Within medieval women's literature it is worthwhile mentioning the poetess Hrotsvit (10th c.), Hildegard of Bingen (12th c.) and, in the 13th century the nuns of the monastery of Helfta: Mechthild of Hackeborn, Gertrude the Great and Mechthild of Magdeburg. Although the motives for writing were diverse, their works express a rich content and literary quality.

The purpose of this essay is to identify the theological comprehension of the Word as Creator in the action of the Trinity, which Thierry of Chartres offers in his Tractatus de sex dierum operibus. In his brief and synthetic explanation, he makes coincide the findings of human reason with biblical notions, such as Figure and splendor, Wisdom, Truth, Word, not as a mere sequence but in their deep and relational meaning. Thierry’s rational method is deductive-mathematical, whereas the philosophical premise is (...) the rerum universitas articulated in levels of necessity and possibility. All this allows creation to be considered as explication of the complicatio—or multiplicity produced by unity— which is typical of the chartrian neoplatonism, with the characteristic seal of Thierry. (shrink)

En esta obra emblemática y, a la vez,enigmática de la primera rnitad dei siglo XII, seha escogido como tema de estudio la condicióndei ser humano desde su origen creacional. LaSumma Sententiarum presenta ai hornbre comocreado a imagem de Dios y profundiza en lascaracterísticas de esta imagem; implicitamenteafirma la dignidad originaria dei hombre y de lamujer, en cuanto portadores, por el alma, de laimagen divina. Es un texto creacionista conrespecto ai cuerpo humano - hombre y mujer - ytarnbién respecto dei alma, (...) que considera comocreada por Dios de la nada. Aunque a vecesparece insinuar la preexistência de las almas, e!texto visto en su conjunto se inclima en favor dela · creación divina y singular de cada alma para yen cada cuerpo, excluyendo ai mismo tiempo e!traducianismo. Los contrastes que aparecen enalgunas posiciones doctrinales apoyan la hipótesisreciente de tratarse de una obra colectiva. Losresultados muestran la continuidad de la SummaSententiarum con las fuentes bíblicas y patrísticasen este tema, con algunas peculiaridades. Lasfuentes filosóficas son platónicas, aunque evidentementees un platonismo cristianizado, decorte agustinianodionisiano. (shrink)

Nos séculos XII e XIII surgiram as sumas teológicas, nas quais distingue-se uma forma literária externa, com a ordenação da matéria e o desenvolvimento do discurso, e, de outro, a forma interna, como uma ideia sistematizadora. Os autores analisam as obras da época para descobrir nelas aspectos comuns e diferenças.

Thierry fue canciller de la escuela catedralicia de Chartres de 1142-1150. Comentador de Boecio, su obra refleja sin embargo una síntesis personal de fuentes platónicas, neoplatónicas y aristotélicas. Está convencido del valor propedéutico de las artes liberales para la teología, dando amplia cabida también al quadrivium. Este estudio, centrado en su Tractatus de sex dierum operibus, pone de manifiesto que la causalidad es el eje de su comprensión ontológica de la realidad :desde el punto de vista filosófico, la causalidad explica (...) la existencia real de lo múltiple a partir del Uno, y en la perspectiva teológica muestra la creación como obra de Dios Uno y Trino. La causalidad implica, para Thierry, la participación y garantiza por tanto la capacidad causal de los seres naturales, con la consiguiente autonomía real en su orden, pero dependiente de la causa suprema, sin la cual nada existiría. (shrink)

Este libro es parte de la colección e-Libro en BiblioBoard.

The final section of the book considers two features of the world which transcend the categories, existence and negation.

I take up three puzzles about our emotional and evaluative responses to fiction. First, how can we even have emotional responses to characters and events that we know not to exist, if emotions are as intimately connected to belief and action as they seem to be? One solution to this puzzle claims that we merely imagine having such emotional responses. But this raises the puzzle of why we would ever refuse to follow an author’s instructions to imagine such responses, since (...) we happily imagine many other implausible things. A natural response to this second puzzle is that our responses to fiction are real, and so can’t just be conjured up in response to an author’s demands. However, this simple response is inadequate, because we often respond differently to people and events in fiction than we would if we encountered them in real life. Solving these three puzzles in a consistent way requires the notion of a “perspective” on a fictional world. I sketch an account of this intuitive but frustratingly amorphous notion: perspectives are tools for organizing our thinking, which can in turn alter our emotional and evaluative responses. Cultivating a perspective can be illuminating, entertaining, or corrupting — or all three at once. (shrink)

