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:  real distinction
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Realna różnica między intelektem czynnym i możnościowym w ujęciu św. Tomasza z Akwinu

100%
Zembrzuski M.
Rocznik Tomistyczny
|
2015
|
vol. 4
63-95
EN
The aim of article was to prove the existence of the real difference between active intellect and potential intellect, based on the epistemological thought of Thomas Aquinas. Although many authors suggested such a character distinction, yet no one does not try to justifying it. In this article are comments on intellects in Aristotle account, very short history – following the Aquinas - of distinguishing and separating intellects. Presented is the same understanding of the real difference between existence and essence of beings created and in this light given difference between intellects, because Aquinas, actually never spoke about it in this way. A basic element of the article is to distinguish intellects on the basis of a formal rules of their objects and distinguish them on the basis of acts, which allows to build a proper argumentation. It has been shown that between what is recognized in the potential intellect is a disproportion, which may be removed by the allocation of truly different between potential and active intellect. Between intellects there is a real difference only in the case of the human intellect, since both in God and in the angelic beings, this differentiation is not needed. The real difference between intellects is based on the difference between the act and potency or being in act and being in potency, however, are not they act and potency relative to each other, but to the cognized object. Moreover, the active intellect as being in the act, is not determined nor determining the object of cognition potential intellect, it is not the object recognized by him. Finally, if the way of cognition depends on the mode of existence, the intellectual knowledge infinity of human remains in potency, by what must be in man two intellects.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

El debate en torno al ‘argumento del intellectus essentiae’ y la ‘distinción real’ entre la esencia y el ser en el De ente et essentia de Tomás de Aquino

100%
Ocampo F.
Studia Gilsoniana
|
2018
|
vol. 7
|
issue 2
237-261
EN
The so-called ‘intellectus essentiae argument’ has constituted one of the resources of some 13th century authors, to establish the ‘real distinction’ between essence and being in every creature. This argument is also present in Aquinas’ De Ente et Essentia, a work in which, the philosopher is believed to have tried to demonstrate the ‘real distinction or composition’ as well. Now, it is precisely the meaning and scope of this argument regarding the demonstration of the ‘real distinction’ in Thomas’ argumentation that has been object of recent debate among specialists. In this sense, we intend in this article to first expose the argument in the context of the work to which it belongs, then concentrate on the opinions of the different commentators, and finally outline our conclusions based on the interpretations we consider the most accurate.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Analytical Thomist And The Paradoxical Aquinas: Some Reflections On Kerr’s Aquinas’s Way To God

80%
Knasas J. F. X.
Roczniki Filozoficzne
|
2019
|
vol. 67
|
issue 4
71-88
EN
My article critically evaluates five key claims in Kerr’s interpretation of Aquinas’s De Ente et Essentia, ch. 4, proof for God. The claims are: (1) the absolutely considered essence is a second intention, or cognitional being; (2) à la John Wippel, the real distinction between essence and existence is known before the proof; (3) contra David Twetten, Aristotelian form is not self-actuating and so requires actus essendi; (4) the De Ente proof for God uses the Principle of Sufficient Reason; (5) an infinite regress must be eliminated before concluding to God. This author wonders if these questionable claims are traceable to the mindset of analytic philosophy which values precision and discreteness and so can fail to appreciate crucial paradoxes in Aquinas’s metaphysics.
PL
Artykuł krytycznie ocenia pięć kluczowych twierdzeń w interpretacji De ente et essentia (rozdz. IV, dowód na istnienie Boga), jakie proponuje Kerr. Twierdzenia te są następujące: 1) istota rozpatrywana sama w sobie jest wtórną intencją lub bytem poznającym; 2) twierdzenie à la John Wippel—realną różnicę między istotą oraz istnieniem poznajemy przed dowodem; 3) wbrew Davidowi Twettenowi Arystotelesowska forma nie jest samoaktualizująca się, domaga się zatem actus essendi; 4) dowód na istnienie Boga z De ente stosuje zasadę racji dostatecznej; 5) należy odrzucić nieskończony regres przed dojściem do istnienia Boga. Autor zastanawia się, czy wątpliwe twierdzenia związane są z nastawieniem filozofii analitycznej, która preferuje precyzję i tendencję do wyodrębniania, a zatem może nie doceniać istotne paradoksy metafizyki Akwinaty.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

El oscurecimiento del ser y su sustitución por la existencia

71%
Marenghi C.
Studia Gilsoniana
|
2019
|
vol. 8
|
issue 1
113-146
EN
The question of the real distinction between esse and essence in being constitutes the core of Thomistic ontology. While there is a primacy of esse over essence, such as that of the founding over the founded, one must neglect neither of these aspects in the analysis of the act-potency transcendental relationship that links them. Through a brief historical journey—from the years following the death of St. Thomas Aquinas to the present—the author tries to show the way in which the notion of esse has been gradually distorted and obscured by the notion of essence, and then replaced by the notion of existence.
ES
La cuestión de la distinción real entre el ‘ser’ y la ‘esencia’ en el seno del ‘ente’ constituye el corazón de la ontología tomista. Si bien hay una primacía del ser sobre la esencia, como la de lo fundante sobre lo fundado, no se deben descuidar en los análisis ambos aspectos y la relación trascendental actopotencial que los vincula. En el presente escrito pretendemos mostrar, a través de un escueto recorrido histórico, el modo en que la noción fundamental del ‘ser’ tomista ha sido paulatinamente distorsionada y oscurecida por la noción fundamental de ‘esencia’, hasta llegar a ser sustituida por la noción misma de ‘existencia’. Para ello, nos remontaremos a lo ocurrido en los años siguientes a la muerte del Aquinate, cuando esta cuestión pasó a ser discutida por sus discípulos, pasando luego revista por los autores más significativos que han tratado el tema en la modernidad y en la contemporaneidad filosófica.
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.