Dans Le sabbat des sorcières Ginzburg, s’efforçant d’expliciter la « méthode morphologique » à l’œuvre dans cet ouvrage, affirme reprendre à son compte certaines « questions » formulées par Frazer dans Le Rameau d’or – soit un comparatisme élargi –, sans en « accepter les réponses ». « Mon Frazer a lu Wittgenstein » ajoute-t-il dans une boutade. Dans cet article, on se demandera en quel sens la morphologie de Ginzburg diffère d’une approche « transculturelle » et on analysera comment (...) cette démarche morphologique se fraie une voie dans un dialogue entre histoire et anthropologie. (shrink)

Fino a vent’anni fa il nome di Solger, uno dei pensatori più significativi del Romanticismo tedesco, certo il più sistematico e filosoficamente attrezzato tra i protagonisti di quella grande stagione, era noto in Italia, anche fra gli studiosi di estetica, quasi soltanto per la menzione che delle sue teorie viene fatta nelle Lezioni di Estetica di Hegel. Nel giro di pochi anni, però, la situazione è radicalmente cambiata. Sono state tradotte le sue Lezioni di estetica, apparse postume nel 182...

After a few general observations on scientific activity, the author briefly comments on different versions of naturalism. Subsequently, he suggests that the birth of evolutionary biology and its successive developments may show how the natural world comes to be differently conceived as scientific advancements are accomplished. Then the main thesis is outlined by introducing the principles of a heuristic science-based naturalism not conclusively defining the real and the knowable. From the epistemological perspective, heuristic naturalism is meant to be framed in (...) critical realism, whereas from the ontological standpoint it may be framed in emergent monism, given that the latter can also underpin recent trends in investigation addressing human specificity. Finally, attention is turned to some implications of heuristically guided scientific activity with regard to the issues of divine action and of imago Dei. (shrink)

La metafisica de Nicolás de Cusapresentada, por primeira vez, en su obra capitalDe docta ignorantia presenta como una desus nociones fundantes la ldea de Máximo absolutosegún la cual la maximldad, por ser tal,carece de toda relación. Así pues, el Máximoabsoluto debe ser concebido en coincidencia consu opuesto, el mlnimo absoluto - coinc:identiaoppositorum - y, al mismo tiempo, puesto quenada se le opone, co-irnplicando en sí mismotodas las cosas - complicatio absoluta - sln sernlnguna de ellas de modo singular. De estamanera, (...) el Máximo resulta la forma única universalde todo lo real y lo posible. las ideas en e!Lógos divino, noción que atraviesa diversasexpresiones dei neoplatonismo cristiano, aparecenaqui unificadas e igualadas en una únicaesencia, que es el mismo Logos, que "corre" portodas las cosas y es su quididad absoluta. Estapresentación nos conduce necesariarnente a lapregunta por la constitución de la singularidad ypor la predicación universal acerca de estoasingulares. A la primera pregunta respondeNicolás con la doctrina de la "contracción"; a lasegunda debemos responder nosotros reconstruyendola idea cusana de des-velarniento deimuno que lleva a cabo la humana mens a partirdei entramado nocional de géneros y especies.Esta construcción nocional llevará al Cusano allamar al hombre "segundo dios". (shrink)

È possibile rivalutare l’attenzione di Popper verso i presocratici in un quadro interpretativo più ampio rispetto a quanto sostenuto finora? Il lavoro propone una generale riconsiderazione del tema principalmente attraverso lo studio delle fonti utilizzate nella lettura di Parmenide e degli altri presocratici, con l’intento di evidenziarne i legami con il contesto generale della filosofia popperiana.

Esistono metodi filosofici? L’articolo si propone di rispondere alla domanda dapprima mettendo in discussione l’idea che la filosofia sia un’attività ‘extrametodica’, poi esaminando i principali metodi e tecniche messi a punto dalla filosofia contemporanea. Si perviene così a una definizione di filosofia come tentativo di risolvere problemi ‘fondamentali’, che, perciò, procede servendosi di diversi metodi, ciascuno dei quali basato su diverse ‘supervalutazioni’ di tesi relative a concetti tipici, quali ‘realtà’, ‘verità’, ‘conoscenza’.Are there philosophical methods? The article tries to answer this (...) question, at first by discussing the idea of philosophy as an ‘extra-methodical’ activity, then by examining the principal techniques and methods worked out in contemporary philosophy. A definition of philosophy as an attempt to solve ‘fundamental’ problems is also assumed. Such an attempt, is argued, is usually developed by using different methods, each of them depending on different ‘supervaluations’ of theses concerning reality, truth, knowledge, and other typically philosophical concepts. (shrink)

