Search results

1

"Scientific" creationism - reception of the theory in Poland

100%

Kloskowski K.

Studia Gdańskie

|

1992

|

issue 8

150-163

2

CEL I WYJAŚNIANIE CELOWOSCIOWE EWOLUCJI

100%

Kloskowski K.

Studia Gdańskie

|

1993

|

issue 9

257-265

EN

The essential context of this article is the claim that only a man may ascribe goals to things or persons. N. Beckner thinks that goals „belong to" persons sińce intentions are ascribed to them; but not all the goals are intentions, for example a goal of rat's life is getting some food, although it is not directed by an intention. A. C. Purton stresses the useful goal (a given thing achives a certain goal if it is used to realization of this goal) and the goal of the intention. Representants of the synthetic theory of evolution speak differently on the problem of the directivness of the evolutionary process. F. J. Ayala thinks that the process of evolution is not purposeful in the sense of being directed to „production" of DNA with a specific genetic cod. I mean the goal understood in the sense of the necesity of existance of the directed activity of the DNA improwing the reproductive fitness of a population. R. A. Fisher identifies the goal of evolution with the initial state of the evolutionary processes. On the other hand E. Mayr considers the natural selection not to be goal-directed. As a conseąuence we can understand the purposefulness of evolution in the sense of the realization by an organism the population or the species of what has been encoded in their closer or furtherpast. Although this realization can be observed only post factum for example when the adaptation appears, we can say that the state of adaptation of a population to the conditions of a environment has been achieved. The goal directed explanation (teleonomic) by itself is such a type of explanation in which a state of system (here: an observed fragment of evolution) in the time t2 is explained by refering to the past state of this system in the time tŁ. So it is not here the case that the given state of a system is explained through a goal which this system is going to achieve. The explanation of the purposefulness of evolution is the procedure accordingly to which one attempts to explain the realization of the program of evolution. It realize that the presented generalizations require logical and methodological analyzies for example by refering them to the explanatory model of C. G. Hempla and P. Oppenheim's invented with the thought of the phisical science. It would be worth to undertake an attempt to construct the model to explain evolution in general including the character of the mechanisms and the evolutionary factors. The lack of such general model hinders the analysis of a goal and purposeful explanation of evolution.

3

NAUKA O LOGOSIE W DZIEŁACH FILONA Z ALEKSANDRII I W HYMNIE PROLOGU CZWARTEJ EWANGELII

100%

Kloskowski K.

Studia Gdańskie

|

1986

|

issue 6

313-352

PL

Wstęp. 1. Uwarunkowania historyczno-kulturowe. 1.1. Środowisko aleksandryjskie. 1.2. Etymologia i zarys rozwoju pojęcia Logos. 2. Koncepcja Logosu u Filona z Aleksandrii. 2.1. Logos a Bóg. 2.2. Logos a świat. 2.3. Logos a człowiek. 2.4. Osoba Logosu. 3. Pojęcie Logosu w hymnie Prologu Czwartej Ewangelii. 3.1. Budowa Prologu. 3.2. Pochodzenie i tło pierwotnego hymnu. 3.3. Układ kompozycyjny hymnu. 3.4. Treść hymnu. 3.4.1. Logos a Bóg. 3.4.2. Logos a świat. 3.4.3. Logos a człowiek. 4. Podobieństwa i różnice między doktryną Logosu u Filona z Aleksandrii a hymnu Prologu Czwartej Ewangelii. 4.1. Logos a Bóg. 4.2. Logos a świat. 4.3. Logos a człowiek.Zakończenie. Summary.

XX

That article traces the development of the Logos, which appeared within a syneretic environment dominated by different intelleetual currents. This teaching consisted of religious beliefs. Greek and Hellenistic philoisophical views: gnosis and Judaisitietenets. The influences of these tendencies are particularly evident in the works of Philo of Alexandria and in the hymn of the Fourth Gospel Prologue. These problems are difficult to solve in an univocal way, hence, that is way in the present article a fuli explanation cannot be given. This article is an aittempt at a new foranulation for understanding the Logos in Philo and in the hymn Prologue on the basis of philosophical, theological and biblieal literaturę. In this attempt some malinterpretations and interpretaltions of the Logos are examined. This has become possiible thanks to the understanding of the environment in which the creators of this philosophy lived and thanks to a better understanding of texts. The problem of Logos has been studied in three different aspects, which are interasting also for contemporarythought: namely, in relation to God, the world and a man. This article is, also confrontation between various interpretations of the Logos by two authors. Ali resemblences of both Logosos have their explanation in the common source of oreative inspiration by Philo and the author of hymn Prologue. Each of them uses a conception of the Logos but with a new meaning. On the ground of the text analysis, the Logos of Philo of Alexandria should be put between the conception of the author of hymn Prologue and the formulation by the adherents of Greek and Hellenistic philosophy. Namely: a) The Greek and Hellenistic philosophers emphasize that the Logos in an inner being in relation to the world or has something from it; on the other hand the Logos of the hymn exceeds the world it had existed before the world was created; b) the Greek and Hellenistic Logos is an impersonal principle having a static character, whereas Logos in hymn is a concrete and active person; c) Logos of philosophers is something, which is indefinite, while for the author of hymn it is the Man-God. The statement, that the Logos of the hymn Prologue has its source in the conception of the Logos by Philo or in Alexandrian philosophy, seems to be groundless. Both conceptions differ fundamentally in personal aspect, in understanding of divinity and in the fact of becoming man. If we even accept that the author of the hymn used the conception of Logos by Philo there appears the conclusion of giving it a completely new meaning, which fundamentally changes the theory of the Logos. In spite of the emphasis of many resemblances and differences all the possibilities are not shown. However that it was not the fundamental aim of this article. There were only chosen the basie elements, which could explain the problem of Logos in works written in the first century before Christ and in the first century of our era. Hitherto, existing works from that field are smali and very often sketchy, especially in Polish literature.

4

Analogiczne poznanie Boga w ujęciu biskupa profesora Bohdana Bejze

51%

Czalej S., Kloskowski K.

Łódzkie Studia Teologiczne

|

1998

|

vol. 7

51-101

Refine search results

3 Studia Gdańskie

1 Łódzkie Studia Teologiczne

4 Kloskowski K.

1 Czalej S.

1 1998

1 1993

1 1992

1 1986

"Scientific" creationism - reception of the theory in Poland

CEL I WYJAŚNIANIE CELOWOSCIOWE EWOLUCJI

NAUKA O LOGOSIE W DZIEŁACH FILONA Z ALEKSANDRII I W HYMNIE PROLOGU CZWARTEJ EWANGELII

Analogiczne poznanie Boga w ujęciu biskupa profesora Bohdana Bejze