In his commentary on Plato’s Parmenides Proclos describes the maternal and paternal contributions to reproduction as of equal value: The paternal seed furnishes potential λόγοι, the mother actualises them and so causes the reversion of the offspring. However, the definition of the mother as actualising cause is linked to the particular circumstances of conception in the sphere of nature. In general, Proclus bases his concept of femininity on the idea of a shared, but not equal activity by paternal and maternal (...) causes. In the metaphysical sphere the maternal cause is distinguished by its inspiring activity, that is, it provokes the procession of powers that are permanently anchored in the father and so it enables the begetting of the offspring as an entity separate from the father. This activity involves a loss of perfection, which is the basis for a difference in value between the activities of the maternal and paternal causes. (shrink)

On the one hand, Scheler's critique of Kant's concept of a priori benefits from Husserl to a large extent, and it complements and deepens Husserl's. On the other hand, Scheler also critiques Husserl's definition of a priori. Husserl's material a priori as ideal object primarily thanks to his so-called "Bolzano- turn". In this connection, Scheler grabs hold of the relation of Husserl to Bolzano from the very beginning. For Scheler, Husserl thinks in a "platonic" way, and still falls in a (...) new type of "Platonism", or rather, logical Platonism, although he correctly refuses the ordinary Platonism. In Scheler's view, Husserl's phenomenological reduction is "not purely" executed, and therefore his phenomenological experience is problematic, or more precisely, the relation between categorial intuition and sensuous intuition is problematic. The final aim of Scheler's critique of Husserl's phenomenological understanding of "objective a priori" is to win the primary position of categorial intuition and its content , ethical insight and its correlate , and ultimately of phenomenological ethics of material value.Einerseits nimmt Schelers Kritik an Kant bezüglich des Begriffs des Apriori die Einsichten Husserls in großem Umfang auf. Schelers Kritik an Kant ergänzt und vertieft die Husserlsche Kant-Kritik. Andererseits kritisiert er aber auch Husserls Bestimmung des Apriori. Vor allem verdankt sich das materiale Apriori als idealer Gegenstand bei Husserl der sogenannten “Bolzano’schen Wendung”. Von Anfang an kritisiert Scheler Husserl in diesem Punkt, indem er dem Verhältnis zwischen Bolzano und Husserl immer präziser nachging. Für Scheler unterliegt Husserl mit Recht keinem platten Platonismus. Aber dennoch verfahre Husserl immerhin “platonistisch”, er unterliege einem “Neoplatonismus”, bzw. einem logischen Platonismus. Weil die phänomenologische Reduktion bei Husserl nach Schelers Meinung “nicht reinlich” durchgeführt wird, ist die phänomenologische Erfahrung bei Husserl problematisch, genauer gesagt ist das Verhältnis zwischen der kategorialen Anschauung und der sinnlichen Anschauung problematisch. Der Endzweck von Schelers Kritik an der phänomenologischen Auffassung des gegenständlichen Apriori bei Husserl besteht darin, die primäre Stelle der kategorialen Anschauung und ihrer Gehalte , sowie der sittlichen Einsicht und ihrer Korrelate und zuletzt der phänomenologisch materialen Wertethik zu gewinnen.S jedne strane, Schelerova kritika Kantova pojma a priori u velikoj mjeri duguje Husserlu, te dopunjuje i produbljuje Husserlovu. S druge strane, Scheler kritizira i Husserlovu definiciju apriorija. Husserlov materijalni a priori kao idealni predmet prvenstveno proizlazi iz njegova takozvanog bolzanovskog obrata. Prema Scheleru, Husserl razmišlja na "platonski" način te upada u novi tip "platonizma" ili, točnije, logičkog platonizma, iako s pravom odbacuje obični platonizam. Scheler smatra da Husserlova fenomenološka redukcija nije izvedena "čisto" te da je stoga njegovo fenomenološko iskustvo proble- matično ili, točnije, problematičan je odnos između kategorijalnog zora i osjetilnog zora. Krajnji cilj Schelerove kritike Husserlova fenomenološkog shvaćanja "objektivnog a priori" jest zadobivanje primarne pozicije kategorijalnog zora i njegova sadržaja , etičkog uvida i njegova korelata te, na koncu, fenomenološke etike materijalne vrijednosti. (shrink)

Although Leibniz characterised himself in the “New Essays” as a “Platonic” as opposed to a “Democritean” philosopher, his intellectual relationship with the most famous of the Renaissance Neoplatonists, Marsilio Ficino, has received little attention. Here we review what can be thus far established regarding Leibniz’s acquaintance with portions of Ficino’s Opera omnia of 1576. We compare Ficino’s disenchantment with the atomistic materialism of Lucretius, which he had favoured in his youth, and his turn to Platonism for inspiration, with Leibniz’s own (...) reported disenchantment with Gassendi’s Epicurean atomism and his invention of a vitalistic monadology that, despite Leibniz’s reservations regarding Ficinian magic, resembles Ficinian nature philosophy in number of striking respects. (shrink)

In his commentary on Plato’sParmenidesProclos describes the maternal and paternal contributions to reproduction as of equal value: The paternal seed furnishes potential λόγοι, the mother actualises them and so causes the reversion of the offspring. However, the definition of the mother as actualising cause is linked to the particular circumstances of conception in the sphere of nature. In general, Proclus bases his concept of femininity on the idea of a shared, but not equal activity by paternal and maternal causes. In (...) the metaphysical sphere the maternal cause is distinguished by its inspiring activity, that is, it provokes the procession of powers that are permanently anchored in the father and so it enables the begetting of the offspring as an entity separate from the father. This activity involves a loss of perfection, which is the basis for a difference in value between the activities of the maternal and paternal causes. (shrink)

In his commentary on Plato’s Parmenides Proclos describes the maternal and paternal contributions to reproduction as of equal value: The paternal seed furnishes potential λόγοι, the mother actualises them and so causes the reversion of the offspring. However, the definition of the mother as actualising cause is linked to the particular circumstances of conception in the sphere of nature. In general, Proclus bases his concept of femininity on the idea of a shared, but not equal activity by paternal and maternal (...) causes. In the metaphysical sphere the maternal cause is distinguished by its inspiring activity, that is, it provokes the procession of powers that are permanently anchored in the father and so it enables the begetting of the offspring as an entity separate from the father. This activity involves a loss of perfection, which is the basis for a difference in value between the activities of the maternal and paternal causes. (shrink)