- Home
- e-Journals
- Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter
- Previous Issues
- Volume 10, Issue, 2005
Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter - Volume 10, Issue 1, 2005
Volume 10, Issue 1, 2005
-
ἰδέα τοῦ ἀγαϑοῦ – ἀγαϑὸν ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας: Überlegungen zu einer Platonischen Antinomie
Author(s): Salvatore Lavecchiapp.: 1–20 (20)More LessIn Plato’s Republic the prime cause of all things, the Good, is presented both as transcending every form of being (509b9 f.) and as the supreme Idea, that is to say as the supreme being. The inconsistency between these two characterizations seems to point to the paradoxical relation subsisting between the absolutely transcendent Good and its supreme self-revelation (the Idea of the Good): by revealing itself, the ἀγαϑὸν ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας constitutes the highest being and therefore has to be considered to be identical with the ἰδέα τοῦ ἀγαϑοῦ; on the other hand its absolute transcendence implies a clear supereminence in regard to the Idea of the Good. This article tries to highlight and illustrate these antinomic aspects of Plato’s notion of the Good with the help of both the so-called ἄγραφα δόγματα and the representation of the Demiurge in Plato’s work.
-
Wenn die Möglichkeit in Notwendigkeit umschlägt: Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte modaler ontologischer Beweise
Author(s): Stamatios D. Gerogiorgakispp.: 21–36 (16)More LessAristotle produced several arguments to vindicate the futura contingentia and to refute the conception of modalities which do not allow incidental facts. This conception was coined mainly by Diodorus Cronus and implied the view that whatever may happen, is to happen necessarily. Although Aristotle condemned this view and refuted the theology which it implies, Diodorean modalities were employed by the scholastics (at least since Abaelard, as Leibniz pointed out) to support their theology. Abaelard’s Diodorean formula reads: God wishes (and ultimately cannot but do) no more and no less than what He is able to do – i. e. God’s ability to do something implies necessity. In the Summa theologiae, Thomas Aquinas employed Diodorean modalities along with this result of Abaelard’s. Leibniz himself confessed his debt to Diodorean modalities as well as to the work of Abaelard in formulating his own ontological proof. Kurt Gödel was under the influence of Leibniz when he wrote his »Ontological Proof«, which employs Diodorean modalities. — For the Greek-speaking scholars of the Middle Ages, however, Aristotelian influences were stronger than Diodorean as regards theory building on modalities. Philosophers from the East from the 2nd to the 11th century A.D., such as Alexander of Aphrodisias, John Philoponus and Michael Psellos, condemned Diodorean modalities as fallacious. In the same period, Greek Church Fathers such as Cyril of Alexandria, Maximus Confessor and John of Damascus gave an orthodox account of God and the modalities, according to which (contrary to what Abaelard says) God is able to do whatever He wishes. The absence of Leibniz-like modal ontological proofs in the Greek tradition seems more plausible under these circumstances.
-
Temporalia, maxime respectu aeternorum, nihil sunt: Über den angeblichen Thomismus des jungen Meister Eckhart
Author(s): Andrés Quero-Sánchezpp.: 37–66 (30)More LessMaster Eckhart’s metaphysics is an idealistic one: Being is not what there is, but only and exclusively what is truthful, i. e. the normativity which reason (God Himself) sets. Further: What is truthful comes about by negation of what there is, because this is itself nothing, pure negation as such. What is truthful is therefore the negation of negation. This is an idealistic thesis which cannot be described as being thomistic, but rather which corresponds to the metaphysics of German Idealism, especially of Fichte. This essay shows that the thesis that Eckhart was thomistic until his Parisian idealistic turn at the beginning of the 14th century is not correct. It argues that Eckhart’s metaphysics is unambiguously idealistic, i. e. non-thomistic, and that this is also the case in works which he certainly wrote before the Parisian Questions. This applies especially to the Rede der underscheidunge und the Tractatus super oratione dominica.
