This dynamical interpretation of the continuum is based on a threefold perspective. First, detailed differentiation of all standard realms of Leibnizian Weltanschauung – (R real), (P phenomenal), (I ideal). Second, analysis of the scope of the Law of Continuity famously formulated by Leibniz and mapping it onto this (RPI) structure. Third, finding the precise place of dynamics and force in this (RPI) continuum.

The main objective of the paper is to give initial answers to three important questions. Why did Leibniz visit Spinoza? Why did his preparation for this meeting include a modification of the ontological proof of God? What is the philosophical result of the meeting and what do possible worlds have to do with it? In order to provide answers, three closely related manuscripts by Leibniz from November 1676 have been compared and the slow conceptual change of his philosophical apparatus has (...) been analyzed. The last of these manuscripts was presented and read in front of Spinoza. Around that time Leibniz abandoned the idea of plurality of worlds (cf. Tschirnhaus) and instead proposed the idea of possible worlds, thus introducing possibility into the (onto/theo)logical structure itself in order to avoid the “precipice” of Spinoza’s necessity. What is interesting, however, is how exactly this conceptual change occurred at the end of 1676 and what its philosophical and methodological implications are. (shrink)

In this paper I use a (post)phenomenological approach to clarify the objective cultural expansion of our technology. Thus, I establish a conceptual analogy between two different philosophical analyses of human–machine relations – one historical and one phenomenological. I develop the analogy between them and their corresponding concepts in several steps. (1) First, I present the Homo sapiens technicus tendency and then the phenomenological differentiation between body schema and body image. All of these elucidate our involvement with machines. (2) Then, I (...) conceptualize the term ‘context’, coupling its structural stability with the idea of distextaulity in order to achieve a better empirical understanding of our technological contradictions. (3) I continue to develop and enrich the analogy by illuminating the functional similarities – fluid boundary, automation, complexity – between contextual structures on the one hand and body schemata on the other. (4) Finally, I explore a deeper causal and narrative connection between those strands, shedding light on an interesting twofold circularity: a circular causation and a double narrative within Homo sapiens technicus. (shrink)

В настоящата книга се изследва идеята за случайността през нейното историческо и концептуално развитие и са отделени пет основни и типични понятия. Анализът тръгва от класическите примери – Платон, Аристотел, Кант и Хегел – и стига до съвременния контекст на случайността, който е представен през теорията на вероятностите и теорията на сложността. Някои от изведените понятия са формализирани и имат по-логически, математически или пък информационен характер, а други са по-скоро физически или субектни, но всички те са представени в една обща (...) историческа типология. В нея се включва и парадигмата срещу случайността, която има теоретична, културна и дори органична природа. (shrink)

Книгата проследява зараждането на един от най-важните и продължителни исторически конфликти във философията на природата: борбата между релативисти и абсолютисти по отношение на пространството, времето и движението. Катализатор на този конфликт е Рене Декарт - първият, опитващ се да създаде последователна релационистична система във физиката, която обаче започва да ерозира още с възраженията на Нютон. Изследването разкрива и разгръща фундаменталните светогледни позиции на двамата учени през персонална, понятийна и контекстуална рамка. Ако използваме клишета, то в крайна сметка бащата на модерната (...) философия /Декарт/ и бащата на модерната физика /Нютон/ се разминават - точно както се разминават непрестанно идеите и понятията. В изследването са преведени за първи път на български език /от латински и от френски/ два основополагащи и често цитирани откъса от Нютон и Декарт. (shrink)

The volume Philosophy and Life Sciences in Dialogue is a result of the IV. International Summer School Bioethics in Context, organized by Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” and FernUniversität in Hagen. The book is exemplary in many ways. It contains 11 high-quality articles on fundamental themes and concepts with real philosophical depth – nature, autonomy, the future of trans- and post-humanism, the meta-topic of bioethics and its relations with life sciences. The authors present illuminating historical backgrounds as a context to (...) these theoretical discussions and a source of interesting or forgotten arguments. Most of the articles analyze recent and avantgarde scientific research with its social implications: CRISPR-Cas9 technology, digitalization of health care, justification of animal experiments, questions of human cloning, moral enhancement and the artificial synthesis of life. The main idea of the book is that bioethics is necessarily connected to human practice: it is not just knowledge but a living culture. (shrink)

