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:  eudaimonia
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
|
|
nr 4
11-20
EN
In the paper I argue, contrary to the statement uttered once by Martin Seligman, that Aristotelian theory of eudaimonia (one of the key concept of positive psychology) is not subjective and based on uncertain principles. I reconstruct Aristotelian theory of eudaimonia and argue that the concept of good is neither subjective nor objective but relational. It means that a thing, act or action is good if it contributes to one’s eudaimonia. I also pinpoint that the concept of flow, which seems to be a “discovery” of positive psychology, must be based on the theory of virtues and the doctrine of human nature, which are the foundations of the Aristotelian view.
|
|
tom 7
|
nr 1
167-182
EN
The aim of the article is to indicate that there is quite strong support in the text of the Nicomachean Ethics for the argument that its inquiry is “political” rather than “ethical” in character – the textual evidence provides reasons to challenge the traditional belief that Aristotle sepa­rated ethics from politics and started the rise of ethics as a new branch of philosophy. In addition, one can posit a hypothesis (and this has already been done) that the reader, whom Aristotle had in mind while writing what we now know as the Ethics, was a politician-lawgiver (and not just any educated Greek or – which is even less probable – any human being). So the reader aimed at in the Ethics is the same as the reader aimed at in the Politics – a politician-lawgiver. The Ethics and the Politics are a two-part but inseparable compound that together make a textbook for a politician-lawgiver. Both parts should be read together because the one cannot be understood correctly (i.e. as closely as possible to the intentions of their author) without the other. Aristotle studies human good not from the point of view of the individual but from the point of view of the human community. The highest human good – the philosopher’s eudaimonia – is achieved not by individual effort (or not fundamentally by that) but as a result of good laws and a well-organized life in a polis.
PL
The aim of the article is to indicate that there is quite strong support in the text of the Nicomachean Ethics for the argument that its inquiry is “political” rather than “ethical” in character – the textual evidence provides reasons to challenge the traditional belief that Aristotle separated ethics from politics and started the rise of ethics as a new branch of philosophy. In addition, one can posit a hypothesis (and this has already been done) that the reader, whom Aristotle had in mind while writing what we now know as the Ethics, was a politician-lawgiver (and not just any educated Greek or – which is even less probable – any human being). So the reader aimed at in the Ethics is the same as the reader aimed at in the Politics – a politician-lawgiver. The Ethics and the Politics are a two-part but inseparable compound that together make a textbook for a politician-lawgiver. Both parts should be read together because the one cannot be understood correctly (i.e. as closely as possible to the intentions of their author) without the other. Aristotle studies human good not from the point of view of the individual but from the point of view of the human community. The highest human good – the philosopher’s eudaimonia – is achieved not by individual effort (or not fundamentally by that) but as a result of good laws and a well-organized life in a polis.
3
67%
|
|
nr 4
573-583
EN
This essay considers man’s perennial search for the meaning of life, specifically in its philosophical (Aristotelian) formulation namely as the pursuit of happiness, and how Christianity radically redefined the issue. Jacques Maritain began his philosophical analysis on the basis of Aristotle’s analysis because he regards Aristotle’s position as the finest fruit of reason even though it fails. Maritain’s analysis supplements Aristotle’s with man’s experience of the Incarnation and the Christian’s experience of faith, hope, and charity. Jesus promised the good thief “Today thou shalt be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43) and thereby identified God as man’s objective end. Jacques Maritain’s reflection employs rational concepts drawn from reason and theological concepts taken from theology, adequately considered the issue, and constitutes a Christian philosophical treatment of the end of man.
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.