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:  volition
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
100%
EN
The aim of the presented research is to confirm if it is possible to consider selfhandicapping and self-licensing as reasoning strategies of resolution violation in the process of resisting temptation. We have tried to confirm the existence of significant relationship and the possibility of prediction of resistance in compliance with resolutions, self-handicapping and self-licensing. We understand resolution as goal intention initiated and set by individual for himself/herself. Then, resistance in compliance with resolutions refers to high level of self-control and willpower in pursuing and attaining specific kind of goals or intentions – resolutions. It is the resistance to situational influences causing impulsive behavior. Self-handicapping is the self-protective strategy known as using of situational circumstances for excusing poor achievement. The third discussed term is self- licensing occuring when past moral behavior makes people more likely to do potentially immoral things without worrying about feeling or appearing immoral. We have used the sample of 121 university students aged from 18 to 30 years (average age = 22,2 years, standard deviation = 2,2). To measure the variables we have used three questionnaires, the questionnaire of Resistance in compliance with resolutions (Lovaš, Čopková, 2012), translated version of Self-Handicapping Scale (Jones, Rhodewalt, 1982) and Self- Licensing questionnaire constructed for the purpose of this research. We have supposed negative relationship between resistance in complinace with resolutions and both kinds of reasoning strategies of resolution violation. The Pearson correlation analysis has shown that there are significant negative relationship between variables of resistance in compliance with resolutions and self-handicapping (-0,332) (significance level p<0,01). The less significant negative relationship is between resistance in compliance with resolutions and self-licensing (-0,129). The regression analysis didn´t confirm the prediction power of our model (R2 = 0,112), but we can consider self-handicapping as better predictor of resistance in compliance with resolutions (p = 0,001) than selflicensing (p = 0,705). We have also been interested in internal consistency and other psychometric characteristics of questionnaires. The Cronbach´s alpha (CA) was used as indicator of internal consistency. The value of Cronbach´s alphafor questionnaire for Resistance in complince with resolutions was 0,846, for Slovak version of Selfhandicapping Scale 0,776 and for Self-Licensing questionnaire 0,746. We have run used questionnaures under the factor analysis and we identified three factors in each of questionnaires. In Self-Handicapping scale we have found factors: Behavioral Self- Handicapping (CA = 0,756), Claimed Self-Handicapping (CA = 0,628) and Emotions (CA = 0,724). In Self-Licensing questionnaire we have found Reward (CA = 0,732) , Resignation (CA = 0,699) and Compensation (CA = 0,584). Acquisition of our research consists in enriching self-regulation and self-control research because of using goaldirected behavior perspective, sepcifically the perspective of setting and attaining specific goals – resolutions.
Logos i Ethos
|
2023
|
vol. 62
|
issue 2
7-26
PL
W artykule omówiono argumentację św. Augustyna na rzecz istnienia wolnej woli oraz jej konteksty teologiczne w odniesieniu do natury ludzkiej. Biskup Hippony odwołuje się do dzieł filozoficznych Platona i Plotyna oraz tekstów z Nowego Testamentu, a uzasadniając istnienie wolnej woli wskazuje na bezpośrednią świadomość człowieka. Augustyn był głęboko przekonany, że to wewnętrzne działanie jest niezbędne do wartościowania, a tym samym do osądu moralnego wynikającego z wyboru między dobrem a złem. Bez wolnej woli człowiek nie byłby sobą, jest ona warunkiem człowieczeństwa i fundamentem odpowiedzialności. W swoich pismach autor odróżniał wolność od autonomii i samostanowienia; niezależne akty woli są ontologiczną cechą istoty ludzkiej. Wierzył, że ostatecznym źródłem wewnętrznej wolności człowieka jest Bóg. Augustyn był również świadomy, że ludzka wolność jest niedoskonała, co przejawia się w dylematach etycznych związanych z podejmowaniem decyzji. Ludzka wolność nigdy nie jest absolutna, co wynika z upadłej natury człowieka, którą Bóg obdarzył łaską dobroci w postaci daru wolnej woli. Wynikało to między innymi z odrzucenia przez Augustyna koncepcji łaski zaproponowanej przez Pelagiusza, który zaprzeczał jej nadprzyrodzonemu charakterowi, twierdząc, że jest ona udzielana według zasług. Wielu uczonych próbowało zinterpretować kwestię wpływu łaski na ludzką wolę. Ich wypowiedzi wydają się popierać wniosek, w świetle którego wolność woli nie jest zniesiona z powodu działania łaski.
EN
The article discusses St. Augustine’s arguments for the existence of free will and its theological contexts in relation to human nature. The bishop of Hippo refers to the philosophical works of Plato and Plotinus as well as texts from the New Testament, and in justifying the existence of free will points to the direct consciousness of man. Augustine was deeply convinced that this intrinsic action is necessary for valuation and therefore for moral judgment resulting from the choice between good and evil. Without free will, man would not be himself, it is the condition of humanity and the foundation of responsibility. In his writings, the author distinguished between the freedom from autonomy and self-determination; independent acts of will that are an ontological feature of human being. He believed that the ultimate source of man’s inner freedom is God. Augustine was also aware that human freedom is imperfect, which manifests itself in ethical dilemmas related to decision-making. The human freedom is never absolute, as a result of man’s fallen nature, which God has bestowed with the grace of goodness in the form of the gift of free will. Among other things, this accounted for Augustine’s rejection of the concept of grace proposed by Pelagius, who denied its supernatural character claiming that it is given according to merit. Many scholars have attempted to interpret the issue of how grace affects the human will. Their statements seem to support the conclusion in light of which freedom of the will is not abrogated due to the action of grace.
Vox Patrum
|
2017
|
vol. 67
197-223
PL
Artykuł omawia kwestię zależności między monoenergizmem jako poglądem głoszącym, że w Chrystusie działa tylko natura boska, a chrystologią typu Logos-sarx. Celem artykułu jest udowodnienie, że monoenergizm był zależny od chrysto­logii skoncentrowanej na Bóstwie wcielonego Chrystusa. Logos został uznany za zasadę działającą, nawet jeśli chodzi o ludzką naturę Chrystusa, tak że ludzka wola i działanie Chrystusa były umniejszane wobec Logosu. Ten model chrystologii był rozwijany szczególnie od II wieku w pismach Klemensa Aleksandryjskiego, Orygenesa, Atanazego Aleksandryjskiego i Apolinarego z Laodycei; następnie był kontynuowany przez Cyryla Aleksandryjskiego i Sewera z Antiochii; chrys­tologia tego typu miała wpływ na Leoncjusza z Bizancjum i Teodora z Faran. Monoenergizm w VI, a następnie w VII w. rozwijał się więc na gruncie chrystolo­gii typu Logos-sarx, chociaż uznawał chalcedoński diofyzytyzm.
EN
The article discusses the question of the relation between the sixth-century Miaenergism, which is the idea of Christ having one divine-human operation, and the Logos-sarx type of Christology. The purpose of the article is to argue that the Miaenergism was dependent on the Christology centered on the divinity of incar­nate Christ. The Logos was acknowledged as the active principle even of Christ’s humanity, so that the human volition and operation of Christ was neglected in fa­vor of the Logos. This model of Christology was being developed especially from the second century in the writings of Clemens of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius of Alexandria and Apollinarius of Laodicea; then it was continued by Cyril of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch; it also influenced Leontius of Byzantium and Theodore of Pharan. The Miaenergism of the sixth and then of the seventh century was being developed on a ground of the Logos-sarx type of Christology, although it acknowledged the Dyophysitism of Chalcedon.
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.