Since its rediscovery in 1903, the Logica Demonstrativa by Girolamo Saccheri is known in three editions ?1697, 1701, and 1735, the 1735, edition being posthumous. The 1697 edition is without the name of the author. This article calls attention to two unnoticed editions (1696? and 1699), the first one unsigned and the second by ?Carolus Iosephus Saccarellus?, a Saccheri pseudonym. The publishing history of the work has been partially clarified, though a number of problems remain unsolved. Après sa redécouverte in (...) 1903, on connait trois éditions de la Logica demonstrativa par Girolamo Saccheri (1697, 1701, 1735: cette dernière édition après sa mort). L'édition du 1697 est anonyme. L'article veut faire connaitre deux éditions inconnues (1696? et 1699), dont la première est ancore anonyme et la deuxième a comme auteur ?Carolus Saccarellus?, un pseudonyme de Saccheri. Ça éclaircit, en part, les questions liées à l'histoire des éditions de l'oeuvre. Hieronymi Saccherii Logica demonstrativa ex oblivione tracta est a Johannes Vailati, Italiae philosopho, Anno Domini 1903. Ter Logica edita fuit, in commune doctorum virorum opinione, annis Domini 1697, 1701, 1735. Quorum editionum, prima sine nomine auctoris est, postrema eius mortem secuta. Duas autem ignotas Logicae editiones inveni, alteram pariter sine auctoris nomine, alteram quodam Iosepho Saccarello ascriptam, certe ipsius Saccherii alienum nomen. Quae omnia nonnullas quaestiones de Logica demonstrativa illustrant. (shrink)
The article is the consequence of some critical notes to the contribution of Paolo Bellan, arising from reading of essays of Francesco Emmolo and Carlo Sini and the assumption of a purely phenomenological perspective in the interpretation of the processes of acquisition of scientific knowledge.
In a recent note in this review (Leibniz e gli Zenonisti, n. 3, 2001, pp. 15-22) Paolo Rossi stresses the importance of a philosophical sect that he claims has been unjustly ignored in accounts of the history of modern philosophy, the Jesuit philosophers of Louvain and Spain of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century known as the Zenonists. The occasion for his complaint is Massimo Mugnai’s admirable new introduction to Leibniz’s thought (Introduzione alla filosofia di Leibniz, Torino, Einaudi, (...) 2001), which in all other respects than its failure to mention the Zenonists, Rossi compliments and commends: justly, for in my opinion it is the best introduction to Leibniz yet written. (shrink)
The widespread use of brain imaging techniques encourages conceiving of neuroscience as the forthcoming “mindscience.” Perhaps surprisingly for many, this conclusion is still largely unwarranted. The present paper surveys various shortcomings of neuroscience as a putative “mindscience.” The analysis shows that the scope of mind (both cognitive and phenomenal) falls outside that of neuroscience. Of course, such a conclusion does not endorse any metaphysical or antiscientific stance as to the nature of the mind. Rather, it challenges a series of assumptions (...) that the undeniable success of neuroscience has fostered. In fact, physicalism is here taken as the only viable ontological framework – an assumption that does not imply that the central nervous system exhausts the physical domain. (shrink)
As its title indicates, this book is a study of the trip Nietzsche made to Sorrento in 1876, after the Bayreuth festival and before the publication of Human, All Too Human. Paolo D’Iorio’s main thesis is that at Sorrento Nietzsche became a true philosopher, abandoning his metaphysics of art together with his commitment to the Wagnerian cause in order to develop his philosophy of the free spirit. D’Iorio collects all of the available documents about the Sorrento trip, from Nietzsche’s (...) allusions to his Italian experiences in his notebooks and subsequent works to letters to and from his traveling companions and memoirs of friends and acquaintances. The chief interest of the book lies in this philological work, which .. (shrink)
Nel 2011 sono mancati Paolo Lucentini e Alfonso Maierù. Nel ricordarne la vicenda umana e professionale come ricercatori e come docenti, questo articolo intende mettere in luce in particolare il contributo che essi hanno dato alla Storia del pensiero medievale accompagnando gli studi dottrinali con importanti edizioni di testi inediti. Paolo Lucentini and Alfonso Maierù passed away in 2011. This article, in remembrance of their personal and professional roles as researchers and teachers, will highlight the contributions that they (...) made to the history of medieval thought, showing how they combined doctrinal studies with important editions of unedited texts. (shrink)
Il Poeta e la « Polis » – Colpa e responsabilità in Wystan H. Auden est un livre absolument singulier. Il ne faut pas se fier aux apparences d’un titre qui, pour tout lecteur de Platon, résonne de manière plaisamment familière. Il ne s’agit en rien d’un commentaire de l’exclusion des poètes hors de la cité, évoquée dans l’analyse de la tyrannie au livre VIII de La République. Phénomène inhabituel dans le champ de la réflexion politique, Paolo Carta s’intéresse, (...) en tant qu’historien de la pens.. (shrink)
Upshot: According to its introduction, the aim of Enaction is to “present the paradigm of enaction as a framework for a far-reaching renewal of cognitive science as a whole.” While many of the chapters make progress towards this aim, the book as a whole does not present enactivism as a coherent framework, and it could be argued that enactivism’s embrace of phenomenology means it is no longer a theory of cognition.
The article begins by noting that the first mention of the Correspondence between Seneca and Paul appears in De viris illustribus of Jerome. After a summary of the status quaestionis, it examines the context of the De viris, particularly the information on Seneca. Then the article presents an analysis of some aspects of the Correspondence in order to highlight the harmony between the views of the Correspondence and the ideas of Jerome, especially the considerations on the inadequacy of the language (...) of the Pauline letters. After finding other reasons of convergence, we formulate a hypothesis about the origin of the Correspondence. (shrink)