Originally published in 1992. The history of Western philosophy can be seen as a battle between those that insist that the "physical universe" exists and those would claim that there is a much larger "world" which contains atemporal and nonspatial things as well. The central part of this book, and the battle, concerns the existence of universals. Starting with the mediaeval definition of the issue found in Porphry and Boethius, the author then considers modern and contemporary versions of the battle. (...) He concludes that what is at stake between naturalists and ontologists is the existence and nature of a number of important categories, like structures, relations, sets, numbers and so on. (shrink)

Traditional theories of sarcasm treat it as a case of a speaker's meaning the opposite of what she says. Recently, 'expressivists' have argued that sarcasm is not a type of speaker meaning at all, but merely the expression of a dissociative attitude toward an evoked thought or perspective. I argue that we should analyze sarcasm in terms of meaning inversion, as the traditional theory does; but that we need to construe 'meaning' more broadly, to include illocutionary force and evaluative attitudes (...) as well as propositional content. I distinguish four subclasses of sarcasm, individuated in terms of the target of inversion. Three of these classes raise serious challenges for a standard implicature analysis. (shrink)

Philosophers have traditionally inclined toward one of two opposite extremes when it comes to metaphor. On the one hand, partisans of metaphor have tended to believe that metaphors do something different in kind from literal utterances; it is a ‘heresy’, they think, either to deny that what metaphors do is genuinely cognitive, or to assume that it can be translated into literal terms. On the other hand, analytic philosophers have typically denied just this: they tend to assume that if metaphors (...) express any genuine content at all, then that content can in principle be paraphrased into literal terms. They often conclude on this basis that metaphor is theoretically dispensable, and so that it poses no special challenges and affords no distinctive insights for the philosophy of language and mind. (shrink)

Theorists often associate certain “poetic” qualities with metaphor – most especially, producing an open-ended, holistic perspective which is evocative, imagistic and affectively-laden. I argue that, on the one hand, non-cognitivists are wrong to claim that metaphors only produce such perspectives: like ordinary literal speech, they also serve to undertake claims and other speech acts with propositional content. On the other hand, contextualists are wrong to assimilate metaphor to literal loose talk: metaphors depend on using one thing as a perspective for (...) thinking about something else. I bring out the distinctive way that metaphor works by contrasting it with two other poetic uses of language, juxtapositions and “telling details,” that do fit the accounts of metaphor offered by non-cognitivists and contextualists, respectively. (shrink)

Most of us create and use a panoply of non-sentential representations throughout our ordinary lives: we regularly use maps to navigate, charts to keep track of complex patterns of data, and diagrams to visualize logical and causal relations among states of affairs. But philosophers typically pay little attention to such representations, focusing almost exclusively on language instead. In particular, when theorizing about the mind, many philosophers assume that there is a very tight mapping between language and thought. Some analyze utterances (...) as the outer vocalizations of inner thoughts (e.g. Grice 1957, Devitt 2005), while others treat thought as a form of inner speech (e.g. Sellars 1956/1997, Carruthers 2002). But even philosophers who take no stand on the relative priority of language and thought still tend to individuate mental states in terms of the sentences we use to ascribe them. Indeed, Dummett (1993) claims that it is constitutive of analytic philosophy that it approaches the mind by way of language. In many ways, this linguistic model is salutary. Our thoughts are often intimately intertwined with their linguistic expression, and public language does provide a comparatively tractable proxy for, and a window into, the messier realm of thought. However, an exclusive focus on thought as it is expressed in language threatens to leave other sorts of thought unexplained, or even to blind us to their possibility. In particular, many cognitive ethologists and psychologists find it useful to talk about humans, chimpanzees, birds, rats, and even bees as employing cognitive maps. We need to make sense of this way of talking about minds as well as more familiar sentential descriptions. In what follows, I investigate the theoretical and practical possibility of non-sentential thought. Ultimately, I am most interested in the contours of distinctively human thought: what forms does human thought take, and how do those different forms interact? How does human thought compare with that of other animals? In this essay, however, I focus on a narrower and more basic theoretical question: could thought occur in maps? Many philosophers are convinced that in some important sense, thought per se must be language-like.. (shrink)

