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:  Peter Olivi
help Sort By:

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

Attention, Perceptual Content, and Mirrors : Two Medieval Models of Active Perception in Peter Olivi and Peter Auriol

100%
Lička L.
Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)
|
2017
|
vol. 65
|
issue Special Issue 2
101-119
EN
In the paper I argue that medieval philosophers proposed several notions of the senses’ activity in perception. I illustrate the point using the example of two Franciscan thinkers – Peter Olivi (ca. 1248–1298) and Peter Auriol (ca. 1280–1322). Olivi’s notion of active perception assumes that every perceptual act demands a prior focusing of the mind’s attention. Furthermore, Olivi is partially inspired by the extramissionist theories of vision and reinterprets the notion of a visual ray postulated by them as a useful model for explaining attention and attentional shifts. In Auriol’s view, perception is active because it participates in producing a perceptual content. The senses not only receive information from the environment, they also actively process it and, in Auriol’s words, put the external object into apparent being. The peculiar feature of Auriol’s account is his obvious tendency to conceive perceptual content as both dependent on our perceptual activity and external to the senses. Finally, I consider the two theories in the context of mirror perception – while Olivi focused on the ability of mirrors to switch attention’s direction, Auriol investigated the metaphysical nature of mirror images.
2
Content available remote

Anima forma corporis: problém interpretace

67%
Novák L.
Studia theologica
|
2015
|
vol. 1
70-94
EN
The article raises the question about the content of the Catholic dogma defined at the Council of Vienne stating that the rational human soul is the form of the human body and arrives at the conclusion that there is no single generally accepted meaning in the theological tradition, but rather two radically differing lines of interpretation: a “thomistic” one tending to a more “monistic” interpretation of human nature, and a “reistic” one, resulting in a strongly pronounced dualism. Both of the interpretations are found to be laden with serious difficulties; the author contrasts various aspects of these interpretations, exposing their problems, and finally suggests that further philosophical and theological work is needed to provide an acceptable interpretation of the dogma of Vienne.
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.