The ancient Thracian megalithic and stone-hewn sacred places are full of symbols closely connected with the Thracian mythology and ancient cult practices which were typical for this area. Among them the most numerous are the huge stone-hewn human footprints, which in Bulgarian folklore were regarded as the footprints of the hero Krali Marko, who was thought of as the guardian of the people in Bulgaria. In the contemporary science studying Thrace he is believed to have been the folklore successor of (...) the Thracian Dionysus.Marking the sacred place with a stone-hewn footstep altar of the hero was authentic evidence for the believers in ancient times that the god had been there in primordial mythological times. In this way, through the contact with the divine, the monumental rock turns into sacred and the place turns into a sanctuary. The raw becomes boiled, Nature becomes culture. With the establishment of Christianity as the sole religion in the Roman Empire since the 4th century, some of the Thracian megalithic sanctuaries have been abandoned. Others have been Christianized. Later, others in the Middle Ages were converted into Islamic sacred places. In this way they became permanently sacred places on the Balkans. Part of the signs-symbols in them have a new meaning in the spirit of the new religions.Key words: anthropology; history of culture; religion; mythology; archaeology. (shrink)

Resumen: Los antiguos espacios sagrados tracios megaliticos y dolménicos están llenos de símbolos estrechamente conectados con la mitología de los tracios y las antiguas prácticas de culto, típicas de esta área. Las más numerosas son las grandes tallas en piedra de huellas que el folclore búlgaro considera las del heroe Krali Marko, considerado como el guardia de las personas en Bulgaria. En la ciencia contemporánea que estudia la Tracia se cree que él ha sido el sucesor del Dionisio tracio.Hacer un (...) lugar sagrado con una piedra tallada de su huella como altar del héroe, fue realmente una autentica prueba para los creyentes de la antiguedad, de que Dios habia estado allí en la primogenia época mitológica. En este sentido, mediante el contacto con lo divino, la roca monumental se convierte en sagrada y el lugar se convierte en un santuario. Lo crudo se convierte en cocido, la Naturaleza se convierte en cultura. Con el establecimiento de la Cristianidad como única religion en el Imperio Romano desde el siglo IV, algunos de los santuarios megalíticos de los Tracios fueron abandonados, aunque otros fueron cristianizados. Después, en la Edad Media, otros fueron apropiados como espacio sagrado Islámico. De esta manera, permanecen como espacios sagrados en los Balcanes. Parte de los signos-símbolos que hay en ellos han adquirido nuevos significados debido al espiritu de las nuevas religiones. Palabras claves: Antrología; historia de la cultura; religión; mitología; arqueología. (shrink)

Bioethics as it stands today is a typically American product, but whether it can be spread across the globe as easily as Coca-Cola remains to be seen. Historically, we can observe that the internationalization of bioethics has taken place in a form of concentric waves beginning in the United States and encompassing increasingly new territories having older roots. Born in the 1960s, bioethics as the study of ethical issues in life sciences began to permeate the Anglo-Saxon world. Ten years later (...) it penetrated countries with developed liberal democratic traditions and remnants of the different Protestant attitudes to life where issues such as patients' rights, abortion, euthanasia, eugenics quickly started to appear frequently in newspapers, magazines, and on television. Then in the '80s the bioethics wave swept into the European community, and by the end of the '80s and early '90s bioethics advanced timidly into Eastern Europe. Because the difficult birth of bioethics in Eastern Europe is not widely known, the purpose here is to provide a perspective of that development, including its struggle with a totalitarian legacy, as well as to offer some comments as to how current cultural gaps between East and West, and especially between the Western and Orthodox worlds, might be bridged. (shrink)

As an idealist, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz could not recognize anything corporeal as substantial. However, under the influence of Cartesian terminology, he devoted considerable effort to analysing the corporeal world, while not recognizing its real substantiality of course. Leibniz took the concept of substance from Plato, Aristotle and the scholastics, but developed it in two ways. It is a well-known fact that Leibniz introduced the term ‘corporeal substance’ in his letter to Antoine Arnauld dated to October 1687. In the letter, Leibniz (...) understands an object of nature, like an animal or a plant, as ‘corporeal substance’. In the very same letter, Leibniz introduces the terms ‘indivisibility’ and ‘phenomenon’. Every corporeal substance can be real only as a unity, i.e. by being indivisible. Such entity must have a soul or at least an entelechy. In an opposite case, that entity would not be a real unity but just a phenomenon. No corporeal entity is indivisible and therefore not a substance. The paper aims at introducing Leibniz’s distinction between substances and phenomena and taking a closer look at the historicalphilosophical influences Leibniz experienced while developing his views of the corporeal world. Aristotle and Descartes will receive most of the attention, of course, as the concepts of ‘entelechy’ and ‘hylomorphism’ were introduced by the former, and the understanding of corporeal substance as determined by extension alone is part of the latter. The core of the original critique by Leibniz takes off from the properties of the continuum as well as the nature of shape, motion and extension. The case of continuum will receive special attention. It is analysed with the help of the novel approaches by Samuel Levey and Vassil Vidinsky. Leibniz was critical about our poor understanding of the continuum but his own interpretation of it was not fully consistent either. Although the new developments enable us to take a fresh look that has not been possible so far, the issue remains open for further study. (shrink)