Basic course of study of elementary Buddhist logic and dialectical studies.

Pt. 1. Rassegna storiografica sulla teoria della modalità -- pt 2. Testi di Giovanni Duns Scoto -- pt. 3. Il caso della relazione tra creatura e Creatore nella condizione di dannazione e di beatudine.

João Duns Escoto pode contar-se entre os continuadores de Anselmo, uma vez que acolheu favoravelmente o argumento do Proslogion, ainda que na sua singular interpretação. Mas, aquém e para além deste aspecto pontual de continuidade, há aspectos de afinidade estrutural de pensamento a estreitar os laços de razão entre os dois filósofos. Estes aspectos de mais profunda proximidade não têm que ser explicados exclusivamente por uma influência directa do legado de Anselmo no pensamento de Duns Escoto, mas acusam, a nosso (...) ver, algo como uma família de pensamento ou de espírito, ou uma orientação filosófica de fundo, capaz de atravessar os séculos e de incluir as singularidades dos diversos pensadores que nela vão tomando parte. Entre esses laços de razão, há uma afinidade fundamental ao nível da partilha de um mesmo princípio metafísico, que estrutura o pensamento quer do Doutor Magnífico quer do Doutor Subtil. Trata-se do princípio da irreflexividade das relações essenciais do ente, que Duns Escoto enuncia, como prima conclusio, no início da sua análise comparativa das ordens essenciais do ente, no Tractatus de Primo Principio. Duns Escoto assume de Agostinho a inspiração deste princípio, mas é na metafísica de Anselmo que aquele revela a força de um princípio estruturante, antes mesmo de expandir o seu alcance na metafísica escotista. O nosso propósito, neste estudo, é analisar alguns aspectos do percurso daquele princípio metafísico através do pensamento de Agostinho, do de Anselmo e do de Duns Escoto, permitindo agregar os três pensadores numa mesma família de espírito ou orientação filosófica de fundo. (shrink)

The end of history by Fukuyama is mainly based on Hegel’s treatise of the end of history and Kojeve’s corresponding interpretation. But Hegel’s end of history is a purely philosophical question, i.e., an ontological premise that must be fulfilled to complete absolute knowledge. When Kojeve further demonstrates its universal and homogeneous state, Fukuyama extends it into a political view: The victory of the Western system of freedom and democracy marks the end of the development of human history and Marxist theory (...) and practice. This is a misunderstanding of Hegel. Marx analyzes, scientifically, the historical limitation of Western capitalism and maintains, by way of a kind of revolutionary teleology, the expectation of and belief in human liberation, which is the highest historical goal. His philosophy of history is hence characterized by theoretical elements from both historical scientificalness and historical teleology. (shrink)

A limited-liability corporation is an artificial (“legal”) person whose liability is limited to the assets “owned” by the corporation. This means that the real or natural persons (if there are any) who own the corporation are not liable for the consequences of corporate actions or events originating within the property “owned” by the corporation. Thus, while the limited-liability corporation itself is fully liable (i.e., to the full extent of its assets) for such actions and occurrences, its human owners (if there (...) are any) are not liable at all. Admittedly, they run a risk of losing all that they have invested in the corporation, but nothing more. This risk may be called an economic liability but it is not a liability in the relevant juridical sense: debtors cannot turn to the owners of the corporation to ask or compel them to pay its debts—it does not matter whether these debts are consequences of the corporation’s contractual obligations (wages, rents, purchases, loans, etc.) or consequences of harmful actions or events (explosions, flooding, contaminations, etc.) caused by the corporation or its property to third parties. Thus, we have the problem of the standing of the limited-liability corporation in view of the principles of Austro-libertarianism: the limited-liability corporation is a fully liable artificial person that shields any natural persons who are its owners from any liability. This is a problem because we cannot have it both ways. Either the limited-liability corporation is an autonomous (“self-owning”) person in its own right and then no objection can be made to it, as, despite its name, it is fully liable; or it is something owned by natural persons and then these owners must, like all other owners, be held fully liable for what they do (or command or permit others to do) with their property as well as for the consequences of events that originate within their property. Now, from an Austro-libertarian point of view—which, as I understand it, is committed to a realist philosophy and therefore akin to a natural law position1—it does not make sense to say that an artificial person can be an autonomous person in its own right.. (shrink)

