[1] Elul. Yamim Noraʼim. Sukot -- [2] Pesaḥ. Shevuʻot. Galut u-geʼulot. Ḥanukah. Purim.

Este artículo examina los diversos niveles de certeza en el pensamiento de Hasdai Crescas, tal como pueden encontrarse en su _Sermón de Pascua_ y su principal obra filosófica, _Or Hashem_. En la primera parte del artículo se analiza la discusión principal de Crescas sobre este tema en el _Sermón._ En la segunda parte, las principales ideas expuestas allí se comparan con la opinión de Crescas en _Or Hashem_. Además, el artículo busca explicar por qué este tema está más desarrollado en (...) el _Sermón_ que en su principal obra filosófico. En última instancia, se concluye que Hasdai Crescas identifica cuatro niveles distintos de certeza: (1) pruebas irrefutables y la experiencia de la profecía; (2) pruebas lógicas razonables y la presencia de milagros que no tienen explicación terrenal; (3) pruebas y milagros menos probables de naturaleza dudosa; y (4) aceptar el significado claro del texto de la Torá y la tradición en general. Es probable que R. Crescas no mencionara este tema en _Or Hashem_ debido al bajo grado de certeza de la tradición, que eligió mantener oculta. (shrink)

Este artículo aporta una clarificación sobre lo que sí podemos decir de la relación entre este mundo y el futuro anunciado por la esperanza cristiana (escatología). La iluminación según la sagrada Escritura de la recíproca interdependencia y complementariedad entre el futuro intrahistórico y el metahistórico, permite encontrar pautas teórico-prácticas de actuación. Una humanidad nueva conduce a forjar un mundo según el plan de Dios, un mundo donde ha de reinar la paz y la justicia. El futuro es la ciudad de (...) la Paz; construirla es tarea de todos. En esta hora de la historia, la mujer está dando una aportación digna de consideración. El sueño de futuro que alimenta el Apocalipsis no es una ilusión, pues se está gestando ya en lo escondido de la historia. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reply to Russell's letter of 16 May 1960 by Albert Shalom EDITORIAL NOTE To illustrate a list ofrecent acquisitions in Russell (Summer 1981), we printed in facsimile Russell's letter of 16 May 1960 to Professor Albert Shalom concerning the interpretation of Wittgenstein's Tractatus LogicoPhilosophicus. The correspondence between Russell and Shalom began when Shalom wrote on I May 1960 asking whether Russell had the time and (...) inclination to read a translation of a lecture which Shalom had given the previous December in Paris. The paper was entitled "The Metaphysical Thinking Underlying Wittgenstein's Tractatus". Shalom had received "different and even contradictory appraisals" of his paper, and he very much wanted to have Russell's opinion of it. Close to the age ofninety, Russell was entering a hectic period in his life in which he worked assiduouslyfor the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. He had published three books in 1959 and had produced prefaces and introductions for other people. As usual, he was besieged with mail including numerous requests to read unsolicited manuscripts sent to him quite regularly. Yet he had managed to answer correspondence in a very personal way. In November 1959, he had been involved in a controversy regarding the refusal ofthe editor of Mind to review Ernest Gellner's Words and Things, a book which attacked the then prevalent philosophy of linguistic analysis and for which Russell had written the introduction. In the early months of1960, he took time out from his usual writing on the nuclear threat to reply to several articles devoted to his theory of descriptions and his ethical theory in the journal Philosophy. Russell's reply (4 May 1960) to Shalom's first letter states: "Thank you for your letter ofMay I. I shall be interested to see your paper on Wittgenstein's Tractatus, but, as I am very busy, it may be some time before I can read it carefully." On 8 May Shalom wrote back in appreciation enclosing his paper and an offprint of an article, "Qu'est-ce qu'un concept?", Revue internationale dephilosophie, 50 (1959): I-IS. The main objection raised against his paper, Shalom admitted, was that Wittgenstein was not concerned with problems of epistemology at the time of his writing the Tractatus. Nonetheless, Shalom felt that the "picture theory" of reality implies an epistemology, and he was unable to see a fallacy in his paper: "Perhaps the fact that I'm not a logician has something to do with the matter. Ifyou could enlighten me on this point I should be most grateful to you." 45 28th April 1982. 46 Russell winter 1982-83 Russell's letter of 16 May followed. On 25 May Shalom challenged Russell's interpretation. Far /rom underestimating the notion of structure, Shalom claimed that he had emphasized the notion as the key to understanding the Tractatus. "In fact, my main point is that Wittgenstein's analyses of various concepts are unintelligible unless understood as arguments in terms of the dominating idea ofstructure or form. And that is what I understand as a metaphysical argument." Shalom went on to say that his interest in any philosopher was to try to discover the chief concepts employed in the philosopher's analysis and to examine the manner in which the analysis was performed. For this reason, the later Wittgenstein was not devoid ofinterest. In a postscript, he asked Russell whether he would be in London in July ofthat year, and ifso, whether a meeting was possible. Russell replied on 18June as follows: "Thank you for your letter ofMay 25. I am sorry that at present my time and thought are so occupied with matters very remote from those with whichyour letter deals that I cannot offeryou a reasoned reply. Unfortunately, I do not expect to be in London in July so that I am afraid a meeting will hardly be possible." On 14 Shalom requested the return of his paper, and Russell complied on 19 July. Shalom is now Professor ofPhilosophy at McMaster. We invited him to comment on his exchange with Russell, particularly Russell's letter of16 May 1960. His comments take the form ofa further (and no doubtfinal) letter in the exchange.-Carl... (shrink)

Sortally incorrect sentences have traditionally been referred to as "category mistakes" (Ryle ()) or "type crossings" (Drange ()). Sortal incorrectness is a ...

This book explores what motivates net-generation community college students to complete their degrees. By emphasizing relationships, personal growth, and support systems, the author’s research will empower educational institutions to increase retention and foster success.

Studies in Abraham Joshua Heschel's Oeuvre.

Was Maimonides a radical philosopher who subtly argued for a naturalist world and who saw the obligation to keep the Torah's commandments as a social and moral obligation - or was he a conservative Jewish believer who only tried to formulate philosophical arguments in favour of a revealed religion? This question has been central to the interpretation of Maimonides from the 12th century until modern times. In the four chapters of this book, Shalom Sadik argues for a radical philosophical (...) interpretation of Maimonides. (shrink)