The main aim of this paper is to propose an adequate interpretation of the concept esse apparens (apparent being) which was used by Franciscan philosopher and theologian Peter Auriol (c. 1280-1322), especially focusing on his account of sensory perception. Drawing on an analysis of the relevant passages of the commentary on the Sentences by Auriol, first, I introduce his famous account of sensory illusions, and then his own claims about the nature of esse appparens (Auriol refuses to treat it either as a separate entity serving as a mediator of perception, or as only an extrinsic denomination of the perceived object). In the next part, I reject the interpretation which identifies esse apparens with mental representation. In my opinion, it is more appropriate to place this concept into the context of scholastic doctrine of objectiver or intentional being (popularized mainly by Duns Scotus and his disciples). At the end of the paper, I return to Auriol's account of illusions and show that it is compatible with esse apparens being understood as mode of being., Lukáš Lička., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
According to the Oxford English Dictonary George Berkeley introduced the term a priori into English. His inspiration for this was, it seems, to be found partly in the writings of his immediate predecessors, particularly Pierre Bayle, and partly in his pedagogical work where he adjudicated disputations between his pupils. Some of his arguments against the existence of matter Berkeley tells us are a priori, others a posteriori. Even the a priori arguments are underpinned by prior semantic principles of an anti-abstractionist character, which are shown to be important particularly in the immaterialist philosophy of mathematics. Berkeley's courageously unorthodox, and generally unpublished, thoughts about mathematics thus grow from the same soil as his celebrated denial of matter., Marek Tomeček., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Berlinova dichotomie pozitivní a negativní svobody je v akademickém prostředí natolik diskutovanou problematikou, že jakékoli pokusy o její novou interpretaci čelí notnému riziku rozvíjení již řečeného, a tím i možnosti ztráty argumentační síly. Cíl tohoto článku však nespočívá v přispění k debatě týkající se funkčnosti Berlinova rozdělení, ale ve zpochybnění stereotypně přijímaných ideových zdrojů, jimiž se Berlin údajně inspiroval. V rámci linie tradic liberálního myšlení, kterou identifikuje mimo jiné sám Berlin, je totiž jeho rozlišení dvou pojmů svobody běžně ztotožňováno s principy a ideovým poselstvím klasifikace francouzského osvícence Benjamina Constanta. Směšování Berlinovy polarity pozitivní – negativní s Constantovým schématem antická – moderní je pravděpodobně důsledkem četných styčných bodů obou koncepcí, jež však vedou k automatickému vnímání souladu i u těch principů, u nichž je míra koherence problematická. Za hlavní cíl této studie lze tudíž označit jednak prokázání skutečnosti, že pro důslednou komparaci Berlinovy a Constantovy dichotomie je kromě běžně analyzované příbuznosti negativní svobody se svobodou moderní nezbytné vzít v úvahu i provázanost opačných pólů spektra, a především pak obhajobu teze, že v podstatných momentech Constantovo myšlení opouští meze liberální tradice a konotuje Pettitovy republikánské principy svobody jako ne-dominance. Takový závěr vede v konečném důsledku k tomu, že Berlinovo a Constantovo dělení nelze vnímat jako homogenní., Berlin’s dichotomy of positive and negative freedom is, in academic quarters, such a well-discussed problem that any kind of attempt at a fresh interpretation confronts the real risk of developing what has already been said and, in that way, of losing argumentational strength. The aim of this article does not, however, consist in contributing to the debate about the viability of Berlin’s distinction, but in calling into question the stereotypical reception of the intellectual sources that Berlin was inspired by. In the framework of the line of traditions of liberal thinking, which, among others, Berlin himself identifies, is his distinction between two concepts of freedom, usually identified with the principles and intellectual meaning of the classification by the French enlightenment thinker Benjamin Constant. The mixing up of Berlin’s polarity positive–negative with Constant’s scheme of ancient–modern is probably a consequence of the numerous common points in the two conceptions. These, however, lead to the automatic perception of agreement even in those principles for which the level of coherence is questionable. The main aim of this study is, therefore, to indicate, firstly, the proven fact that for a consistent comparison of Berlin’s and Constant’s dichotomy one must examine, in addition to the commonly analysed relationship of negative freedom with modern freedom, the connectedness of the opposite poles in the two cases. Secondly, and more importantly, the thesis is advanced that, in its fundamental properties, Constant’s thinking goes beyond the liberal tradition and points towards Pettit’s republican principles of freedom as non-dominance. This conclusion ultimately leads to the recognition that Berlin’s and Constant’s division cannot be seen as homogenous., Jan Květina., and Obsahuje seznam literatury
Text vykládá jednotlivé pojmy, které v Aristotelově díle představují kandidáty na protějšek moderního pojmu zdravého rozumu, a uvádí je do vzájemné souvislosti. Především v logických a rétorických textech Aristotelés pracuje s termínem endoxos, který používá pro výroky a osoby, které jsou v daném společenství uznávány. V epistemologii pracuje s termínem koiné aisthésis v souvislosti s vnímáním jako takovým. Autor poukazuje na vazbu, kterou u Aristotela díky jeho práci ve fyziologii má obecná schopnost vnímat třetí klíčový pojem, který patří do etiky, totiž na fronésis. V rámci výkladu fronésis má místo také poslední bezprostředně relevantní pojem – orthos logos. Aristotelova koncepce jednání, jež Aristotelés vykládá někdy pomocí tzv. praktického sylogismu, pak ukazuje na roli uznávaných výroků jako typických obecných premis v těchto sylogismech a roli osob uznávaných pro svou fronésis jako měřítek určujících kritéria pro to, co je dobré jednání., The text interprets the particular concepts in Aristotle’s work which present themselves as candidates for being the counterpart to the modern concept of common sense, and it introduces them in their mutual relatedness. Aristotle works with the term endoxos, particularly in his logical and rhetorical texts, which he uses for statements and persons which are recognised in a given community. In epistemology he works with the term koiné aisthésis in connection with perception as such. The author points to a third concept, which Aristotle, thanks to his work in physiology, has a general ability to perceive, and which belongs to ethics: this is fronésis In an interpretation of fronésis there is also a place for the last directly relevant concept – orthos logos. Aristotle’s conception of conduct, which he sometimes interprets with the help of a so-called practical syllogism, displays the role of recognised statements as the typical general premisses in these syllogisms, and the role of persons recognised for their fronésis as the measure of the determining criteria for what is good conduct., and Petr Glombíček.
The article examines the meaning of the other for Kant's idea of autonomy. Autonomy is interpreted, in relation to the universal demand of the ethical, as governing the will by principles. Autonomy as principled self-determination by means of the practical law cannot be understood as the standpoint of an isolated subject. Instead we must understand it as a standpoint taken towards others, which we treat as the aspect of spontaneity, and at the same time as a standpoint taken thanks to others, since others make possible its awakening and development - here the aspect of receptivity is discussed. In this two-way relation between autonomy (enabled by a self-determining goverment by principle) and the other, the character of dialogical mutuality is exhibited: autonomy is the principled considerateness of a good will towards others, and, in order for it to be such, it must be initiated by others., Ondřej Sikora., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii