One of the major contributions of Henri de Lubac to contemporary theology is his reflection on the senses of Holy Scripture. Started in Catholicisme , his reflection on this subject reached its full development in Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre sens de l'Ecriture , and was taken up again by way of a synthesis in L'Ecriture dans la Tradition . His book on Origen expresses well the central idea: God reveals himself in history, but these historical events are to be understood (...) spiritually. (shrink)
There is no general agreement among scholars that Aristotle had a unified concept of phantasia. That is evident from the most cursory glance through the literature. Freudenthal speaks of the contradictions into which Aristotle seems to fall in his remarks about phantasia, and explains the contradictions as due to the border position which phantasia occupies between Wahrnehmung and thinking. Ross, in Aristotle, p. 143, talks of passages on phantasia in De Anima 3. 3 which constitute ‘a reversal of his doctrine (...) of sensation’ and perhaps do not ‘represent his deliberate view’. This is a serious state of affairs, since De Anima 3. 3 is Aristotle’s main discussion of phantasia. Of passages on phantasia, appearances and images in De Anima 3. 3, Hamlyn says: ‘There is clearly little consistency here’. Even Schofield, who is more optimistic about saving the unity of Aristotle’s concept than the last two scholars, grants that ‘some of the inconsistencies of Aristotle’s account seem more than merely apparent’.1 He thinks of Aristotle’s phantasia as a ‘loose-knit, family concept’. My purpose here is to suggest that Aristotle is more consistent in his use of phantasia than his critics will allow him to be. The translation of the term as imagination frequently adds unnecessarily to the confusion, so I shall avoid it and use transliteration instead. (shrink)
Lucrările Simpozionului Internaţional Cartea, România, Europa. Ediţia a II-1, 20–24 septembrie 2009. Edited by Julieta Rotaru. Secţiunea a treia: Studii Euroasiatice şi Afroasiatice—De la mit la ritual. Bucharest: Editura Biblioteca Bucureştilor, 2010. Pp. 461–738. Travaux de Symposium International Le Livre, la Roumanie, l’Europe. Troisième édition, 20–24 septembre 2010. Vol. 3: Études euro- et afro-asiatiques, III A: La Veda-Vedāṅga et l’Avesta entre oralité et écriture. Edited by Jan E. M. Houben and Julieta Rotaru. Bucharest: Éditeur Bibliothèque de Bucarest, 2011. Pp. 11–532.
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A great deal of ink has been spilled on the topic of "Augustinian illumination" over the past two hundred years. Why add more? Although there have been, and continue to be, disagreements over the philosophical relevance of "Augustinian illumination," a standard picture of "Augustinian illumination" is widespread in journal articles, encyclopedias, and commentaries on medieval philosophy. "Augustinian illumination" is widely understood as that Platonic account of knowledge that holds (...) that absolutely certain, necessary truth is attained not via the senses, which are mutable and thus incapable of delivering certainty, but via awareness of the eternality of the divine ideas in the mind of God. Further, the secondary literature has routinely described "Augustinian illumination" as offering an account of knowledge that is different from and incompatible with Aristotle's emphasis on the necessity of input from sensible species in our knowledge of the natures of material things. Finally, the literature has consistently represented Bonaventure as continuing "Augustinian illumination," and Aquinas as rejecting it, and has represented Bonaventure and Aquinas as in agreement that Aristotle and Augustine's cognitive psychologies are incompatible.I have argued elsewhere that this standard representation of "Augustinian illumination" is perhaps best seen as the product of the era of the retrieval of medieval philosophy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Here, my focus is on two texts long considered central to Bonaventure's continuation of "Augustinian illumination" and Aquinas's rejection of it: Bonaventure's Question IV of the Quaestiones disputatae de scientia Christi , and Aquinas's Summa theologiae Ia. 84, 1-8 . My argument is that Aquinas and Bonaventure do not interpret Augustine as following a Platonic epistemological schema, nor do they agree that Aristotle and Augustine hold contradictory cognitive psychologies. Instead, both Bonaventure and Aquinas interpret Augustine as consciously rejecting Platonic epistemology and as ripe for assimilation with Aristotelian epistemological givens, including the notion that paradigmatic knowledge proceeds from the senses, and both articulate a cognitive psychology that harmonizes Augustinian and Aristotelian elements. In other words, if by "Augustinian illumination" we mean the continuation of a Platonic account of knowledge at odds with an Aristotelian emphasis on the necessity of the senses in the creation of certain knowledge, then at least in these texts, Bonaventure does not continue "Augustinian illumination," nor does Aquinas reject it, because "it" does not exist in their reading or interpretation of Augustine's texts.After some brief remarks about the history of the interpretative strain that has marked the commentary on these texts, I begin with Aquinas's ST Ia 84.1-8 in section I. Although it is chronologically a decade or so later, Aquinas's streamlined treatment of the role of the eternal reasons in the production of scientia sets up a clear comparison with Bonaventure's slightly earlier, longer Quaestiones disputatae de scientia Christi , which I discuss in section II. The similarities between Bonaventure and Aquinas's positions