Aristotle asserts at 1073b10-13 that he intends to give in Metaphysics XII.8 a definite conception about the multitude of the divine transcendent entities, which function as the movers of the celestial spheres. In order to do so, he describes several celestial theories. First Eudoxus’s, then the modifications of this theory propounded by Callippus, and finally his own suggestion, the introduction of yet further spheres which integrate the celestial spheres into a single overarching scheme. For this, after explaining the spheres providing (...) the component motions of each planet, Aristotle introduces so-called rewinding spheres (anelittousai), which perform contrary revolutions to the ones performed by the spheres carrying the planet. (shrink)
Anaximander is the first philosopher whose theory of the heavens is preserved in broad outlines. According to the sources the celestial bodies are huge rings of compressed air around the earth, each visible only where it is perforated by a tubular vent through which the fire contained in it can shine. Greatest and farthest of them is the sun, next comes the moon and under them there is the ring of the stars. It is a common practice to put and (...) answer the following questions: ‘…why he should have placed the stellar circles or rings closer to the earth than are the sun and the moon.’ ‘…why these lower rings of stellar ρ do not obscure the brighter but more distant bodies.’. (shrink)
Saving the appearances (sôzein ta phainomena) often features as a programmatic description of the aim and objective of ancient astronomical theory. The paper, after an expository section, discusses some earlier proposals for what such a programme presupposes. After this, through a survey of the usage in Plato and Aristotle of some key terms—among them the verb sôzein—describing the relationship of an account to what it is an account of, submits that the phrase in this semantic framework could express the crucial (...) property of an account that it is faithful to the phenomena, and it does not overrule or discard them. (shrink)
Aristotelian natures – internal principles of motion and rest – provide a rich account of the goal-directed behaviour of natural entities. What such natures cannot account for, on their own, are cases of teleology across natures, where an entity, due to its nature, furthers the goals of another entity. Nevertheless, Aristotle admits such teleological configurationsamongnatures:mostnotablyPolitics I.8 1256b15-20 claims that plants are for the sake of animals and animals are for the sake of humans.Thepaperfirstscrutinizestworecentattempts– by Mohan Matthen and David Sedley – (...) at an explanation of such teleology across natures. Thefundamentalmovetheseproposals make is that they claim that the universe has a nature of its own. Accordingly, teleology across natures could be explained as the operation of this single cosmic nature. But the introduction of a cosmic nature contravenes fundamental strictures of Aristotelian natural philosophy. Hence the third section of the paper formulates an alternative proposal, that the teleological interaction across differentnaturesisunderpinned by the self-benefittingactivityofindividualnaturalentities,whichareable to use the natural processes of their environment to their own advantage. (shrink)
Edition du commentaire de la Physique par Facinus de Ast, à partir du ms. Fribourg, Cordeliers 26. Seuls le l. I, trois questions du l. II et une de chaque l. III et V ont survécu. On y retrouve souvent les outils de l'analyse syntaxique du XIVe s. La solution de Facinus sur les futurs contingents suit d'assez près celle d’Ockham et quelques qq. du l. I semblent critiquer des thèses maîtresses de Jean de Ripa.
This edition of the Tractatus de maximo et minimo of Facinus de Ast from the sole surviving manuscript, Fribourg Cordeliers MS 26, is the first part of the edition of his philosophical works. Facinus read bk 1 of the Sentences in Paris in 1362/63, and his philosophical works most probably preceded his theological studies. The Tractatus palpably shows how widespread influence the Calculator enjoyed at this time in Italy and/or France.
