Cover of Studia Neoaristotelica
>> Go to Current Issue

Studia Neoaristotelica

A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism

Volume 2

Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-20 of 33 documents


articles

1. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Augustin Riška

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this essay I investigate the interplay between actual and potential properties of a thing within an Aristotelian conceptual framework. A minimal formal treatment of such interplay is proposed, outlining the actual or possible causal impact of these properties with respect to the changes of a thing in question. I also mention the historically interesting controversy between Aristotle and the Megarians concerning the relationship between power and act, as well as Hintikka’s application of the Principle of Plenitude. The essay ends with certain suggestions for treating the problems of actual and potential properties by means of dispositions and contrary-to-fact conditionals.
2. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
David Svoboda Orcid-ID

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The article deals with the problem of the future contingents from the logical point of view, i.e. whether the propositions about (conditional) future contingents have a determinate truth-value. The author attemps to show how the problem was discussed both in the 17. century between a Prague’s Jesuit M. Větrovský and a French Dominican A. Goudin, as well as how the discussion has progressed through contemporary analytical philosophy. Firstly the history of the problem is explored to provide the sources for the discussion. Secondly the polemic of Větrovský with Goudin is examined and finally how A. J. Freddoso and W. L. Craig discuss the problem in contemporary analytical philosophy. The essential aspect of the argument is whether the propositions about (conditional) future contingents might have a determinate truth-value if the causal grounding (futuritio causalis) is being detached.
3. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Prokop Sousedík

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this article I consider two aspects of Moore’s philosophical method which lead to the turn to natural language. These are his interest in the meaning (not the truth) of problematic philosophical theses and his interest in common sense philosophy. However, Moore himself did not completely achieve the linguistic turn: he merely prepared the way for it. In the conclusions I show that Moore’s themes were developed by N. Malcom. The deeper sense of my paper is to show that the linguistic turn as begun by Moore does not conflict with the spirit of the Aristotelian tradition.

translations

4. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Thomas Williams

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

discussions

5. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Stanislav Sousedík

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

translations

6. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Alfred J. Freddoso

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
7. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
David Peroutka OCD

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

discussions

8. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Lukáš Novák

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
9. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Ladislav Koreň

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

reviews

10. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Daniel Dominik Novotný

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
11. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Anna Klimeková

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

current news

12. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Tomáš Nejeschleba

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
13. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Tomáš Nejeschleba

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
14. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Stanislav Sousedík

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

editions

15. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Stanislav Sousedík

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
16. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

articles

17. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Jaroslav Koreň

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper is a polemic response to the essay “The Semantics of Proper Names and Identity Theory of Predication” by L. Novák (SN 1–2/2004). In the first part of the article, the so-called descriptive theories of proper names and Kripke’s challenge to these views are briefly presented. It is pointed out that Novák’s exposition rests upon certain presuppositions in the theories of meaning and mind, which are controversial and which – without further argument – can hardly cast doubt on the so-called New Theory of Reference. Furthermore, it is argued that Novák’s “minimal sense” of a proper name is too minimalistic and cannot be of service to the original idea of descripitivism. In the second part of the paper, an attempt is made to show that Novák’s extensional-intensional identity theory of predication is not based on identity, insofar as it is characterised by the axioms of the theory of identity.
18. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Tomáš Machula

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The article deals with the concepts of matter and form. These concepts belong to the Aristotelian theory of hylomorphism which was very influential in the Middle-Ages and in the early modern second-scholastic cosmology. At present, this theory is discussed by authors of both scholastic and analytical backgrounds. The article presents and discusses some of the recent commentaries on this topic.
19. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Jan Palkoska

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The aim of this article is to present and analyze the argumentative structures which are decisive for Leibniz’s position regarding the issue of the ontological status of material things (or bodies) and matter. I reconstruct and thoroughly analyze (i) two different argumentative strategies of Leibniz’s – viz. an “epistemic” and a “realistic” one – for his general thesis that nothing material (and a fortiori no body) has rigore metaphysico the status of a substance, as well as (ii) the corresponding suggestions of his as to how the material world is to be construed out of substances and their modes. Throughout, I lay special emphasis onpinpointing the real key elements of Leibniz’s arguments and on articulating them in such terms that would allow for their direct confrontation with other paradigmatic positions regarding the issue in Leibniz’s times.
20. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Tomáš Nejeschleba

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This article summarises the basic features of Melanchthon’s approach to Aristotle’s philosophy in the areas of logic, ethics and natural philosophy. Although Melanchthon builds upon the humanistic ideal of purifying classical heritage, his Aristotelianism should not be viewed as ‘pure’. His conception of natural knowledge (notitiae naturales) could be regarded as a significant non-Aristotelian element of his philosophy. The view consequently penetrates his logic, ethics as well as epistemology. Primarily, however, the reason behind his reception of Aristotle is a defence of Luther’s views: the aims of logic and rhetoric lie in theexegesis of the Bible within the context of the principle of ‘ Sola Scriptura’; he rejects the medieval concept of felicity and puts antropology into the dialectics of Law and Gospel; the aim of natural philosophy is the exposition of the existence of God’s Providence. Melanchthon’s reception of Aristotle is thus influenced by the theology of the Reformation to such an extent, that we might refer to it as Lutheran Aristotelianism.