can be seen with greater clarity when contrasted with Henry of Ghent's slightly later treatment in the Summa theologiae, Q. 1, art. 1, 2, which I treat in section III. In particular what emerges is a clear contrast with how Ghent reads and assimilates the Augustinian corpus: Ghent's is an explicitly pro-Platonic Augustine, and his formulation of "illumination" is precisely the reading of Augustine that Bonaventure and Aquinas reject. I conclude with remarks highlighting the similarities in Bonaventure and Aquinas's approach vis a vis Ghent's and suggest the need to revise our notions of thirteenth century approaches to "Augustinian illumination" as well as our narratives regarding the assimilation of Aristotle's epistemological corpus in the middle-decades of the thirteenth-century.Interpretative strainBonaventure's question IV and Aquinas's ST Ia 84, 1-8 have long shown signs of interpretive strain. Detailed commentaries on this section of the Summa often skip over article 5 on the Augustinian eternal reasons entirely, or simply reiterate stock interpretations. Alternatively, it is grudgingly admitted that Question 84 evidences an. (shrink)
Artificial intelligence in all its developments is advancing faster than the capacity of institutions and organizations to offer legal, but also deontological responses: assuming the ethical implications of the new digital scenarios where technology learns from human routines to personalize content is fundamental from the academic, politicy and business spheres. This paper offers an interpretative framework of the evolution of smart speakers and voice assistants as tools for information singularization in parallel to the study of the European framework for the (...) creation of an ethics of ai. The results show an effort by institutions to respond to an unstoppable progress and demonstrate that ai cannot be addressed by legal regulation alone but is above all a matter of ethical preference. (shrink)
Resumo: neste artigo pretendo estender a evidenciação do encobrimento do mundo da vida formulada por Husserl ao uso das tecnologias disruptivas da 4ª Revolução Industrial, mais precisamente o uso da inteligência artificial (IA) nas plataformas sociais. Primeiro, apresento o conceito de mundo da vida que se mantém consistente ao longo das obras de Husserl; em seguida, apresento seu encobrimento derivado da matematização da natureza e do rompimento com o telos, o que originou a crise da humanidade europeia. Segundo, mais camadas (...) de encobrimento do mundo da vida vão se sobrepondo com a 3ª e 4ª RIs. Em mais detalhe, o encobrimento e o afastamento do mundo da vida provocado pelo uso da IA e seus efeitos negativos, individual e coletivamente. Terceiro, a proposta Husserliana de retorno ao mundo da vida através de uma epoché radical. Concluo que a solução proposta por Husserl para a crise ainda é atual e urgente. Abstract: in this paper I intend to extend the disclosure of the cover-up of the lifeworld formulated by Husserl to the use of disruptive technologies of the 4th Industrial Revolution, more precisely the use of artificial intelligence on social platforms. First, I present the concept of lifeworld that remains consistent throughout Husserl's works; then, I present its cover-up derived from the mathematization of nature and the break with the telos, which originated the crisis of european humanity. Second, more layers of cover-up of the lifeworld overlap with the 3rd and 4th IRs. In more detail, the cover-up and detachment from the lifeworld caused by the use of AI and its negative effects, individually and collectively. Third, the Husserlian proposal of return to the lifeworld through a radical epoché. I conclude that the solution proposed by Husserl to the crisis is still actual and urgent. (shrink)
“If you find it strange that, in setting out these elements, I do not use those qualities called heat, cold, moistness, and dryness, as do the philosophers, I shall say to you that these qualities appear to me to be themselves in need of explanation. Indeed, unless I am mistaken, not only these four qualities, but also all the others (indeed all the forms of inanimate bodies) can be explained without the need of supposing for that purpose any other thing (...) in their matter than the motion, size, shape, and arrangement of its parts.” So does Descartes, in his The World, or Treatise on Light [Le Monde ou Traité de la Lumière], express the uniphenomenal principle of the physical world, which is the basis - or foundation - of his great cosmic synthesis. The uniphenomenal character of Cartesian physics - namely, explaining all phenomena and appearances from a single primordial phenomenon (and substance) - has such a great semantic and intuitive value for the structure of the human mind that Plato, even before Aristotle’s hyle, had come to contemplate his concept of chora, the cosmic and universal matrix at the base of all phenomena, existing before and beyond the coming into existence of the elements and of sensible things. Even the physics of Democritus is uniphenomenal. A perfect example of uniphenomenal physics in our time is the Spacio-fluido-dynamics of the scientist Marco Todeschini (Bergamo, 1899 - 1988) who, with his monumental Teoria delle apparenze [Theory of Appearances] of ’49 tried to clear a path towards the hope of reaching a Cartesian kind of unified cosmic synthesis. (We accept only the fundamental concept of Todeschi’s theory here, that is, the uniphenomenal character of his physics, without occupying ourselves with criteria such as the value or the plausibility of his hypotheses.) This concept of uniphenomenal physics will serve as an ultra-clear instrument to dissipate the epistemological fog of AI (Artificial Intelligence). (shrink)