Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 6

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Země jako kosmické těleso v předsókratovské kosmologii:

100%
Kočandrle R.
Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)
|
2020
|
vol. 68
|
issue 5
659-677
EN
Interpretations of the Earth in Ionic archaic cosmologies usually revolve around the idea of it being a flat disc lying on water or air. In them, the Earth is also conceived as a concrete body situated in the space of the universe. However, due to the meteorological nature of Ionic archaic cosmologies, we can presume that in these cosmologies space was not generally assumed to exist under the Earth. The Earth, then, constituted the lower dimension of the universe as a whole and was not therefore considered a cosmic body. A fundamental change did not occur until the cosmology of the Italian branch of philosophy, which conceived of both the Earth and the universe as being in the shape of a sphere – meaning that the Earth became a separate body. If however still earlier reports of Anaximander’s Ionic cosmology described a cylindrical Earth located in the middle of the rings of celestial bodies, we might conclude that it was Anaximander who was the first to consider Earth to be a cosmic body.
CS
Interpretace Země v iónských archaických kosmologiích obvykle pracují s představou ploché desky ležící na vodě nebo vzduchu. Země je v nich zároveň pojímána jako konkrétní těleso umístěné v prostoru univerza. Vzhledem k meteorologické povaze iónských archaických kosmologií se však lze domnívat, že tyto kosmologie obecně nepředpokládaly prostor pod Zemí. Země tak tvořila spodní dimenzi celého univerza, přičemž nebyla považována za kosmické těleso. K zásadní změně došlo až v kosmologii italské větve filosofie, která pojala Zemi i univerzum ve tvaru sféry – tím se Země stala samostatným tělesem. Pokud však ještě předtím zprávy o Anaximandrově iónské kosmologii popisují válcovitou Zemi umístěnou uprostřed kruhů nebeských těles, lze soudit, že to byl právě Anaximandros, kdo jako první pokládal Zemi za kosmické těleso.
2
Content available remote

Anaximandros z Mílétu a evoluce

100%
Kočandrle R.
Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)
|
2010
|
vol. 58
|
issue 4
605-622
EN
In his work On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Charles Darwin talks generally of his classical forerunners, although his only direct reference is to Aristotle. The passage cited by Darwin is, however, in reality a quotation from Empedocles. Although evolutionary thinking in the ancient world is most commonly connected with the said Empedocles, and with Lucretius, one may also point to Anaximander of Miletus. Doxography has preserved several remarks which may portray Anaximander as the precursor of evolutionary thought. Despite the incompleteness of these remarks, it is clear that in Anaximander’s writing there was an account of zoogony and anthropogony. One may suppose that the origin of life was treated by Anaximander as the last phase in the origin of the whole world. This latter was the direct result of the drying of the primal wetness by the sun’s heat. That he connected the drying of the wetness and the origin of life is, however, not supported by direct evidence. The point of departure for the origin of life was most probably water in conjunction with the earth. In the water there lived the first living beings, wrapped in spiny bark which burst open as soon as they came on to dry land. The bark here may be meant as part of a concrete analogy with a cosmogony, and it is indirect evidence that, for Anaximander, there was a direct parallel betwen the description of the world and of living organisms. About living beings we have no other documentary information. We cannot tell, therefore, whether there was, in Anaximander’s system, just one primal species from which all the others developed, or a plurality of primal species which constituted exemplars of species existing at present. Nor is it possible to show whether Anaximander took into account the adaption of species to their new environment, and whether indeed he thought the influence of environment had any effect on their development. Anaximander also presented a pioneering conception of anthropogony. Because of the long-term helplessness of man, he associated human origin with fish, or at least with beings similar to fish. Within these creatures, man originally developed to maturity. Influential on Anaximander’s thinking here is the original environment of water which man could not directly inhabit. On account of the problematic nature of the extant texts we are not in a position to adequately delineate Anaximander’s conception of zoogony and anthropogony. Most probably, however, Anaximander only explained the origin of the first living beings rather than their development into their present form. There are, to be sure, no extant remarks to the effect that Anaximander thought that there was a development of higher species out of lower, or that he took into account adaption to environmental conditions. The attribution of evolutionary thought to Anaximander is not therefore fully warranted. It is probably not justified either.
3
Content available remote

Prostor pod Zemí v iónských archaických kosmologiích

100%
Kočandrle R.
Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)
|
2019
|
vol. 67
|
issue 5
767-785
EN
Among the characteristic features of Ionic archaic cosmologies we can usually find, alongside a flat Earth, the meteorological nature of the heavenly bodies together with the fact that these bodies only orbit above the Earth. It is, however, possible to suppose that a further, key element was the absence of space underneath the Earth. Although Aristotle attributes to the Ionic archaic thinkers various explanations for the motionlessness of the Earth in the universe, in which space existing under the Earth is implicitly assumed, it is possible to conclude that this problem didn’t start to be thematized until the emergence in the Italian philosophical branch of the idea of the universe in the shape of a sphere. Against this, the Ionic archaic cosmology does not assume in any way the existence of space under the Earth. The universe thus only stretches from the surface of the Earth to the sky. For just this reason the heavenly bodies had a meteorological nature and only orbited above the Earth.
CS
Mezi charakteristické momenty iónských archaických kosmologií patří obvykle vedle ploché Země meteorologická povaha nebeských těles spolu s jejich oběhy pouze nad Zemí. Lze se však domnívat, že dalším klíčovým prvkem byla absence prostoru pod Zemí. Ačkoli Aristotelés připisuje iónským archaickým myslitelům různá zdůvodnění nehybnosti Země v univerzu, kde je prostor pod Zemí implicitně předpokládán, lze soudit, že tento problém začal být tematizován až s nástupem koncepce univerza tvaru sféry v italské filosofické větvi. Iónské archaické kosmologie naproti tomu prostor pod Zemí vůbec nepředpokládaly. Univerzum se tak rozkládalo pouze mezi plochou Zemí a nebem. Právě z toho důvodu měla nebeská tělesa meteorologickou povahu, přičemž obíhala pouze nad Zemí.
4
Content available remote