Timaeus after assigning four regular solids – tetrahedra, octahedra, icosahedra and cubes – to fire, air, water and earth, respectively, submits at 57d–e that different kinds of gaseous, liquid or solid materials, and their interactions and intertransformations require that the four solids occur in different sizes. The paper discusses two different strategies for the generation of these differences in size: the traditional one, which allows that the triangles that are the fundamental building blocks of these solids do occur in different (...) sizes, and the one proposed by Cornford, which suggests that triangles of exactly the same size may form different structures, and these can give rise to solids of different sizes. Considerations are drawn from descriptions of some specific interactions , from the account of sight , and physiology . All in all, these considerations seem to favour the traditional account. After this, in a final section I suggest that the specific claims Timaeus makes about the status of his account about the elements – certainty for the assignment of tetrahedra to fire, octahedra to air, and icosahedra to water, whereas the half-equilateral triangle as the fundamental building block of these solids is introduced in a tentative manner, explicitely stressing that this detail is revisable – makes it unsurprising that he does not discuss in detail how solids – and triangles and squares – of different sizes are constructed. (shrink)
My aim in the present paper is to show the significance of Heidegger's phenomenology of religion as an important step on his way to his magnum opus . First, I wish to exhibit traits characteristic of Heidegger's path of thinking in terms of his confrontation with phenomenology, historicism, hermeneutics, and Lebensphilosophie . I will then argue, in a second step, that it was with an eye to, and drawing upon, his previous understanding of religion and religious life, as well as (...) of the relation between faith and theology, that Heidegger was to conceive of philosophy and its relation to human existence in Being and Time . Both theology and philosophy offer a conceptual elaboration of something previously enacted or lived and, in doing so, are at the same time meant to refer back to and reinforce what they grow out of—faith or factical life. (shrink)
In Gadamer's hermeneutics the relationship of philology to philosophy and to the Geisteswissenschaften often became a focus of his hermeneutical reflection. In the first part of my contribution, I investigate and reconstruct this relationship in Gadamer's thinking. In the second part, I take up a recent debate about Gadamer in Hungary, and in connection with it offer a case study in which Gadamerian thinking is present in a twofold way: as that with which I am reflecting and at the same (...) time what it is about – the object of this reflection. The first part comes to the conclusion that the interconnectedness of philology and philosophy, with each side referring to the other, is central to Gadamer's work; it is moreover the element in which Gadamer's writings move. It is the focus on the text as text versus a focus on the text as the mediator of a matter [Sache] that makes the difference between philology and philosophy. This difference may give rise to a kind of tension, and this is addressed in the second part of the paper, by way of showing a passage from Gadamer's work susceptible to philological objections. (shrink)
In this paper I attempt to show, against certain versions of trope theory, that properties with analyzable particularity cannot be merely exactly similar: such properties are either particularized properties (tropes) that are dissimilar to every any other trope, or else universalized properties (universals). I argue that each of the most viable standard and nonstandard particularizers that can be employed to secure the numerical difference between exactly similar properties can only succeed in grounding the particularity of properties, that is, in having (...) properties be tropes, at the expense of ruling out the possibility of their exact similarity. Here are the four nonstandard particularizers that I examine: the genealogy of a property, the history of a property, the causal effects of a property, and the duration of a property. And here are the two standard particularizers that I examine: the bearer of a property, by which I mean either a bare particular or a spatiotemporal location, and the property itself, by which I mean that the property is self-particularized. In my concluding remarks, I explain that the only remaining hope for preserving the possibility of exactly similar tropes is regarding properties as primitively particular, and that this must mean not that properties are selfparticularized but that they are particularized due to nothing. I close by arguing that this may not help trope theory after all. (shrink)
