From a very young age till the last days of his life, Stanisław Staszic was occupied by the question of the relationship between God and Nature. In particular, the Polish thinker was interested in the vision of the world in which human life and Nature were seen in unison, in accordance with laws of reason and the outcomes of scientific investigations. His deliberations on Nature validated his monistic worldview, encompassed within a deistic general framework. Staszic pointed out many times that (...) natural order is the creation of God, however, earthly issues are in the hands of humans. In the last years of his life he withdrew from God. He did not accept the Church’s hierarchy, while his approach to the Creator was ambivalent. (shrink)

Osiemnastu autorów, uczestniczących w tym przedsięwzięciu, zamierzało zaprezentować panoramę intelektualną epok, główne osiągnięcia, ale także dylematy znacznie wykraczające poza omawiany okres, posiadające odniesienia jak najbardziej aktualne.

Spór między antropologią naturalistyczną a antynaturalistyczną, w którym każda partia usiłuje wyjaśnić osobliwość człowieka wychodząc z opozycji natura - kultura (człowiek jako byt do natury sprowadzony albo naturze przeciwstawny) jest zasadniczo nierozwiązywalny. Kulturalizm (stanowisko autorki) zakłada realność bytu jako pewnej całości, tzn. realność społeczno-historycznej obiektywności, w której opozycja miedzy naturą a kulturą zostaje zniesiona.

The abstract Everyone who gets to know deeper with the Nietzsche philosophy is forced to think about a mutual relationship of a culture and a biology. The main problem to correct show of above relationships is the understanding of the meaning of a language with reference to the culture and the biology. Considerations which are represented here are inspired by the Nietzsche philosophy. They are split by three parts. In the first part there is shown the meaning of the language (...) to create the herd in the Nietzsche philosophy. The second part develops his qualification of the language as a shortening of communication. The final part tries to refer the functioning of the language to the sphere of a biological human being. As I think, only the biological perspective permits to overstep the rhetoric of the individualism expressed in the Nietzsche philosophy by the opposition among weak and strong, or else among a priest and a superman. Thanks to drawn consequence from accepted by Nietzsche of the reduction my to the animal sort we are forced to the reversal of the perspective of his thought. The herd is not a centre to create the superman as the aim of the all mankind, but the sense of the exceptionality of an each subject is a centre to a fixation of the reproduction of the genetic definite population. (shrink)

The article offers a summary of a number of approaches to contemporary humanities in which the main dynamics of research and methodology could be characterised as emancipation. The humanities is seen here not merely as an open discipline, but it is viewed as a method of research able of accepting its relational and indeterminate progress. The soft dimension of its analysis, which is also rooted in an individual biography of the researcher, results from a particular attention paid to other than (...) human subjects. In particular, the humanities related to digital culture and virtual reality needs to redefine its research methods but also communicate with other sources of perception and experience. This relational nature of contemporary humanities in which it reflects the complexity of multiple subjects and perspectives challenges more traditional positions of analysis but simultaneously offers a chance of development. (shrink)

This chapter uncovers a less investigated aspect of the relationship between the two most important scholastic schools of the Renaissance, Thomism and Scotism: the influence of Scotist literature on distinctions as seen in some sixteenth-century Thomists. The chapter has a primary focus on Chrysostomus Javelli’s engagement in his discussion of divine attributes with the Scotist doctrine of distinctions, but also considers other Thomist sources. First, the beginnings of the highly specialised Scotist literature on distinctions are traced back to the start (...) of the fourteenth century; I show how some early followers of Duns Scotus, in particular Francis of Meyronnes and Petrus Thomae, systematised Scotus’ ontology of the various grades of being by compiling lists of subtle distinctions to be applied to various levels of reality. I give some indications as to the later reception of these models of distinctions in the Scotist school. Special attention is paid to Étienne Brulefer, since his summary of Petrus Thomae’s model of seven distinctions was Javelli’s source for the Scotist doctrine. I then investigate how Javelli worked with Brulefer’s summary, and how he sought to integrate the Scotist doctrine into his own discussion of divine attributes. Thomists traditionally allowed only a rational or mental kind of distinction among divine attributes, and between them and the divine essence. Javelli, however, endeavours to show how the Thomist position may be reconciled with the Scotist doctrine of a formal or ex natura rei distinction. He did not always endorse this conciliatory approach; I hypothesise that he changed his mind on the subject over time. Finally, I show how other Renaissance Thomists reacted to the Scotist system of distinctions; in particular, I draw attention to the Thomists Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, Bartolomeo Manzoli, and Mattia Gibboni da Aquario, who all wrote treatises on Thomist distinction theory modelled on the Scotist system of distinctions. In some of this literature, lists of distinctions based on Thomist metaphysics were compiled in order to replace the Scotist system. I argue that Javelli’s approach is more conciliatory and, in fact, has some overlap with the concordist thought of Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who himself considered Scotus and Aquinas to be in fundamental agreement as regards the distinction between divine attributes. (shrink)