La storia della filosofia come frontiera. L’itinerario di Nicola Abbagnano - ASBTRACT: L’articolo ricostruisce i momenti fondamentali del percorso storiografico di Nicola Abbagnano, a partire dalla sua tesi di laurea del 1923, Le sorgenti irrazionali del pensiero, fino all’articolo Il lavoro storiografico in filosofia : l’intento di questa analisi è mostrare la centralità e la complessità della Storia della filosofia , non riducibile a semplice "appendice" storiografica del periodo esistenzialistico dell’autore. Vengono esaminate in tale prospettiva le premesse teoriche dell’impostazione storiografica (...) di Abbagnano e le difficoltà che sorgono nel concreto lavoro storiografico: la Storia della filosofia si rivela così anche opera teoretica decisiva nel passaggio al neoilluminismo, che risulta caratterizzato da un profondo ripensamento dei rapporti tra storia e filosofia. (shrink)

At the age of twenty-five, Gn. Pompeius acquired the spectacular cognomen of Magnus. According to Plutarch , the name came either from the acclamation of his army in Africa, or at the instigation of Sulla. According to Livy, the practice began from the toadying of Pompeius' circle . The cognomen invited play. At the Ludi Apollinares of July 59, Cicero tells us, the actor Diphilus won ‘a dozen encores’ when he pronounced, from a lost tragedy, the line ‘nostra miseria tu (...) es magnus’. Four or five years later Catullus scored a fine hit, filching Pompeius' cognomen and giving it to his zealously competitive father-in-law: ‘Caesaris uisens monimenta magni’ . In Lucan's Bellum Civile such plays on the cognomen are elevated into something of considerable power, testifying to a consistent controlling design, of the sort which many still deny the poem. When Pompeius first appears he is compared with Caesar, to his detriment: ‘nec coiere pares’ . So much for Pompeius' vaunted intolerance of an equal, of which we have just been reminded: ‘nec quemquam iam ferre potest Caesarue priorem | Pompeiusue parem’ . Many of the images in this introductory section have a programmatic power, and will recur. With ‘nec coiere pares’ Lucan presents the two as an ill-matched pair of gladiators. The metaphor is ubiquitous. Note, in particular, 5.1–3, and 6.3, ‘parque suum uidere dei’. We are further told that Pompeius seeks ‘fama’, is a ‘popularis’, indulges the people, basks in the applause he receives from the mob in his theatre: ‘famaeque petitor | multa dare in uolgus, totus popularibus auris | impelli plausuque sui gaudere theatri’ . We will return later to this complex of ideas. (shrink)

At the age of twenty-five, Gn. Pompeius acquired the spectacular cognomen of Magnus. According to Plutarch, the name came either from the acclamation of his army in Africa, or at the instigation of Sulla. According to Livy, the practice began from the toadying of Pompeius' circle. The cognomen invited play. At the Ludi Apollinares of July 59, Cicero tells us, the actor Diphilus won ‘a dozen encores’ when he pronounced, from a lost tragedy, the line ‘nostra miseria tu es magnus’. (...) Four or five years later Catullus scored a fine hit, filching Pompeius' cognomen and giving it to his zealously competitive father-in-law: ‘Caesaris uisens monimenta magni’. In Lucan's Bellum Civile such plays on the cognomen are elevated into something of considerable power, testifying to a consistent controlling design, of the sort which many still deny the poem.When Pompeius first appears he is compared with Caesar, to his detriment: ‘nec coiere pares’. So much for Pompeius' vaunted intolerance of an equal, of which we have just been reminded: ‘nec quemquam iam ferre potest Caesarue priorem | Pompeiusue parem’. Many of the images in this introductory section have a programmatic power, and will recur. With ‘nec coiere pares’ Lucan presents the two as an ill-matched pair of gladiators. The metaphor is ubiquitous. Note, in particular, 5.1–3, and 6.3, ‘parque suum uidere dei’. We are further told that Pompeius seeks ‘fama’, is a ‘popularis’, indulges the people, basks in the applause he receives from the mob in his theatre: ‘famaeque petitor | multa dare in uolgus, totus popularibus auris | impelli plausuque sui gaudere theatri’. We will return later to this complex of ideas. (shrink)

