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

Search:
in the keywords:  historia filozofii średniowiecznej
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Theory of self-cognition in Thomas Aquinas’ account is frequently presented as a reflexio theory, which describes intellectual move toward intellect’s own cognitive acts. The object of such a self-knowledge is intellect itself and in result “self” is identified with knower. However, reflexio theory is only part of doctrine of self-cognition in Aquinas’ philosophy. Inasmuch as soul is able to cognize its intellectual acts, it is also able to know its activities and associated ends and desires. Therefore, the aim of the article is to present the concept of self-cognition in the practical dimension. The main thesis of the article is the claim that self-knowledge is the necessary condition of free and rational human activities.
EN
This paper presents two discourses of natural law in Greek and medieval tradition: the Stoic account of lex, the account of ius in the understanding of Francis Suarez, and the concept of natural law in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas. The aim of this paper is twofold: firstly, it is to describe the history and the development of the concept of natural law from its early, Stoic expressions to its late medieval modification. And secondly, to argue for the thesis, according to which the Aquinas’s proposal, based on his concept of “nature”, avoids the difficulties of the Stoic approach associated with the continuity between the legal and moral justification and the nature.
PL
Możliwość dowiedzenia istnienia Boga jest jednym z najważniejszych problemów filozoficznych. Została ona rozważona przez Alberta Wielkiego w jego „Summie teologii”. Nie znalazłem jednak żadnej pracy, w której przeanalizowanoby, jak to zrobił, i tylko jedną pracę, w której o tym wspominano. Temat ten wydaje się niezwykle istotny dla filozofii, ponieważ otwiera drogę do dowodzenia istnienia Boga. Było to oczywiste dla Tomasza z Akwinu – również w jego „Summie teologii” zagadnienie możliwości dowiedzenia istnienia Boga poprzedza słynne „pięć dróg”. Z tych powodów w artykule tym analizuję rozważania Alberta na temat dowodliwości istnienia Boga w jego najdojrzalszym, nie dokończonym dziele pt. „Summa teologii”. Na każdym etapie porównuję je z paralelnymi fragmentami pism Tomasza z Akwinu, by wyśledzić pewne miejsca wspólne oraz oryginalne rozwiązania obu myślicieli. Wynik tej analizy jest w pewnym stopniu zaskakujący. Choć Albert i Tomasz formułują czasem podobne argumenty, zdarza się, że ich odpowiedzi są zupełnie różne. Na przykład Albert stwierdza, że istnienie Boga jest, ogólnie rzecz biorąc, oczywiste samo przez się, podczas gdy Tomasz – że dla nas („quo ad nos”) – wcale tak nie jest. Ponadto, Akwinata twierdzi, że możemy dowieść istnienia Boga na podstawie skutku (per effectum), natomiast Albert, który wyróżnia trzy rodzaje dowodzenia, wydaje się odrzucać taką możliwość i dopuszcza jedynie dowodzenie „ad im possibile” oraz mniej ścisłe rodzaje dowodzenia. Chociaż możliwe jest uzgodnienie ich stanowisk w tej sprawie, to jednak ostatecznie nie ma pewności, czy myśliciele ci rzeczywiście osiągnęliby konsensus. Dodatkowe informacje dotyczące dyskutowanego zagadnienia uzyskujemy z Albertowej prezentacji dowodów istnienia Boga. Prezentacja ta różni się jednak od Tomaszowej prezentacji z „Summy teologii”. Co więcej, na tle wcześniejszych stwierdzeń Alberta wątpliwe jest, czy wszystkie te dowody traktuje on jako poprawnie przeprowadzone dowodzenie, dzięki któremu otrzymuje się konieczne wnioski. Albertowa dyskusja na temat możliwości dowodzenia istnienia Boga pozostawia wiele pytań. Wydaje się jednak ciekawa, inspirująca i skłania do ponownego przemyślenia stanowisk Tomasza.