Does thought precede language, or the other way around? How does having a language affect our thoughts? Who has a language, and who can think? These questions have traditionally been addressed by philosophers, especially by rationalists concerned to identify the essential difference between humans and other animals. More recently, theorists in cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and developmental psychology have been asking these questions in more empirically grounded ways. At its best, this confluence of philosophy and science promises to blend the (...) respective strengths of each discipline, bringing abstract theory to bear on reality in a principled and focused way. At its worst, it risks degenerating into a war of words, with each side employing key expressions in its own idiosyncratic way – or worse, contaminating empirical research with a priori dogmas inherited from outmoded philosophical worldviews. In Baboon Metaphysics (2007), Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth offer an analysis of baboon cognition that promises to exemplify the very best interaction of philosophical theory and empirical research. They argue that baboons have a language of thought: a language-like representational medium, which supports the sophisticated cognitive abilities required to negotiate their complex social environment. This claim is intended to be surprising in its own right, and also to shed light on the evolution of spoken language. Because our own ancestors likely lived in a similarly complex social environment, Cheney and Seyfarth propose that the earliest humans also developed language first as a cognitive medium, and that spoken language evolved as a means to express those thoughts. There are two potential difficulties here. First, ‘Language of Thought’ (LOT) is a term of art, with much associated theoretical baggage and often comparatively little careful exposition. Thus, evaluating the claim requires getting clearer about just what LOT implies in this context.. (shrink)

Gerechtigkeit ist ein ebenso bedeutsames wie umstrittenes Ideal menschlichen Umgangs.

Frege's scathing comments on Mill on the empirical grounds of arithmetical truth are elaborated. The suggestion is made that some entities are ‘well-behaved' : if you perform two acts and then two more, the ‘result' will be that exactly four acts have occurred. How much it all matters or means is not further discussed.

Keine ausführliche Beschreibung für "Friedrich Nietzsches Philosophie des europäischen Nihilismus" verfügbar.

Metaphors are powerful communicative tools because they produce ”framing effects’. These effects are especially palpable when the metaphor is an insult that denigrates the hearer or someone he cares about. In such cases, just comprehending the metaphor produces a kind of ”complicity’ that cannot easily be undone by denying the speaker’s claim. Several theorists have taken this to show that metaphors are engaged in a different line of work from ordinary communication. Against this, I argue that metaphorical insults are rhetorically (...) powerful because they combine perspectives, presupposition, and pragmatics in the service of speech acts with assertoric force. (shrink)

Recently, philosophers have discovered that they have a lot to learn from, or at least to ponder about, fiction. Many metaphysicians are attracted to fiction as a model for our talk about purported objects and properties, such as numbers, morality, and possible worlds, without embracing a robust Platonist ontology. In addition, a growing group of philosophers of mind are interested in the implications of our engagement with fiction for our understanding of the mind and emotions: If I don’t believe that (...) Anna Karenina exists, can I really pity her, or hope or desire that she extricate herself from her tragic situation? And why is there no “morality fiction,” analogous to science fiction? I suspect that philosophers have been especially comfortable thinking about fiction because it seems, at least prima facie, to employ the imagination in a way that conforms to a standard model of the mind. Specifically, contemporary philosophers tend to think of imagination as a form of mental pretense. Mental pretense can take two main forms: a cognitive attitude of supposing a set of propositions to be true (make-believe) or else an experiential state of imaging a scenario as if it were before one (imaging). Much of our pretense intertwines the cognitive and experiential modalities, of course. But both share a crucial common feature: all of one’s imaginative effort is invested in pretending that certain contents obtain. In this sense, we can understand imagination as the “offline” simulation of actual beliefs and perceptions (and perhaps other attitudes as well), where we analyze these in the normal way, as states individuated by their attitude and representational content. While I share the burgeoning interest in fiction, I want to suggest that we also have a lot to learn from poetry, and in particular from poetic metaphor. I will argue.. (shrink)

For Elisabeth Roudinesco, a historian of psychoanalysis and one of France's leading intellectuals, Canguilhem, Sartre, Foucault, Althusser, Deleuze, and Derrida represent a "great generation" of French philosophers who accomplished remarkable work and lived incredible lives. These troubled and innovative thinkers endured World War II and the cultural and political revolution of the 1960s, and their cultural horizon was dominated by Marxism and psychoanalysis, though they were by no means strict adherents to the doctrines of Marx and Freud. Roudinesco knew (...) many of these intellectuals personally, and she weaves an account of their thought through lived experience and reminiscences. Canguilhem, for example, was a distinguished philosopher of science who had a great influence on Foucault's exploration of sanity and madness-themes Althusser lived in a notorious personal drama. And in dramatizing the life of Freud for the screen, Sartre fundamentally altered his own philosophical approach to psychoanalysis. Roudinesco launches a passionate defense of Canguilhem, Sartre, Foucault, Althusser, Deleuze, and Derrida against the "new philosophers" of the late 1970s and 1980s, who denounced the work-and sometimes the private lives-of this great generation. Roudinesco refutes attempts to tar them, as well as the Marxist and left-wing tradition in general, with the brush of Soviet-style communism. In Freudian theory and the philosophy of radical commitment, she sees a bulwark against the kind of manipulative, pill-prescribing, and normalizing psychology that aims to turn individuals into mindless consumers. Intense, clever, and persuasive, _Philosophy in Turbulent Times_ captivates with the dynamism of French thought in the twentieth century. (shrink)

