Between Ambrose and the Arians: Augustine and his Critique of Dialectic
The paper addresses the controversial question to which extent Augustine's views on dialectic have changed during his intellectual development. It argues that there is a high probability that Augustine changed his views in response to apparent misuse of dialectical tools by defenders of the Arian heresy – a misuse explicitly criticised by Ambrose of Milan whose influence on Augustine should not be underestimated. In De Doctrina Christiana Augustine abandons his earlier view that dialectic is a tool for gaining new knowledge. But it can nevertheless have a valid role in Christian education and hermeneutics, because it allows to test the formal validity of inferences.
Interpretations of facere veritatem by Derrida and Marion share several essential traits. Bothphilosophers refuse to consider facere veritatem as a variant of speech act. For Derrida this is anevent of truth, whereas for Marion it turns truth into an event for the subject. Facere veritatem is
the speech of the Other (Derrida) or the word of God (Marion), being an alien word appropriated
by the subject, or, more precisely, the subject appropriated by this word. Both thinkers have been
infl uenced by Levinas’ interpretation of Augustine’s veritas redarguens as a truth that puts the
I into question. Eventually facere veritatem becomes a paradigm of conversio : the truth thus
created is the truth of conversion and even of the emergence of the subject; the truth beyond all
possible speech; no longer a mere speech act but a structure underlying any verbal expression.
For Marion the embodiment of this structure is the threefold functioning of the liturgical speech
(confession, praise, reading of Scripture). For Derrida the same role is played by literature, in
which poetry and truth, fi ction and witness merge into one, producing a hidden place for truth.
Time as a philosophical ontological category turns into thinking method in Arendt’s texts. The basis of this "transformation" is a redefining the Augustine’s terminology of time. This article focuses on the identification of the heritage Augustine thought about the concept of time in the philosophy of H. Arendt. It examines the mechanisms for the Augustinian time’s terminology in her papers - namely, the concepts of «hodiernus», «natalis» and the understanding of the time through the categories of "past", "future" and "present".
As a whole, Augustine and the Disciplines reads well, and it is wise to read first the Vessey introduction and then read it again when one is finished with the essays. His vision of the continuity among the essays helps the reader to 're-imagine' the conference itself and engage in the various essays as a common project aimed at solving some difficult - but important - questions in Augustinian scholorship today.
“Let's be Logical” is a double invitation. Although logic often refers to a disposition of mind that we all share, this disposition might be confused once its theoretical sources are questioned. The present volume offers thirteen articles that address various aspects of the discipline of logic and its methods, notably formalism, the theory of opposition, mathematical truth, and history of logic. This volume has been prepared with the pedagogical concern of making it accessible to a wide audience of logic and philosophy readers.
The author analyzes Dostoevsky's ideas about confession and theodicy and shows how they were influenced by Vladimir Solov'ev and St. Augustine
Talisman practices of the Renaissance are usually considered as a subject of history of medicine or history of science as opposed to philosophy as a coherent and systematic discipline. There are a lot of talisman descriptions with various astral influences in the treatise of the Florentine philosopher Marsilio Ficino's Three books on life (1489). According to Neoplatonic anthropology and ontology, talismans could be understood as an expanded figurative evidence of the Universe hierarchy fully appreciated only by sage, which is characterized as a possessor of certain aptitude for the understanding of this hierarchy.
Jan Lukasiewicz (1878-1956) was one of the most important members of the Lwow-Warsaw school of logic. The thirteen translated articles in this volume demonstrate the protean form of Lukasiewiczs work, from his texts on Aristotle and the principle of non-contradiction and syllogistics to modal logic, intuitionism, and multivalent logics. The articles show in particular his preoccupations with logical precision and the problem of human liberty.
This encyclopedia entry analyses the notion of a faculty with a special emphasis on the conceptual history of faculties of the soul between Aristotle and Ryle.
The article provides a brief overview of the history of understanding of war in European thought. Transformation of the perception of war as a socio-political phenomenon is traced in chronological order. Author focuses on the assessments of war from the standpoint of ethics and political theory. It is observed in the text how key questions that allow to give a moral assessment of war were raised in ancient philosophy. The duality of the attitude to war was fixed in the works of Plato and Aristotle. Assessment of war depended on the extent to which the conflict corresponds to natural justice. Later, in the works of Christian authors, the basis of this dichotomy rested on the idea of God as a source of justice. The paradigm of punitive war became the core of the Christian doctrine of just war. In modern history, the process of secularization of the philosophical perception of war had begun. Theological consideration of armed conflicts was replaced by legal one. The article considers the influence that Grotius and his followers had on the process of replacing the punitive paradigm of just war with the legalist paradigm. It is noted also that renunciation of war and search of perpetual peace appeared to be a popular genre in 18th century. Kant was given as an example on that matter. Further, the author refers to the legacy of Clausewitz in order to determine the main features of modern period views on war as a practice strictly assigned to the state. The article concludes with a comparative review of approaches to the evaluation of war by political realists and contemporary just war theorists.