Narrow search


By category:

By publication type:

By language:

By journals:

By document type:


Displaying: 41-50 of 101 documents

0.144 sec

41. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Stanislav Sousedík (3) Ke stati Petra Dvořáka: A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism
42. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Pavel Materna Ontologie Vztahů (1) Poznámka k Sousedíkově kritice soudobé ontologie zztahů: A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism
43. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Pavel Materna (3) Závěrečné vyjádření: A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism
44. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Petr Dvořák Ke Gahérově analýze Tomášovy „druhé cesty“: A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism
45. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
M. J. Loux Nutné a možné (dokončení): A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism
46. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Stanislav Sousedík (2) Vyjádření k Maternově poznámce: A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism
47. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 1
Jan Palkoska „Corpus non est Substantia, sed modus tantum Entis“ leibniz o fenomenalitě látkového světa: A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
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.
48. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Prokop Sousedík Moorova filosofická metoda: A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
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.
49. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Alfred J. Freddoso Fides et ratio: radikální vize intelektuálního bádání
50. Studia Neoaristotelica: Volume > 2 > Issue: 2
Thomas Williams Nad metodou historie filosofie: A Journal of Analytic Scholasticism