Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

O empirycznych przesłankach pluralizmu bytowego

100%

Lenartowicz P.

Forum Philosophicum

|

2006

|

tom 11

37-53

EN

The sciences, from their ancient beginnings, use a double way of investigation. One was applied to mineral and astronomical bodies, another to living ones. A ruling, tacit, common sense methodological or epistemological principle was this: The method of description should respect the inner essential properties of the object. For instance, neither the movements of the astronomical bodies, nor the behavior of the living bodies should be described in the scale of subatomic interactions. In modern times quite another methodological principle has been enthroned. The cosmos, astronomical, mineral and alive bodies altogether, have, allegedly, to be considered as a single natural whole, ruled by essentially the same set of principles. The properties of the mineral world are accepted as a universal model of descriptive concepts, and the explanatory concepts proper to the mineral world are accepted as a universal model of explanation in biology. So, up to now, the academic sciences have been dominated by the philosophical option of materialist monism, or panmaterialism. This option—we may call it antiteleologism and fragmentarism—has a profound impact on empirical research and the way biological phenomena are described. This strange, unnatural, arbitrarily imposed conceptual framework ignores the most fundamental biological dynamisms, and precludes our intellect from seeing the right questions and striving towards the right answers. Consequently it arbitrarily reduces the range of “scientifically acceptable” explanations. This antiteleological methodology of sciences, imposed on biological mind by philosophers, led to major change in the ideas of philosophers of nature. The physiology and anatomy of the fully developed living bodies has become their central object of study. Much less attention is paid to developmental processes such as biosynthesis, morphogenesis, embryogenesis, phenotypic adaptation and regeneration. The fully shaped structures (biomolecular, cytological or anatomical) and their functional properties are considered a hopeful basis of all the necessary explanations. For instance the structure of tile DNA molecule has become more important than the problem of its origin, and the structure of the brain more important than the developmental processes which lead to its construction. However, the enormous progress of biological sciences in spite of the widespread, dominating antiteleological and fragmentarist approach corroborates the very ancient, Aristotelian insight, which put the principal stress on the developmental aspect of life. Aristotle, and his more modern followers, was fascinated by the integrated and intrinsically heterogenous tendencies visible in the course of life. Today, we can say that at least eight such tendencies are universal, i.e. appear in every single form of life (starting with bacteria tip to the biology of man): (a) The tendency to select the proper kind of raw material and the proper kind of raw energy present in the environment. (b) The tendency to synthesize new, highly selective forms of chemical structures (biological material). (c) The tendency to utilize biological material in the process of building the nano-, micro-, and macro-machines. (d) The tendency for a relatively rapid, continuous production and replacement of all the elements of the functional structures of the body (metabolic turnover). (e) The tendency for a relatively rapid, continuous modification of the functional structures in a way which makes them more efficient within a changing environment (a tendency for phenotypic adaptation). (f) The tendency to repair and to regenerate the damaged elements of the functional structures of the body. (g) The tendency for multiplication, which means the production of such structures and the depots of the biological material as seeds, eggs, spores or buds. These structures, providing the environmental conditions are favorable, are starting points of new instances of the above described tendencies. (h) The tendency—possibly universal—to provide all the structures of the body with the “recognition marks” which help to eliminate all the, “alien” bodies and to recognize members of the own kind. These tendencies are not homogeneous. Homogeneous tendencies can be illustrated by the tendency of bodies to attract one another. This kind of tendency was the empirical source of such abstract concepts as gravitation, electrostatic force or magnetic force. Biological tendencies are heterogeneous and, at the same time, integrated. Human intellect is capable of recognizing the fundamental indivisibility (integration) of the set. A great number of observations and experiments have revealed and verified the fundamental indivisibility of the whole set of these tendencies. The concrete, bodily outcomes of these tendencies, however, are quite different in different families and orders of living things. Because of these differences the existence of different kinds of integrative principles was postulated. In this way a plurality of living substances was assumed.

2

Erich Wasmann a jeho přínos k teorii evoluce

86%

Krumpolc E.

Studia theologica

|

2017

|

tom 1

45-59

EN

The aim of this paper is to examine the life and work of the Austrian priest, Jesuit and biologist Erich Wasmann (1859–1931) and specifically his contribution to a deeper understanding of the theory of evolution and its reception by Catholic theology. The biography of the person of Erich Wasmann is presented first, followed by his work, biological research, concept of evolution, the possibility of its application to man, its philosophical and sociological consequences and the controversies between Erich Wasmann and Ernst Haeckel, a protagonist of monism and materialism, are described. In conclusion it is argued that Wasmann was a resolute supporter of biological evolution, and also open to the possibility of its extension to man, as far as it concerns the evolution of the human body, if this would be confirmed by paleontological findings. He emphasized, however, the essential differences between man and animals in the mental and spiritual region that could not be spanned by evolution, but which would require a certain ontological leap, as it has been recognised by contemporary theological anthropology.

3

Plotinus on Eternity and Time

51%

Hancock C. L.

Studia Ełckie

|

2024

|

tom 26

|

nr 4

433-446

EN

Plotinus declares often that Plato’s philosophy is the principal influence on his thought. While Plotinus is an original thinker, his originality primarily consists in his innovative adaptation of Platonism for specific philosophical tasks. His innovation led him to develop a new school of thought, Neoplatonism. Plotinus’ philosophy, replete with Platonic influence, is on display in his treatment of eternity and time, exquisitely expressed in Ennead III 7 (45), “On Eternity and Time”. This treatise relies heavily on Plotinus’ teaching on contemplation, which Plotinus borrows, adapts, and refines from Plato’s late dialogues, especially the Sophist. Plato concluded in that dialogue that his metaphysical dualism was incoherent without including intelligence or contemplation in the intelligible world. Plotinus’ philosophy of eternity and time exploits this Platonic conviction about contemplation, which understood metaphysically represents stages in the emanation of the universe. Essentially, Plotinus’ overarching monism or pantheism provides the context for elaborating eternity and time. This monism and corresponding doctrine of emanation become clear once one recognizes how they are expressions of the key principles of Plotinus’ philosophy: (1) that reality is unity, to be real is to be one (that unreality is disunity or multiplicity); (2) that reality is perfection, to be one is to be good (that unreality is imperfection, to be many is to be evil); and (3) that which is metaphysically prior in the universe is superior to that which is posterior. These principles illuminate how emanation explains the genesis of the universe. The One/Good does not produce the universe freely or providentially. Its products, the totality of beings, are produced out of necessity, by virtue of the unbounded goodness of the One. Its superabundant goodness emanates (or overflows), according to the principle, bonum difusivum sui. This emanation produces a descending hierarchy of beings. This emergence is eternal, without temporal succession, without before and after. The One transcends being because being implies an existent with a determinate nature, differentiated from other beings. Since the One is pure unity, it exists without differentiation (or multiplicity). Hence, the One is not a being and exists “beyond being” (epekeina tes ousias, Republic 509 b). As emanation proceeds, it produces a descending hierarchy of beings. Since greater being implies knowledge and life, Plotinus infers that the uppermost beings are consummate intellects and lives. These are the second and third hypostases “hypostasis” signifying fundamental reality; the One existing transcendently as first hypostasis). They live contemplative lives. The life of the second hypostasis is a life of eternal contemplation. Eternity is the life of this divine Intelligence. The life of the third hypostasis is also contemplative. Because its life is not as perfect, its contemplation is successive and discursive, not eternal or intuitive. This is the life that is time, the third hypostasis, the World Soul of Stoic philosophy.