Setrvávání Země v Anaximandrově univerzu

100%
Kočandrle R.
Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)
|
2016
|
vol. 64
|
issue 2
171-188
EN
Anaximander, according to Aristotle, was said to explain the persistence of the Earth in its place in the universe on the basis of symmetry. Simplicius however asserted that the Earth was also meant to be supported by air. Although the universe exhibits marked signs of symmetry, it may be assumed that the air under the Earth – in view of its significant cosmological role – really was extended. Anaximander’s conception of a universe of concentrated circles of heavenly bodies, situated around the Earth at their centre, postulated movement of bodies under the Earth as well, in opposition to cosmologies of the time. The orbit of the heavenly bodies under the level of the Earth was, then, conditioned both by their compact structure and by an inclination and demarcation of size and distance. One may, therefore, suppose that Aristotle in reality drew on information referring to Anaximander’s symmetrical universe of circles of heavenly bodies orbiting under the surface of the Earth, which, so it seemed, did not sit on air.
5
Content available remote

První koncepce kulovité Země v antické kosmologii

100%
Kočandrle R.
Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)
|
2022
|
vol. 70
|
issue 1
95-113
EN
Although it is not until we get to Aristotle that we can be absolutely certain of finding a spherical Earth in ancient cosmology, Diogenes Laertios considers it to have been first conceived by Pythagoras and Parmenides. In both cases, however, we in point of fact do not have at our disposal any additional, adequate sources. Nevertheless, the changes that took place in cosmologies between the 6th and 5th centuries BCE suggest that they are the result of a new cosmological concept. This was based on just precisely a spherical Earth being at the center of the spherical heaven – the universe. Moreover, so far as the concept of a spherical Earth was the product of metaphysical speculation, reports by the representatives of the Italian branch of philosophy would be adequate. Due to an insufficient preservation of the works of the early Pythagorean tradition and the significant influence of Parmenides on the thinkers that followed, it can be presumed that it was Parmenides who was the first to visualize a spherical shape for the Earth.
CS
Ačkoli se s kulovitou Zemí můžeme v antické kosmologii s naprostou jistotou setkat až u Aristotela, Diogenés Laertios ji přisuzuje jako prvním Pýthagorovi a Parmenidovi. V obou případech však de facto nemáme k dispozici další adekvátní podklady. Změny, k nimž došlo v kosmologiích mezi 6. a 5. stoletím před naším letopočtem, nicméně naznačují, že jsou důsledkem nového kosmologického pojetí. To se zakládalo právě na kulovité Zemi ve středu sférického nebe – univerza. Pokud byla koncepce kulovité Země navíc produktem metafyzické spekulace, zprávy zmiňující představitele italské větve filosofie budou adekvátní. Vzhledem k nedostatečnému zachování rané pýthagorejské tradice a významnému vlivu Parmenida na následující myslitele se lze domnívat, že právě Parmenidés nahlédl kulovitý tvar Země jako první.
6
Content available remote

Vývoj předsókratovských kosmologií a pojetí prostoru

100%
Kočandrle R.
Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)
|
2023
|
vol. 71
|
issue 1
3-20
EN
The cosmologies of the pre-Socratics are usually considered to be independent, distinctive conceptions. Within the framework of these cosmologies, however, David J. Furley was able to differentiate “linear” and “centrifocal” conceptions, while Daniel W. Graham distinguished “meteorological” and “lithic” models; by way of these, they pointed out the common features of individual cosmologies and at the same time showed how they had evolved. It is, however, possible to conclude that they are both discussing the same thing. Pre-Socratic cosmologies, that is to say, experienced a significant development that was based on a change in the concept of the space of the universe. While in the Ionian archaic cosmologies of the 6th century BCE the space of the universe usually extended only between the flat Earth and the heaven, in the following century it was already being extended around the entire Earth. This led to a change not only in the concept of celestial bodies and their orbits, but in additional cosmological aspects as well. The cause of this development was Parmenides’ conception of the space of the universe, consisting of a spherical heaven with a spherical Earth in its center.
CS
Kosmologie předsokratiků se obvykle považují za nezávislé osobité koncepce. David J. Furley však v jejich rámci odlišil „lineární“ a „centrifokální“ pojetí, zatímco Daniel W. Graham „meteorologický“ a „lithický“ model. Poukázali tím na společné rysy jednotlivých kosmologií a zároveň naznačili jejich vývoj. Lze ovšem soudit, že oba vypovídají o stejné události. Předsókratovské kosmologie totiž prošly výrazným vývojem, který vycházel ze změny v pojetí prostoru univerza. Zatímco se v iónských archaických kosmologiích 6. století př. n. l. prostor univerza zpravidla rozpínal pouze mezi plochou Zemí a nebem, v následujícím století byl již akcentován kolem celé Země. Tím došlo ke změně nejen v pojetí nebeských těles a jejich oběhů, ale i dalších kosmologických aspektů. Příčinou tohoto vývoje byla Parmenidova koncepce prostoru univerza, sestávajícího ze sférického nebe s kulovou Zemí v jeho středu.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.