This very impressive biographical-doctrinal-critical account of almost 3100 philosophers and theoreticians, from Anathon Aall to Huldrych Zwingli, will doubtless merit a unique place among reference titles.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Dogma and Ecumenism: Vatican II and Karl Barth's Ad Limina Apostolorum ed. by Matthew Levering, Bruce L. McCormack, and Thomas Joseph White, O.P.Gavin D'CostaDogma and Ecumenism: Vatican II and Karl Barth's Ad Limina Apostolorum edited by Matthew Levering, Bruce L. McCormack, and Thomas Joseph White, O.P. (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press of America Press, 2020), ix + 369 pp.In May 1966 Karl Barth visited Rome. He was invited (...) to reflect on the Second Vatican Council, to ask questions to leading curial figures, and peritus theologians, as well as Pope Paul VI. Barth's book Ad Limina Apostolorum: An Appraisal of Vatican II contains his questions and an account from Barth of his visit, along with some other important essays. It is still deeply challenging in its incisiveness, despite its brevity. I have always been struck by Barth's Marian criticisms that are so central to his viewpoint about divine agency and human cooperation. These give us an excellent insight into his ecclesiology. They represent the reasons for much of his questioning of various Roman Catholic positions on all sorts of matters. Eberhard Busch's diaries, while Barth's assistant during this period, form a fascinating complimentary account of the visit. These tell of the not-so-fruitful visit to Augustin Cardinal Bea and the great highpoint (for Barth) of his one-hour audience with Pope Paul VI. Barth was impressed by the Jesuits during his visit, but not so much by the Dominicans. He thought the latter had absorbed too many streams of liberal modernity. The two Dominicans participating in this book turn those tides. Indeed, all the authors could be located within the conserving wings of their ecclesial membership, which makes the volume all the stronger in raising serious unresolved disagreements and noting important common ground. It is testimony to Barth's enduring value that this volume seems so timely. The Barth Centre at Princeton and the Pontifical Faculty of the Dominican House in Washington were the sponsors of this collection.The volume is structured around five of the key documents commented on by Barth, with a Catholic and Reformed voice reflecting on both the particular document and Barth's input (with the exception of Francesca Aran Murphy, who deals with George Lindbeck rather than Barth), thereby simultaneously pushing forward the Catholic–Reformed engagement with the Council and with Barth. There is a preface with a penetrating introduction by Thomas Joseph White, O.P., and an irenic opening chapter by Matthew Levering on biblical renewal at Vatican II. Then follow the twin reflections on the five documents.First (and rightly so) comes the Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation, Dei Verbum. Katherine Sonderegger develops a nuanced reflection on the metaphor of Scripture as mirror of God (found in Dei Verbum), showing [End Page 971] a deep appreciation of currents within Dei Verbum that Barth had not detected, but which are more connective with his concerns and preoccupations. Lewis Ayres rather impishly takes what Barth saw as the main weakness of the text (its chapter 2: "Handing on Divine Revelation") and makes it the greatest strength. Ayers provides a deeply learned and original exploration of the concept of "tradition" as sacramental. In this duet, Barth comes out looking like he may have missed hearing the melodies while too closely studying the score.Then follow two profound essays on Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Christoph Schwöbel builds up a strong Protestant case for the necessary visible ecclesial identity of the Church, thus showing a deep convergence without denying differences that remain. White, in a deeply insightful and probing essay, goes to the heart of the ecclesiological difference between Barth and Yves Congar (and some other key Catholics at the time): the relationship between uncreated divine agency and created human agency, especially within the context of the post-apostolic Church. White suggests that, without some stable ecclesial mediations, there can be no proper relationship envisaged between the transcendent causality of God operating in Christ and the created, active cooperative acts with this grace. While building up both a metaphysical and a theological case against Barth's criticisms... (shrink)

