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

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Thomistic metaphysics
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
This paper considers and assesses the discussion between J. F. Drewnowski and S. Kamiński concerning how to apply logic in philosophy (more precisely: in general metaphysics within the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition). In this debate, Drewnowski defended the position of the Krakow Circle according to which it is possible to apply the tools of formal logic in metaphysics. In opposition to Drewnowski, Kamiński formulated many arguments for the thesis that it is impossible to apply formal logic in philosophy. The second half of this paper draws some conclusions from this debate that are relevant to our current understanding of the application of logic in philosophy. n the final part of the paper we criticize Kamiński’s view, which is characteristic of the so-called Lublin philosophical school.
PL
Artykuł prezentuje i komentuje dyskusję pomiędzy J. F. Drewnowskim a S. Kamińskim, której przedmiotem było stosowanie logiki w filozofii, a ściślej w metafizyce ogólnej o orientacji arystotelesowsko-tomistycznej. Drewnowski prezentował w niej stanowisko reprezentatywne dla tzw. Koła Krakowskiego o możliwości stosowania narzędzi logiki formalnej w metafizyce, Kamiński takiej możliwości zaprzeczał. Spróbujemy wskazać pewne wnioski z tej dyskusji przydatne dla dzisiejszego rozumienia stosowania (stosowalności) logiki w filozofii. W końcowej partii podjęta jest próba znalezienia przyczyn stanowiska Kamińskiego, które jest reprezentatywne dla przedstawicieli tzw. lubelskiej szkoły filozoficznej.
Studia Gilsoniana
|
2021
|
vol. 10
|
issue 3
545-578
EN
Although the question of whether, in the thought of Thomas Aquinas, sanctifying grace is “created” or “uncreated” has received considerable attention in the last several decades, many of the questions and arguments proposed by those, such as Karl Rahner, Jerome Ebacher, and Anna N. Williams, in favor of grace being uncreated have gone unanswered. Among these ancillary questions and arguments are those concerning the proper subject of grace, the categorial classification of grace, and the reason for the mystery and unconsciousness of grace. These questions appear unrelated, but, as this paper argues, they are each logically connected to each other and to the overall thesis that sanctifying grace is created, not uncreated. This paper aims to make Aquinas’s thesis that grace is created more palatable to objectors by addressing each of these previously unaddressed ancillary questions.
Studia Gilsoniana
|
2021
|
vol. 10
|
issue 1
71–102
EN
In this article the author discusses Dennis F. Polis’ defense of the compatibility of biological evolution and Thomistic metaphysics. Some of Polis’ methodological and metaphysical arguments are examined and it is explained why they are unfaithful to the Thomistic tradition of metaphysics. There is a discussion of why metaphysics can, within certain parameters, critique the science of evolutionary biology, as well as a discussion of the role of metaphysics in the hierarchy of the sciences. The relationship between biological species to the notion of species in philosophy, including related metaphysical topics, such as essences and Divine ideas in God, is discussed. It is determined that Polis’ view suffers from a kind of relativism and nominalism that is incompatible with the moderate realism of Aquinas. Some of Aquinas’ key existential insights in metaphysics are discussed in this context as well. In addition to being corrective, this essay helps point the way to a better defense of the compatibility of biological evolution and Thomistic metaphysics.
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.