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

Displaying: 41-50 of 268 documents


translation
41. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
Kazimierz Twardowski The Metaphysics of Soul
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
review article
42. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
William F. Vallicella Van Inwagen on Fiction, Existence, Properties, Particulars, and Method
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
review
43. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 12 > Issue: 2
Michael W. Tkacz Metaphysics from a Biological Point of View
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
articles
44. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 12 > Issue: 1
Vlastimil Vohánka Necessary laws? Seifert vs. Oderberg
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
I discuss Josef Seifert, a realist phenomenologist, and David Oderberg, an Aristotelian. Both endorse essences, understood as objective quiddities. Both argue that no (a posteriori) law of nature is strongly (metaphysically) necessary: i.e. true in every possible world. But they disagree about weak necessity of laws: Seifert argues that no law is true in every possible world in which its referring expressions are non-empty, while Oderberg argues that some (indeed, any) is. I restate, relate, and review reasons of both authors for each of those theses. Seifert’s reasons include God’s ability to do miracles, conceivability of counterinstances to laws, and many others. Oderberg’s reasons include dependence of laws on particulars, depiction of laws as truths about properties necessarily connected with essences, and explanation of persistent regularities by means of that necessary connection. I argue that no reason of either Seifert or Oderberg is convincing, as its stands. But I also argue that given God and his ability to do miracles, the idea of “meaningful” but non-necessary connection between essences — an idea endorsed but insuffi ciently utilized by Seifert — is a better essentialist explanation of persistent regularities. This explanation implies that no law is necessary, be it weakly or strongly.
45. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 12 > Issue: 1
Miroslav Hanke Analysis of Self-Reference in Martin Le Maistre’s Tractatus Consequentiarum
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Martin Le Maistre’s Tractatus consequentiarum presents an analysis of self-reference based upon the principle that sentential meaning is closed under entailment. A semantics based on such principle off ers a conservative treatment of self-referential sentences compatible with the principle of bivalence and classical rules of inference. Le Maistre’s crucial arguments are formally reconstructed in the framework recently defended by Stephen Read and Catarina Dutilh Novaes as part of an analysis of Bradwardinian semantics.
reviews
46. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 12 > Issue: 1
Michael Sullivan Edward Feser: Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
47. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 12 > Issue: 1
Peter Forrest James Franklin: An Aristotelian Realist Philosophy of Mathematics: Mathematics as the Science of Quantity and Structure
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
studie
48. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 11 > Issue: 3
Dan Török Spor o svobodnou vůli mezi Erasmem Rotterdamským a Martinem Lutherem
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In my paper I try to reconstruct the core of Martin Luther’s and Erasmus of Rotterdam’s view on the question of free will on the basis of my analysis of Erasmus’ treatise De libero arbitrio diatribé sive collatio (1524) and Luther’s answer De servo arbitrio (1525). I also examine the compatibility of their views, or rather the main reasons for their incompatibility. I analyse the problematic and adversarial moments of both of the great thinkers views, which I fi nd in the case of Martin Luther for example in the idea of all-doing God and in the view on the creation of the fi rst human, Adam; and in the case of Erasmus of Rotterdam for example in the question of merits and in the assertion that a spreading of the truth might be scandalous. Before presenting my conclusions I also deal with the diff erences in applied terminology and methodology of these two reform thinkers, which leads me to the question of the criterion of the truth. On the basis of these observationsI search for the key reasons for the disagreement between the two protagonists of this dispute and I evaluate the whole debate.
49. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 11 > Issue: 3
Lukáš Novák Můžeme mluvit o tom, co není?: Aktualismus a possibilismus v analytické filosofii a ve scholastice
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The aim of the article is twofold: (i) to document how what the author labels the “Principle of Reference” – viz. the claim that that which is not cannot be referred to – inspires both actualist and possibilist philosophical conceptions in the analytic tradition as well as in scholasticism, and (ii) to show how Duns Scotus’s rejection of the Principle allows us to see that there are two distinct and logically independent meanings of the actualism–possibilism distinction: viz. metaphysical actualism/…possibilism, and semantic actualism/possibilism. By way of an appendix, the author off ers some critical remarks on recent Czecho-Slovak debates about the ontological status of non-existents.
50. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 11 > Issue: 3
Miroslav Hanke Paradox lháře ve světle scholastických klasifikací
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The systematic focus of twentieth century logic and analytic philosophy on semantic paradoxes prompted the rediscovery of the nearly six hundred years of scholastic research devoted to paradoxes. The present paper focuses on the following three branches of scholastic logic: 1. definitions of semantic paradox; 2. basic strategies of solving paradoxes; 3. scholastic classifications of solutions to paradoxes. Scholastic logicians analysed paradoxes from threebasic points of view: the point of view of paradox-generating inferences, the point of view of paradoxical sentence, and the point of view of the theoretical context of paradoxes. These partial analyses can be synthesised into a coherent approach, allowing for analysing different aspects of semantic paradox.