In this paper, I argue for an extension of relational accounts of the imago Dei which includes a kind of priestly relation to the created order. In this relation, humanity is intended to ensure the independent flourishing of creation in a way reflective of the kind of communion we ought to have with one another. Through an analysis of the brokenness of these relationships, I argue human oppression of other humans and ravaging of creation are born of the same brokenness (...) in such a way that they contribute to one another as distortions of human teleological communion. By drawing on Social Identity Approach in group psychology, I can offer an account of shared human identity out of which humanity acts in distorted ways as a group. By describing oppression and ravaging in terms of broken communal telos and group action, I offer a way forward for relating humanity to the created order in a way that neither instrumentalizes creation, nor flattens the distinctiveness of human creation in the image of God. (shrink)

Cet article a comme objetif analyser les liens possibles entre deux thèmes de grande relevance de la philosophie de Nicolas de Cues : la théophanie comme manifestation de Dieu et la filiatione dei ou visio Dei, comme modes de clairvoyance de l'infini divin. Cette « voie divine » de la connaissance est la fin d'un voyage où la créature « court » vers le fondement radical qui se révèle em tant que présence infinie dans le fini grâce une « vision (...) » intellectuelle. Le principe de la non-contradiction doit donc être remplacé par celui de la coïncidence des contraires ; cependant, ce dernier doit finalement être dépassé par l'ignorance savante. A son tour, selon Nicolas de Cues, dans cette vision théophanique, le « ne pas savoir » de la créature coincide avec le « savoir » que Dieu a de lui-même, c'est-à-dire de sa connaissance de soi comme infini et non pas en tant qu’une chose parmi d’autres. Dans la tradition néoplatonicienne latine, l’univers théorique où gravitent les concepts de monè, proódos et epistrophé (manence, procession et retour), Nicolas de Cues apporte cependant des nouveautés par rapport à ses prédécesseurs, comme Jean Scot Erigène, puisqu'il se lance dans une tentative ambitieuse d’utiliser la négativité comme outil d'un « discours ignorant » radical, c'est-à-dire un discours qui cherche une expression positive de la « racine » de cette relation paradoxale Créateur-créature. A travers l'itinéraire d'élaboration des noms divins et des énigmes de plus en plus « capables » d'orienter l'intellect vers cette vision du principe incompréhensible dans sa relation active de création/vision avec l'Univers, le Cardinal parcourt le chemin philosophique proposé dans son De coniecturis : une recherche sans fin de l'expression positive de Dieu à travers la négativité visant dépasser l’anonymat classique qui caractérise la tradition néoplatonicienne. Mots-clés : Nicolas de Cues, Visio de Dieu, Docte ignorance, infini, néoplatonisme. (shrink)

Under the careful editorship of R. A. Markus, this book appears to be one of the very finest anthologies of critical essays dedicated to the elucidation of the thought of St. Augustine. Those familiar with Markus’ contribution to The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy will readily attest to the depth as well as to the breadth of understanding which Markus brings to Augustine scholarship. Three of the essays appear for the first time: "Action and Contemplation," by (...) Robert J. O’Connell; "Si Fallor, Sum," by Gareth B. Matthews; "On Augustine’s Concept of a Person," by A. C. Boyd. The remaining articles have appeared either as separate pieces or as journal articles: "St. Augustine and Christian Platonism," by A. H. Armstrong; "St. Augustine on Signs," by R. A. Markus; "The Theory of Signs of St. Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana," by B. Darrell Jackson; "Augustine on Speaking from Memory" and "The Inner Man," by Gareth B. Matthews; "Augustine on Foreknowledge and Free Will," by William L. Rowe; "Augustine on Free Will and Predestination," by John M. Rist; "Time and Contingency in St. Augustine," by Robert Jordan; "Empiricism and Augustine’s Problems about Time," by Hugh M. Lacey; "Political Society," by P. R. L. Brown; "The Development of Augustine’s Ideas on Society before the Donatist Controversy" and "De Civitate Dei, XV, 2, and Augustine’s Idea of the Christian Society," The essays display scholarly depth as well as concern for contemporary philosophical problems. It is an excellent addition to Augustine scholarship and to contemporary philosophizing. This book is part of the Doubleday Anchor Modern Studies in Philosophy Series, under the general editorship of Amelie O. Rorty.—D. A. C. (shrink)