalmente siete (cuatro fundadas en el ser y tres en el modo de conocer). Esta distinción tiene un signo lingüístico en las expresiones ‘item’ y ‘sciendum est quod’. Segundo, la eventual no contemporaneidad entre los estados potenciales de una causa y su causado se puede justificar respetando la predicación singular, al considerar que un arquitecto, una vez construida una casa, está en potencia de reconstruirla, si ésta perdiera las causas internas de su integridad. (shrink)

Dans son De Principiis, Damascius propose une définition originale de la «connaissance» . Les développements doctrinaux qui y sont exposés semblent rompre avec la conception plotinienne, principalement issue de l’exégèse du De Anima d’Aristote, lequel envisageait la connaissance, du moins dans sa modalité supérieure qu’est l’intellection , comme une «identité» du connaissant et du connu. Cette étude se propose de clarifier la gnoséologie de Damascius et de montrer que la connaissance y est envisagée comme une altérité surmontée sans pour (...) autant être abolie. (shrink)

One of the main philosophical works by Alexander of Aphrodisias, De principiis, is lost in its original Greek text, but it is preserved in three extant Medieval Semitic versions, one in Syriac and two in Arabic, which were written in the Near East between 500 and 950 AD. These versions are not totally identical and, as we have shown in 2012, they are in a rather complex textual relationship. As we will show in this article, a tentative reconstruction of (...) the lost text should be based upon an attentive and point‑to‑point comparative analysis of some aspect of all three versions. We have tentatively called the abore way “critical translation”. (shrink)

Damascius has become well-known in recent scholarship for his unique, radical use of the aporetic method, both to highlight the inherent limits of human thought and to reveal crucial tensions in Neoplatonic metaphysics. Though much attention has been paid to the subjective or skeptical aspects of Damascius’ aporiai, little has been noted of the parallels between Damascius’ aporetic strategy in the De Principiis and Aristotle’s own in Metaphysics B. This article analyzes the parallel by looking at Aristotle’s aim for (...) aporiai in Metaphysics B.1 and closely comparing, as a case study, the De Principiis’ first aporia alongside Metaphysics B’s first aporia. Despite Damascius’ aporia dealing with different principles compared to Aristotle’s, the aporetic method for both ultimately exposes the limitations of thought and, exactly in the domain of these limitations, clarifies our concepts in relating to reality and attaining determinate understanding of principles. (shrink)

En este artículo se revisa críticamente la teoría sobre el intelecto humano que Orígenes de Alejandría mantiene en su Tratado sobre los Principios. En esta revisión se aprecia una importante influencia del comentario peripatético sobre el alma humana sin que haya una dependencia de Orígenes sobre esta literatura. Más bien, se da una reflexión original cuyo objetivo es resolver el problema de la participación del intelecto separado con el alma y el cuerpo humanos. La solución es notablemente efectiva y se (...) consigue incorporando el punto de vista de autores de su tiempo quienes sostienen, conforme a lo que dicen las Sagradas escrituras, que el alma humana es un intelecto enfriado por la caída y contacto con la naturaleza creada. (shrink)

Rather than seeking support from the massive scholarly work on the 13th century thinker, Bobik (philosophy, U. of Notre Dame) translates and interprets Aquinas' work on the principles of nature and on the mixture of elements, and uses them as a basis for independent philosophy on the relationship between form and matter in the context of God's creative causality. Paragraphs of the Latin originals are followed by English versions, then Bobik's commentary. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR.

Le commentaire continu d’Alexandre d’Aphrodise sur le livre Lambda de la Métaphysique d’Aristote était déjà perdu au XIIe siècle. Néanmoins, il exerçait toujours une influence par l’entremise du commentaire d’Averroès et de deux autres textes d’Alexandre: le traité Sur les principes de l’univers et la Quaestio I.1. Le présent article montre que ces deux derniers textes renferment chacun une section qui s’appuie sur Métaphysique Lambda, chapitres 6 et suiv., ce qui confirme le fait, ayant été établi ailleurs, que tous les (...) textes d’Alexandre revêtent un caractère exégétique et prennent pour base les textes d’Aristote. Qui plus est, une comparaison entre le texte du chapitre Lambda et l’interprétation alexandriste permet d’apercevoir l’apport distinctif d’Alexandre à ce que la tradition a reçu comme la théologie d’Aristote. Entre autres choses, nous devons à Alexandre, ou à ses sources proches, l’idée que les cieux, étant animés, se meuvent en cercle parce qu’ils désirent imiter la parfaite quiétude du Premier Moteur. Nous devons également à Alexandre une mise en rapport détaillée de la théorie du livre Lambda avec les analyses du chapitre 8 de la Physique. (shrink)