Ten serwis zostanie wyłączony 2025-02-11.
Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na https://bibliotekanauki.pl
Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 3

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
Wyszukiwano:
w słowach kluczowych:  Empedocles
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
|
|
nr 1-2
149-164
EN
This article attempts to shed more light on a problem addressed in a previous work by the same authors, namely the nature of Empedocles’ Sphairos, which is taken for a structured whole and not – according to the usual interpretation – as an amorphous mixture. This article does not concentrate on the fragments of Empedocles himself, but focuses on the further reception of the Sphairos by ancient Greek writers. First, the paper attempts to show that the interpretation prevalent today is actually due to Aristotle’s equation of the Sphairos with his concept of ‘underlying matter’ conceived as an indeterminate substratum. The only ancient author who seems to hold the interpretation of the Sphere as an amorphous mixture is, however, John Philoponus, and, moreover, only in some of his commentaries on Aristotle. Philoponus’ notion of the Sphairos was then adopted by Friedrich Wilhelm Sturz, author of the first substantial modern study on Empedocles, published in 1805. The current article then examines the Neoplatonic explanation of the Sphairos, in which it is regularly equated with the intelligible word of the Forms. Although its transcendence is clearly at odds with the Empedocles’ original intentions, this interpretative approach assumes that the Sphairos is as clearly structured as the Forms are.
2
Content available Diogenes Laertios: Epigramy o Empedoklesie (VIII 75)
100%
EN
Diogenes Laertius’ two epigrams on Empedocles are printed here in Maria Marcinkowska-Rosół’s and Rafał Rosół’s translation, with an introduction and notes.
3
Content available remote Aristotelova první filosofie a první filosofové
44%
|
|
nr 6
837-860
EN
The author addresses the issue of the origin of the discipline that we call metaphysics. First he briefly describes the difficulties associated with Aristotle’s extant metaphysical concept: problems with the character of his treatise Metaphysics, problems with the arrangement of the individual books, and even problems with the title – all related to the problematic lack of clarity in the discipline itself. He then presents an overview of the common solutions to these difficulties in the conclusion to the first part of the article. In the second part, the author provides a detailed analysis of one of the possible interpretative hypotheses: that Aristotle’s metaphysics is a continuation of the pre-Socratic tradition and, in fact, only explicitly articulates a general, foundational theme of philosophy. This interpretation is closely related to Jan Patočka’s universal concept of metaphysics. By analyzing the textual evidence of the doctrines of the archetypal pre-Socratic candidates for a first metaphysics, the author concludes that, in agreement with recent research, these thinkers do not share Aristotle’s metaphysical approach. Differently from Patočka, the author thereby concludes that we can meaningfully talk about a pre-metaphysical philosophy.
CS
Autor se zabývá problémem původu disciplíny zvané metafyzika. Nejprve nastiňuje obtíže spojené s rekonstrukcí Aristotelovy metafyzické koncepce: problémy s charakterem spisu Metafyzika, problémy s řazením jednotlivých knih, ba dokonce problémy s názvem – to vše souvisí s problematickou nevyjasněností disciplíny samé. V závěru první části prezentuje přehled obvyklých řešení těchto obtíží.
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.