The long stagflation in the nineteen-seventies broke the Keynesian hold on economic policy. Last year we witnessed the spectacular unraveling of neo-liberal policies of manipulating money and credit. While these episodes might be studied to explain the specific weaknesses and errors of each of the two policy paradigms that have dominated in the West after the Second World War, this lecture highlights the ideas and presuppositions that remained in place throughout the whole period. Despite the alliance that once existed between (...) libertarians and classical liberals, on the one hand, and neo-liberals, on the other hand, the latter did not have sufficiently coherent conceptions of freedom and free markets to produce a true alternative for the Keynesian idea of a scientifically managed economy as a utilitarian and pragmatic approach to the utopian goal of the greatest happiness for the greatest number, i.e., complete well-being for all. (shrink)

‘Freedom’, ‘liberty’ and ‘autonomy’ are controversial, contested words, often used interchangeably, yet laden with radically different connotations. In this lecture, I shall use them as labels to distinguish three different concepts. Most European languages have only one word to translate both ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’, e.g., ‘libertà’ (Italian), ‘liberté’ (French), ‘libertad’ (Spanish), ‘Freiheit’ (German), ‘frihet’ (Swedish), and ‘vrijheid’ (Dutch). Moreover, many English and American writers use ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ as if they were synonyms.1 Looking at the etymological references (which can be (...) found in most good dictionaries) for these words, we find, however, that ‘freedom’ and ‘liberty’ point to different contexts of life and action. Understanding the differences between those contexts is the key to eliminating the terminological confusion often encountered in discussions of freedom and liberty. My interest in this is that of a philosopher of law. However, the distinctions made in this lecture are relevant also for other disciplines concerned with cognition of the human world, most notably economics. (shrink)

Societies and communities are understood as orders (or laws) of persons, i.e., types of arrangements of human relations that are in principle conflict-free or equipped to solve conflicts among their members. As not all human relations fall into member-member patterns, there is need for the concept of a natural order (law) of persons, regardless of their memberships. The main theme is the comparison of the three orders, with special focus on how they deal with crime, punishment and law enforcement.

The “end of history” by Fukuyama is mainly based on Hegel’s treatise of the end of history and Kojeve’s corresponding interpretation. But Hegel’s “end of history” is a purely philosophical question, i.e., an ontological premise that must be fulfilled to complete “absolute knowledge.” When Kojeve further demonstrates its “universal and homogeneous state,” Fukuyama extends it into a political view: The victory of the Western system of freedom and democracy marks the end of the development of human history and Marxist theory (...) and practice. This is a misunderstanding of Hegel. Marx analyzes, scientifically, the historical limitation of Western capitalism and maintains, by way of a kind of revolutionary teleology, the expectation of and belief in human liberation, which is the highest historical goal. His philosophy of history is hence characterized by theoretical elements from both historical scientificalness and historical teleology. (shrink)

This volume contains 14 studies on various aspects of Duns Scotus' philosophy. Duns Scotus is one of the most important philosophers of the Middle Ages. His radical conception of contingency means a break in the history of thought. Despite his importance, he has not yet been studied very much. The contributors to the volume discuss a.o. Duns' view on will and intellect, on the law of nature, on man, and on aspects of his logic and metaphysics.

This article aims to expose and comment on the theory of meaning presented by Heidegger in his "habilitation dissertation” on the Grammatica Speculativa in that time attributed to Duns Scotus. Heidegger, in his interpretation, interweaves elements of the theory of meaning present in Husserl and Duns Scotus. The doctrine of modes of meaning, of understanding and of being, of the Grammatica Speculativa, is read since an intentional phenomenological analysis. This article tries to expose this interlacement, point out the correspondences between (...) the Husserl’s theory of meaning and the doctrine of the modes of meaning, of understanding and of being, in the Grammatica Speculativa. (shrink)

This is an outstanding contribution to Scotistic scholarship in English. A distinguished array of Scotus and medieval philosophy scholars have served up polished essays to mark this the seventh centenary of the birth of the "Subtle Doctor." Allan Wolter writes on "The Formal Distinction," Timotheus A. Barth on "Being, Univocity, and Analogy According to Duns Scotus," Heiko Oberman on "Duns Scotus, Nominalism, and the Council of Trent," Efrem Bettoni on "The Originality of the Scotistic Synthesis," Bonansea on "Duns Scotus' Voluntarism," (...) Felix Alluntis on Scotus' treatment of "Demonstrability and Demonstration of the Existence of God." There are nine other contributions, most of uniformly high quality, including extended notes by Charles Balic on "The Life and Works of John Duns Scotus" and "The Nature and Value of a Critical Edition of the Complete Works of John Duns Scotus."—E. A. R. (shrink)