The goal of this paper is to figure out whether Aristotle's response to the argument for fatalism in De Interpretatione 9 is a success. By "response" it is meant not simply the reasons Aristotle offers to highlight why fatalism does not accord with how we conduct our lives, but also the solution he devises to block the argument for fatalism. This paper finds that a) Aristotle's argument for fatalism is essentially bivalence plus that the truth of a proposition implies necessity, (...) b) that Aristotle's solution is to restrict bivalence, c) that this solution is coherent, and d) that while this solution does not rule out the possibility of fatalism, it does succeed in blocking the argument for fatalism offered within chapter 9. El objetivo de este trabajo es esclarecer si la respuesta de Aristóteles al argumento a favor del fatalismo en De Interpretatione 9 resulta exitosa. Por "respuesta" se entienden no solo las razones que da Aristóteles para destacar porqué el fatalismo no concuerda con la manera en que llevamos nuestras vidas, sino también la solución que ofrece para bloquear el argumento a favor del fatalismo. El artículo plantea a) que el argumento de Aristóteles respecto del fatalismo consiste esencialmente en la bivalencia más el hecho de que la verdad de una proposición implica necesidad; b) que la solución de Aristóteles es restringir la bivalencia; c) que esta solución es coherente, y d) que si bien esta solución no elimina la posibilidad del fatalismo, sí logra bloquear el argumento a favor del fatalismo ofrecido en el capítulo 9. O objetivo deste trabalho é esclarecer se a resposta de Aristóteles ao argumento a favor do fatalismo em De Interpretatione 9 é bem-sucedida. Por "resposta" se entendem não somente as razões que Aristóteles dá para destacar por que o fatalismo não está de acordo com a maneira em que levamos nossas vidas, mas também a solução que oferece para bloquear o argumento a favor do fatalismo. Este artigo propõe que: a) o argumento de Aristóteles a respeito do fatalismo consiste essencialmente na bivalência mais o fato de que a verdade de uma proposição implica necessidade; b) a solução de Aristóteles é restringir a bivalência; c) essa solução é coerente, e d) embora essa solução não elimine a possiblidade do fatalismo, consegue bloquear o argumento a favor dele oferecido no capítulo 9. (shrink)
Motto: “History is denied not because it is ‘false’ but because, although impossible to be assimilated as present, it remains active in the present.” Martin Heidegger -/- “It is to be expected that people remember their past and imagine their future. But in fact, when they write discourses about history they imagine it through the prism of their own experiences and when they try to ponder over the future they refer to presupposed analogies with the past, until, in a double (...) process of repetition they imagine their past and remember their future.” Lewis Nanier. (shrink)
The analyses in the book investigate the possibilities and foundations of a completely new philosophy of history, although outlined in dialogue with M. Heidegger. The fundamental questions the author asks are: Why, wherefrom is there history? Why are we humans historical? Why is there historiography? Primarily and ultimately, the response to each of these questions is: because we are MORTAL. Accordingly, the first chapter tackles the possibilities and lays the foundations of an ontology of history. Built upon these, the second (...) chapter analyses the being of the PAST and its existential characteristics – as NOT-BEING-ANY-MORE, as HAD-BEEN-NESS. Chapter three turns towards the FUTURE and analyses its existential characteristics as NOT-YET-BEING. Chapter four is an explicit return to the dialogue with Heidegger, which surfaces the main aspects of the essential belonging together of the fundaments and origins of philosophy and history. The Appendix is an applied philosophical research related to the previous subjects which examines the interlacements of DEATH and SECRET in the phenomenon of TERRORISM. (shrink)
In this book, internationally recognized scholars in philosophical hermeneutics discuss various aspects of language and linguisticality. The translations of Hans-Georg Gadamer's two recent essays provoke a preliminary discussion on the philosopher's polemic claim in Truth and Method—"Being that can be understood is language." Topics addressed by the contributors include the relationship of rituals to tradition and the immemorial; the unity of the word; conversation; translation and conceptuality; and the interrelationship between the art of writing and linguisticality. This work is of (...) critical importance to anyone interested in Gadamer's claims regarding the boundaries of language, the transition from the prelinguistic to linguistic realms, and the role of rituals in this transition. (shrink)
„...nem egy általában vett szerző -/- szól az általában vett olvasóhoz..." -/- Fehér M. István1 -/- -/- „A filozófia a legmélyebb, legfölkavaróbb -/- kérdésekkel hivatott foglalkozni. -/- Végleges megoldásukat nehezen élné túl." -/- Hajós József 2 -/- -/- -/- Egyre több írás – iromány – hermeneutikai szituáltságát konstituálják manapság a „tudományos konferenciák". Gyakran persze ezek „helyettesítik" be a tapasztalatot, a tapasztalat élő kihívásait is. Úgyhogy meglehetősen ritkaságszámba megy az olyan esemény, amikor egy-egy előadás valóságos konferencia-szerű alkalma és tényleges visszhangja igazán (...) találkoznak azzal a szervességgel, amelynek a lehetőségeit rajtuk – azaz, voltaképpen: esetlegességükön – kívül mindig sok más egyéb vonatkozás is artikulál. (shrink)