Mobsters and others engaged in risky forms of social coordination and coercion often communicate by saying something that is overtly innocuous but transmits another message ‘off record’. In both ordinary conversation and political discourse, insinuation and other forms of indirection, like joking, offer significant protection from liability. However, they do not confer blanket immunity: speakers can be held to account for an ‘off record’ message, if the only reasonable interpreta- tions of their utterance involve a commitment to it. Legal liability (...) for speech in the service of criminal behavior displays a similar profile of significant protection from indirection along with potential liability for reasonable interpretations. Specifically, in both ordinary and legal contexts, liability depends on how a reasonable speaker would expect a reasonable hearer to interpret their utterance in the context of utter- ance, rather than on the actual speaker’s claimed communicative intentions. (shrink)

We should not admit categorial restrictions on the significance of syntactically well formed strings. Syntactically well formed but semantically absurd strings, such as ‘Life’s but a walking shadow’ and ‘Caesar is a prime number’, can express thoughts; and competent thinkers both are able to grasp these and ought to be able to. Gareth Evans’ generality constraint, though Evans himself restricted it, should be viewed as a fully general constraint on concept possession and propositional thought. For (a) even well formed but (...) semantically cross-categorial strings often do possess substantive inferential roles; (b) hearers exploit these inferential roles in interpreting such strings metaphorically; (c) there is no good reason to deny truth-conditions to strings with inferential roles. (shrink)

1. „Schwache“ oder „freie Menschen“? „Weil es aber doch einem nachdenkenden und forschenden Wesen anständig ist, gewisse Zeiten lediglich der Prüfung seiner eigenen Vernunft zu widmen, hierbei aber alle Parteilichkeit gänzlich auszuziehen, und so seine Bemerkungen anderen zur Beurteilung öffentlich mitzuteilen; so kann es niemanden verargt, noch weniger verwehrt werden, die Sätze und Gegensätze, so wie sie sich, durch keine Drohung geschreckt, vor Geschworenen von seinem eigenen Stande verteidigen können, auftreten zu lassen.“ These: Wer diesen Text kritisch liest, stutzt – (...) was sollen die „schwachen Menschen“ hier? Ist nicht das bizarre „schwacher“ durch „freier“ zu ersetzen? Kant verbindet mit der Gerichtshofmetapher die gegen die Politik der Machtsprüche des Absolutismus, aber auch gegen die Gesetzlosigkeit des „status naturalis“ gerichtete Freiheit der Richter und Geschworenen, nicht aber deren Schwäche. Erst im Staat unter Freiheitsgesetzen könne ein Gerichtshof eingerichtet werden – „Zu dieser Freiheit gehört denn auch, seine Gedanken, seine Zweifel, die man sich nicht selbst auflösen kann, öffentlich zur Beurteilung auszustellen, ohne darüber für einen unruhigen oder gefährlichen Bürger verschrieen zu werden [„durch keine Drohung geschreckt“] Das liegt schon in dem ursprünglichen Rechte der menschlichen Vernunft, welche keinen anderen Richter erkennt, als selbst wiederum die allgemeine Menschenvernunft, worin ein jeder seine Stimme hat.“ Die Freiheit bezieht sich auf den Bürgerstand der Menschen und ihre Freiheitsgesetze. Wir befinden uns im Bereich einer Rechtsinstitution – was soll da der Appell an die Schwäche? Gibt es einen bürgerlichen Stand der Schwachen? Nein. Das Ergebnis der Gerichtsverhandlung wird sein, dass weder Satz noch Gegensatz gilt oder dass beide gelten könnten. Nun kommt hinzu, dass Kant zuvor den Menschen charakterisiert, der zwischen These und Antithese hin- und herschwankt – ein schwacher Mensch, dem der nachdenkende und forschende Mensch entgegengesetzt wird, der nun entschlossen vor dem Gerichtshof erfahren will, wie es um die Ansprüche der beiden Parteien steht. Auch im nachfolgenden Text wird emphatisch dafür argumentiert, dass der Mensch das Problem der Antinomie und seine Auflösung in seiner eigenen Vernunft findet und daher „die Verantwortung [Beantwortung?] nicht von sich abweisen und auf den unbekannten Gegenstand schieben kann“. (shrink)