EN
Demonstrability of God’s existence is one of most important philosophical problems. It was discussed by Albert the Great in his “Summa theologiae”. However I did not find any work which analyzed how he did it and only one work which mentioned this problem. This topic seems crucial in philosophy, because it opens the way for proving God’s existence. It was obvious for Thomas Aquinas – also in his “Summa theologiae” the issue of demonstrability of God’s existence precedes the famous “five ways”. This is why in this paper I analyze Albert’s discussion about demonstrability of God’s existence in his most mature, not finished work “Summa theologiae”. At every step I compare it with parallel passages from theological works of Thomas Aquinas to trace down common points and original solutions of both thinkers. The outcome of this analysis is to some extend surprising. Although Albert and Thomas sometimes formulate similar arguments, it happens that their answers are completely different. For example Albert states that God’s existence is generally self-evident, whereas Thomas – that for us (“quoad nos”) it is not. What is more, Aquinas says that we can demonstrate God’s existence from the effect (“per effectum”), while Albert, who distinguish three kinds of demonstration, seems to refute such a possibility and allows only demonstration “ad impossibile” and less strict demonstrations. Although it is possible to agree their views in this case, we finally do not know if they really would agree. Some more information concerning the discussed problem we obtain from Alberts’ presentation of proofs of God’s existence. However it differs a lot from Aquinas’ presentation in his “Summa theologiae”. Moreover, on the background of Albert’s earlier statements it is doubtful if he treats all collected proofs as correct demonstrations which provide necessary conclusions. Albert’s discussion about demonstrability of God’s existence leave many questions. However it seems interesting, inspiring and leads to rethink again Thomas’ positions.
EN
The aim of the article is to show how the Aristotelian contents “potentiality” and “potency” have been mixed up in the Arabic legacy, especially in Avicennian philosophy. Whereas Aristotle distinguished between potentiality as the logical term and potency as the ontological one, Avicenna combined them and concluded that potentiality can be regarded as the concerning the level of real being. This confusion has been held later by, for example, John Duns Scotus. It was great service of Thomas Aquinas, who discerned two concepts and precisely indicated that they belong to the different and irreducible orders: logical and ontological one.
EN
The article is dedicated to the abbreviation of Nicomachean ethics written by Wrocław Dominican John of Ząbkowice (in manuscripts: „Johannes de Franckenstein”). The text, titled Auctoritates ethicorum, is preserved in only one manuscript – Wrocław, Bibl. Univ. Wrocł., ms. IV Q 52, scriptum per manus Johannis de Franckenstein – together with Auctoritates politicorum, Auctoritates yconomicorum and Auctoritates rethoricorum. The authorship of the texts is not certain, but in the previous works of histo-rians it is attributed to John (that thesis is followed also by Ch. Lohr listing the Aristotelian medieval commentaries, and by T. Kaeppeli in his compendium on the medieval Dominican scriptores). Only the part of Auctoritates ethicorum has been edited so far: the fragment, concerning the geometrical model of economic exchange and nature of money from the Book V. The author of the article published it in his book Zagadnienia ekonomiczne w nauczaniu wrocławskiej szkoły dominikańskiej w późnym średniowieczu (Wrocław 2004); this fragment was later referred in details also in the book of the same author: „Oeco-nomica mediaevalia” of Wrocław Dominicans. Library and Studies of Friars, and Ethical-Economic Ideas: the Example from Silesia (Spoleto 2010). The sources of the text of Auctoritates ethicorum are the following: translatio Lincoliensis of the Aristotelian text, Sententia libri ethicorum by Thomas Aquinas, paraphrasis of Ethica by Albertus Magnus, and Summa Alexandrinorum (called translacio arabica). The fragments of the Book IV and Book V, described in the article, shed light on the method applied in the Auctoritates. Summa Alexandrinorum is quoted in the description of the virtue of liberalitas. Writing about diversity of artes and occupations the author cites Albertus Magnus, quoting after him the sentence delivered from Michael Ephesius, erroneously attributed to Eustratius by Albert. However, the Albertinian reference to the role of compensation of labores and expensa is omitted. The author of the Auctoritates refers mainly to points the common to St. Thomas and St. Albert.
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.