-
Sätze und Dinge: Die propositio in re bei Walter Burley und anderen
Author(s): Christian Rodepp.: 67–91 (25)More LessThis article examines the role of the mediaeval theory of the propositio in re, as proposed by Walter Burley and others, which bears a striking resemblance to the theory of the “proposition” advocated by G. E. Moore and B. Russell. Burley’s proposition composed of real things has the function of an ultimate significate for every sentence of natural language. The main problems of such a theory are on the one hand absurdities like a bird flying between the subject and predicate of a sentence, on the other hand Burley’s assumption that a relation of identity holds between subject and predicate, which might render propositiones in re tautological. Moreover, the particular nature of this relation is left unexplained. But these difficulties can be solved: The former by applying objective being, being as being cognized, to the terms of a propositio, as did Scotus and Franciscus de Prato, the latter by specifying multiple forms of real predication as being or being-in-something apart from a mere identity-relation (e. g. William Milverley).
-
Zum Begriff der formalen und materialen Folgerung: Richard Billingham und die englische Tradition des 14. Jahrhunderts
Author(s): Stephanie Weber-Schrothpp.: 91–127 (37)More LessThe theory of consequences was one of the most important developments in logic during the Middle Ages. The distinction between formal consequences (consequentiae formales) and material consequences (consequentiae materiales) was probably introduced by Ockham and soon became the main division of consequences, to be found in nearly all 14th-century treatises on the theory of consequences. This paper discusses the concept of a formal and material consequence according to the English tradition (which differs from the continental tradition). It is based mainly on Richard Billingham’s De consequentiis, but also takes into account other 14th-century authors. Billingham defines the formal consequence as one where the consequent is understood in (intelligitur in) the antecedent and differentiates this kind of consequence from the material one. The definition is followed by a list of rules for valid consequences. However, with respect to some of these valid consequences the question arises whether they are formal or not and, if they are formal, how it is possible to explain the criterion of the intelligitur in. After explaining the material (part 2.1) and the formal consequence (part 2.2) and discussing these difficulties, the question is raised whether the intelligitur in is an appropriate structural criterion to distinguish between formal and material consequences (part 2.3). Finally, two interpretations for the intelligitur in compatible with the text situation are proposed.
-
Selbstrealisierung: Anthropologische Konstanten in der Frühen Neuzeit
Author(s): Thomas Leinkaufpp.: 129–161 (33)More LessThis article tries to give a survey of anthropological thinking in early modern philosophy, taking ‘anthropology’ not in its modern sense and not even sensu strictu as for example Otto Casman did it in his work from the late 16th century, i.e.: as the physiology of the human being, but sensu lato as a philosophical reflection on the condition of man as an ‘animal rationale’. The arguments focus on three ‘directions’ of the inner movement of the mental and psychological activity of mankind (towards God, towards the mind itself, towards the world), which, taken all together, form the total concept of “Selbstrealisierung” (realisation of the self).
Volumes & issues
-
Volume 25 (2022)
-
Volume 24 (2021)
-
Volume 23 (2020)
-
Volume 22 (2019)
-
Volume 21 (2018)
-
Volume 20 (2017)
-
Volume 19 (2016)
-
Volume 18 (2015)
-
Volume 17 (2014)
-
Volume 16 (2013)
-
Volume 15 (2012)
-
Volume 14 (2011)
-
Volume 13 (2008)
-
Volume 12 (2007)
-
Volume 11 (2006)
-
Volume 10 (2005)
-
Volume 9 (2004)
-
Volume 8 (2003)
-
Volume 7 (2002)
-
Volume 6 (2001)
-
Volume 5 (2000)
-
Volume 4 (1999)
-
Volume 3 (1998)
-
Volume 2 (1997)
-
Volume 1 (1996)
Most Read This Month
Article
content/journals/15699684
Journal
10
5
false

-
-
Aquinas’ Balancing Act
Author(s): Gyula Klima
-
- More Less