Zgodnie z klasycznym podejściem kultura jest przeciwieństwem natury, a człowiek jako istota przekształcająca świat jest motorem rozwoju cywilizacji. Pisma C. G. Junga zawierają nieklasyczną koncepcję kultury, zgodnie z którą nieświadomość zbiorowa determinuje sposób interpretacji i rozumienia rzeczywistości, a tym samym rozwój kultury. Psychiatra uważał człowieka za istotę tworzącą symbole. Pisał o „popędzie symbolu”, który sprawia, że powstają one spontanicznie. Istnieje związek między działaniem instynktów, które mają podłoże biologiczne, a archetypowym źródłem symboli. W nieświadomości tkwią siły natury – w szczególności (...) popęd libido i instynkty. Kultura powstaje pomiędzy nieświadomością a świadomością, a przy tym proces jej rozwoju ma aspekt gatunkowy. (shrink)

In this paper I reflect on the mythocreative potential of Gimbutas’ narrative reconstruction of archaic culture and its impact on the contemporary critique of culture. First, I revise the notion of ‘nature’ in the context of two opposing conceptual paradigms of change-over-time, namely cyclic and linear. Then, I discuss symbolic connotation of ‘Nature – Culture’ interrelationship with special reference to the ‘idyllic vision of Goddess’ proposed by Marija Gimbutas (1921-1994), American archaeologist of Lithuanian origin, the author of the groundbreaking books (...) on Neolithic religion The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1974) and The Language of the Goddess (1989). Gimbutas’ work based on archaeological evidence and also anthropological, linguistic, ethnological and folklore studies, aims in supporting her general thesis that the European prehistoric culture, so called Old Europe (c. 6 500 – 3 500 BC), was peaceful, egalitarian, nature-revering, matrifocal and worshiped a Great Goddess as giver of all life. In conclusion, I undertake a question whether this ecofeminist mythization of Nature, inspired by the ancient artifacts and Gimbutas’ reconstruction of the narrative structure they represent, may provide inspiration for present and future cultural transformation, or rather remains merely past-oriented sentimentalism and outdated eco-romanticism. (shrink)

L'articolo prende in esame i più recenti studi sulla filosofia della natura di Hegel.

German theologian F. D. E. Schleiermacher's doctrine of God-the first to be developed in the post-Kantian era-fundamentally changed the course of Christian theology. The degree to which his doctrine of God was influenced by the philosophy of Benedict de Spinoza remains in dispute, however. This study examines the ways in which Schleiermacher actively adopted elements of Spinoza's thought in the development of his own theological doctrine of God. Julia Lamm's analysis of little-known but seminal essays by Schleiermacher reveals his young (...) creative genius in daring to go beyond the neo-Spinozism of Herder and the post-Kantianism of Fichte by developing his own post-Kantian Spinozism. Schleiermacher's unique simultaneous appropriation of Kant and Spinoza is characterized by four themes: an organic monism, an ethical determinism, a critical realism, and a nonanthropomorphic view of God, which Lamm traces through his two major theological works, On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers and The Christian Faith. Ultimately, Lamm finds that Schleiermacher departs from Spinoza in significant ways. Most notably, he talks about "the living God" who is best expressed through the divine attributes of love and wisdom. This living God is what Schleiermacher refers to as the "third alternative" to, on the one hand, the anthropomorphized God of orthodox Protestantism and, on the other hand, Spinoza's natura naturans. (shrink)

Il testo affronta, alla luce delle più recenti pubblicazioni, il tema del rapporto storia e natura in Hegel; e offre una sintesi del corso di Filosofia della storia tenuto da Russo A. nel corrente anno accademico.