Cover of Studia Neoaristotelica
>> Go to Current Issue

Studia Neoaristotelica

A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism

Volume 2, Issue 1, 2005

Table of Contents

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

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-17 of 17 documents


articles

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

translations

5. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
M. J. Loux

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
6. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Franz Schupp

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

responses

7. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Petr Dvořák

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

discussions

8. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Stanislav Sousedík

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
9. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Lukáš Novák

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
10. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Stanislav Sousedík

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
11. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Pavel Materna

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
12. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Stanislav Sousedík

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
13. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Pavel Materna

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

reviews

14. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Peter Volek, Lukáš Novák

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
15. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Daniel Heider

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
16. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Michal Chabada

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

current news

17. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Pavel Blažek

view |  rights & permissions | cited by