6 found
Order:
Disambiguations:
John Laumakis [5]John A. Laumakis [2]
  1.  2
    John Laumakis (forthcoming). Playing to Your Opponent’s Weakness – or Strength. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport:1-15.
    Playing to your opponent’s weakness is a strategy commonly adopted in head-to-head sports. I argue, however, that competitors in head-to-head sports should adopt the opposite strategy: playing to your opponent’s strength. To do so, I first distinguish two senses of victory and explain what constitutes a meaningful victory in head-to-head sports. I then examine the implications of mutualism as exhibited in Robert L. Simon’s view that sport is a mutual quest for excellence through challenge. Finally, I defend the notion that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  27
    John Laumakis (2004). Aquinas' Misinterpretation of Avicebron on the Activity of Corporeal Substances: Fons Vitae II, 9 and 10. Modern Schoolman 81 (2):135-149.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  12
    John Laumakis (1999). The Voluntarism of William of Auvergne and Some Evidence of the Contrary. Modern Schoolman 76 (4):303-312.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  11
    John Laumakis (2001). Avicebron (Solomon Ibn Gabirol) on Creation Ex Nihilo. Modern Schoolman 79 (1):41-55.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  9
    John Laumakis (2006). Aquinas and Avicebron on the Causality of Corporeal Substances. Modern Schoolman 84 (1):17-29.
  6.  8
    John A. Laumakis (2003). Weisheipl's Interpretation of Avicebron's Doctrine of the Divine Will. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (1):37-55.
    In his interpretation of Avicebron’s doctrine of the divine will, Weisheipl claims that Avicebron is a voluntarist because he holds that God’s will is superior to God’s intelligence. Yet, by reexamining his Fons vitae, I argue that Avicebron is not a voluntarist. For, according to Avicebron, God’s will can be considered in two ways—(1) as inactive or (2) as active—and in neither case is God’s will superior to God’s intelligence. I conclude by noting that if, as Weisheipl contends, Avicebron—and not (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography