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

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Evil
help Sort By:

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

Review: "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil," by Philip G. Zimbardo.

100%
Salamucha A.
Forum Philosophicum
|
2009
|
vol. 14
|
issue 1
166-168
EN
The article reviews the book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, by Philip G. Zimbardo.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Evil Itself and Nothingness in Proclus

88%
Napoli V.
Peitho. Examina Antiqua
|
2020
|
vol. 11
|
issue 1
143-170
EN
In his reflection on the nature of evil, the Neoplatonic philosopher Proclus affirms that evil itself (to autokakon) is “also beyond the abso­lute non-being” (epekeina kai tou mēdamōs ontos). With this assumption, he intends to reinforce the thesis of the non-existence of absolute evil, conceived as totally separate from good, and contrasted with the collat­eral and parasitic existence of evil mixed with good. He thus maintains a distinction between absolute evil and relative evil, conceived with reference to the distinction between absolute non-being (i.e., nothing­ness) and relative non-being. In Proclus, the thesis of the non-existence of absolute evil is presented as a necessary consequence of the non-dualist theory of evil in the sphere of a protology that identifies the first Principle of all things in the primary Good (identical to the supra-essen­tial One), and which aims to reconcile the absolute primacy of the latter with the presence of evil in some orders of reality.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Evil as Privation in Neoplatonism. Simplicius and Philoponus in Defense of Matter

75%
Cardullo R. L.
Peitho. Examina Antiqua
|
2017
|
vol. 8
|
issue 1
391-408
EN
The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato’s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., “parasitic” or “collateral” existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the “privative” role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism. 
IT
The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato’s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., “parasitic” or “collateral” existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the “privative” role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Książka z biblioteki XXI wieku

63%
Wasilewa L.
Postscriptum Polonistyczne
|
2013
|
issue 2(12)
233-238
EN
In his book Fiasco Stanisław Lem is asking what human nature is, what man aspires to, how he achieves it. What is Good and Evil? Who will win in the eternal fight between these two forces? Human beings conquer the outer space, but do they manage to subdue their inner space? Accustomed to thinking about themselves as the peak of the civilization progress and the quintessence of the Universe, are men capable of accepting meekly the unpleasant truth that in this Universe they were not given any exceptional and honourable role? Lem’s answers shatter the comfortable anthropocentric ideas of mankind and its place in the world. The author speaks directly of the difficulties of liberating our consciousness from the accumulated complexes, stereotypes and prejudice, from the intolerance towards everything different, foreign and incomprehensible. He states that even when they conquer time and space, men are helpless in the face of the dark forces hidden deep inside their souls, in the face of the unavoidable fall of Earth’s civilization.
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.