In the paper the author provides a brief sketch of Albert the Great as a scientist. By quoting passages from his works he shows that Albert the Great had a well-elaborated understanding of science. It is argued that in some aspects Albert was not too far from modern criteria that science and its methodology should meet. Accepting Aristotelian model of science, Albert stressed the need for experience and repeated observation in scientific research. While valuing authority, he examined carefully what it (...) was stating and was not afraid to criticize even such an important authority as Aristotle, if his claims contradicted Albert’s observations. Although science was in close relation with theology, it wasn’t limited in its research and on the methodological level Albert was well aware of the need for their mutual independence. He was not afraid of providing science with freedom of inquiry, because he knew that in principle science and theology, if both sound, couldn’t contradict itself, because there is just one truth known from their different perspectives. The article also introduces Albert’s understading of and major contributions to mineralogy, astronomy, astrology, alchemy and other disciplines that were considered scientific in his time. (shrink)
This paper deals with Aristotelian and Stoic logic. In the first part the author writes about the history of logic and shows, why Stoic logic had not been studied properly from the Middle Ages up to the beginning of the 20th century, when an increasing interest in the study of Stoic logic is visible. The paper describes the character of Aristotelian and Stoic logic respectively. Stoic logic is first introduced as a system of propositional logic. On this basis a complementarity (...) between the two logical systems of Antiquity is stated. The ways to support the thesis that Stoic logic involved some features of predicative logic are shown at the end of the first part. The ways in which the two rival logical systems were perceived by the authors of the first centuries A. D., namely Galen and Boethius, is described in the second part. Galen is seen as the first to develop an objective synthesis of the two systems. In his Eisagogé dialektiké he tries to show the goals of both rival logical systems. Boethius, in his De hypotheticis syllogismis, is also combining the Aristotelian and the Stoic logic. However, his synthesis is different from Galen's because Boethius probably forms the synthesis unknowingly and indirectly through compiling his confused sources. (shrink)
This book revives inductive logic by bringing out the underlying epistemology. The resulting structural reliabilist theory propounds the view that justification supervenes on syntactic and semantic properties of sentences as justification-bearers. It is claimed to set up a genuine alternative to the prevailing theories of justification. Kawalec substantiates this claim by confronting structural reliabilism with a number of epistemological problems. While the book is addressed to both professionals and students of philosophical logic, probability, epistemology, and philosophy of science, it also (...) surveys ideas central to the development of philosophy in the 20th century. It will be a valuable companion to multifarious graduate and postgraduate courses. (shrink)
Originally published by Doubleday in 1969, this topical volume delineates the French position on thermonuclear weapons, as well as outlines the theories of deterrence and graduated retaliation that have guided U.S. nuclear policy formation.
Artykuł jest próbą uchwycenia poglądów najważniejszego współczesnego filozofa rosyjskiego Sergiusza Chorużego przez pryzmat jego krytyki myśli Pawła Florenskiego. Ten ostatni – geniusz i męczennik za wiarę – okazuje się być dalekim od głównej duchowej tradycji prawosławia, hezychazmu, podobnie zresztą jak większość religijnych filozofów rosyjskich Srebrnego Wieku. Tradycję tę charakteryzuje bowiem energetyzm, a Florenskiego esencjalizm. Wspomniany energetyzm – pojęcie dość enigmatyczne z perspektywy kultury Zachodu – stanowi fundament własnej propozycji filozoficznej Chorużego. Choruży docenia, co prawda, twórczoşć Florenskiego, twierdzi jednak, że ma (...) ona wartość tylko historyczną. Te i inne punkty zostały omówione w prezentowanym tekście. (shrink)