Roczniki Filozoficzne

Tematem artykułu jest filozofia miłości rozwijana przez dwóch wybitnych fenomenologów wymienionych w tytule: Dietricha von Hildebranda i Karola Wojtyłę. Obydwaj korzystali w swoich badaniach z metody fenomenologicznej; celem artykułu jest pokazanie, że w obydwu wypadkach metoda ta prowadziła do podobnych rezultatów. Autor czyni to w trzech krokach. Po pierwsze, pokazuje, że miłość pojętą w sensie ogólnym obydwaj autorzy rozumieją jako odpowiedź na wartość osoby. W Lubelskiej Szkole Personalizmu zasada miłości została wyrażona w formule: persona est affirmanda propter seipsam, a treścią afirmacji, która jest należna osobie, jest miłość. W kategoriach von Hildebranda zasada ta wyrażona jest w sposób następujący: dobro osoby afirmowane jest poprzez obiektywne dobra dla osoby, które stanowią właściwą treść miłości. Po drugie, obydwaj autorzy wiele uwagi poświęcają tej specyficznej formie miłości, jaką jest miłość małżeńska. Podczas gdy mińość w sensie ogólnym stanowi odpowiedź na wyjątkową wartość osoby w stosunku do świata pozaosobowego, to miłość małżeńska jest odpowiedzią na wyjątkową wartość jednej osoby pośród wszystkich innych osób doświadczaną przez osobę płci przeciwnej. W tym sensie miłość małżeńska jest również specyficzną odpowiedzią na wartość. Po trzecie, doświadczenie miłości małżeńskiej pokazuje, że nie istnieje sprzeczność między wolnością a wzajemną przynależnością, co von Hildebrand wyraził w pojciu intentio unionis.

According to Malebranche only God can cause the interaction between mind and body, two substances having totally different characteristics. Descartes claims that in the cognition we need ideas’ mediation. While we can get to know spiritual ego in a clear manner, we know the material world only in an imperfect way because it is located outside our mind. The originality of Malebranche’s philosophy consists in the fact that he appreciates the cognition of the material world. We mustn’t forget, however, to follow our reason as well as clear and distinct ideas, not blurred sensations. The French philosopher deprives senses and imagination of their cognitive value in favour of intellectual cognition. Information received through our senses serves the body to sustain life. Imagination is in many cases the source of mistakes. It is only pure understanding that gives us the possibility for objective cognition based on eternal and unchangeable archetypes.We cannot get to know God’s immensity nor God’s attributes because of our mental limitations. Still, in the most perfect way we can apprehend ideal extension which constitutes this part of God’s substance that contains clear and distinct ideas of bodies. Archetypes of objects contain all properties of objects. Looking at the created world, we see them in different ways depending if we get to know them only intellectually or receive the movements of nerves’ fibres as well. But we can’t see God by an intermediary of an idea because nothing finite can represent infinity.

The eminent German medievalist, Joseph Koch, assumed that Neoplatonism had been handed down to the Middle Ages basically in two forms: the one given to the Neoplatonist outlook by St. Augustine, the other being the result of the reworking of Neoplatonist themes by Pseudo-Dionysius. Rev. Prof. Kurdziałek, when quoting Koch’s opinion, used to remark, that this bipartite typology was not adequate as it failed to take account of another variety of Neoplatonism that had been operative in the shaping of medieval intellectual culture, namely the Boethian Neoplatonism.Few scholars in Poland in the second half of the 20th century devoted much attention to Boethius’ philosophy; yet contrary to the general trend, Rev. Prof. Kurdziałek constantly discussed issues and themes concerning Boethius in his lectures, monographs and articles. The author of the Consolation of Philosophy was never viewed by him as a mere intermediary or transmitter standing between antiquity and the Middle Ages; rather he presented Boethius as a thinker that was seminal in shaping medieval philosophy up to and inclusive the 12th century and even later on, even though his later influence had not been predominant. This article, based upon the study and analysis of Rev. Prof. Kurdziałek’s output aims to present his contribution to the area of Boethian studies as well as contributions made in this field by his disciples and followers.

Philosophical ideas of David of Dinant were condemned by the Paris synod in 1210, which were confirmed in 1215 by Cardinal Robert Courçon, papal legate. The main reason of this condemnations was the David of Dinant’s materialistic pantheism. In consequence reading and owning the David of Dinant’s works became punishable by excommunication. A French scholar G. Théry partially developed his ideas according to excerptions of his works largely derived from Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas and others. A Polish historian Aleksander Birkenmajer found in Ghent (BU 5), Oxford (Bodl. Libr. Digby 67), Paris (BnF lat. 15453) and Wien (ÖNB 4753) libraries the medieval manuscripts containing some fragments of the David of Dinant’s works. Rev. Marian Kurdziaek, a follower of A. Birkenmajer, as the author of the critical edition of David[is] de Dinanto Quaternulorum presented in a new context the early days of the Aristotle’s works reception into Latin culture. Quaternulorum fragmenta edited by M. Kurdziaek served for almost fifty years as an important source of knowledge on David of Dinant. Nowadays, Rev. M. Kurdziałek’s findings are almost fully acknowledged by the contemporary researchers of David of Dinant’s thought.

The aim of the article is to present an eminent Polish historian of medieval philosophy Marian Kurdziałek as the author of the critical edition of David of Dinant’s Quaternulorum fragmenta (1963). Owing to a very high standard of critical principles applied to the constitution of the critical text, this edition still provides a point of reference for the investigation of various aspects of the phenomenon of David of Dinant. The article examines arguments presented by M. Kurdziałek in favour of David’s authorship of the fragments. After he had proved that they all come from the same author, Kurdziałek referred to the presentation of David’s doctrine by Albert the Great that agreed with the famous metaphysical portion of the fragments and thus provided a basis for the identification of the author. He then examined in detail various problems concerning Albert’s testimony and offered a critical discussion of the biographical data concerning David of Dinant. Another important Kurdziałek’s contribution were lexical comparisons of Aristotle’s Latin texts used by David with existing medieval translations. He argued that David’s version of Aristotle was his own free translation combined with intelligent interpretations. In the article I refer to the study of G. Vuillemin-Diem that fully confirms Kurdziałek’s conclusions.

This article forms a part of Rev. Prof. Marian Kurdziałek’s lecture devoted to the pre-Thomist conceptions od philosophy-theology relationship. More precisely, this article is a reconstruction of the Prof. Kurdziałek ‘s discussion of the relevant ideas in St. Augustine’s thought. To begin with, Kurdziaek presents St. Augustine’s holistic understanding of philosophy and theology as essentially one and the same endeavor, a way leading to beatitude. He goes on to illustrate this thesis with a number of quotes, chiefly from Augustine’s philosophical dialogues, but also from his later writings. Kurdziałek then proceeds to discuss the place of ethical knowledge in Augustine’s theology and the relationship of cosmology and theology in thought of the bishop of Hippo. The lecture is concluded by a presentation of Augustine’s psychology, again conceived as a starting point of a spiritual itinerary, one of the ways ultimately leading to God.