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

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  HEAVEN
help Sort By:

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

HRANICE ANAXIMANDROVA UNIVERZA

100%
Kočandrle R.
Filozofia (Philosophy)
|
2023
|
vol. 78
|
issue 1
25 – 39
EN
When trying to reconstruct the cosmology of Anaximander of Miletus, one of the challenges is the issue of whether he assumed that universe to have some concrete boundaries. In particular, it is unclear whether heaven, in addition to being identical with the area of the sky, also formed the boundary of the universe. To wit, given that Anaximander allegedly said the ‘origin’ of existing things was the ‘boundless’, one might assume he viewed the universe as boundless, open. In contrast, for other archaic Ionian thinkers one can suppose they viewed the universe as closed, because the Earth formed the lower boundary of the universe and heaven its upper boundary. Although Anaximander’s conception in many respects differed from theirs, one could argue that his universe was similarly closed. This hypothesis finds support especially in the concept of ‘surrounding’, which appears in Anaximander’s thoughts in many areas and expresses the constitution of various phenomena. Therefore it seems likely that it might also apply to defining the boundaries of the universe. Nonetheless, given the uniqueness of Anaximander’s universe, which consisted of Earth in the middle of circles of heavenly bodies that passed even under it, later reports on his theories focused mainly on describing this centre of the universe. Although the shape of a column is a tempting candidate, surviving sources do not provide enough evidence to help us identify the shape of Anaximander’s universe with any certainty.
2
Content available remote

SVOJBYTNOSŤ SVETA. FILOPONOVA KRITIKA ARISTOTELOVEJ KOZMOLÓGIE

75%
Mitterpach K.
Konštantínove listy
|
2017
|
vol. 10
|
issue 1
55 - 65
EN
Philoponus’ critical commentary on Aristotle’s treatise on nature considers the idea of eternal world seminal not only in Aristotle’s explanation of nature, but also in ancient Greek philosophical thought. The study opens the problem of the motivation in and nature of Aristotle’s treatises themselves. It shows that Philoponus, despite his attempts to stay very precise and detailed in reading Aristotle’s text, misses the whole question of the nature of the treatise, even though his critique is not motivated primarily theologically. We believe that to declare the very self-being of the world points to the very own subject of Aristotle’s Physics and the significance of setting the heavens apart in its own-being. Finally, we test this frame of thinking as a source of possible answers to some of Philoponus’ most noted critical reservations against Aristotle’s conception.
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.