A portrait of scholastic approaches to a qualified disagreement of opinions, focusing on the antagonism of scholastic probabilism and anti-probabilism in the early modern era.

Philosophical epistemology bases its understanding of cognition on the heuristic short-circuit of the content with the object of cognition. This short-circuit corresponds to the idea of truth in the sense of some kind of correspondence between the content and the object of knowledge. The problem that arises from this is the question of the verifiability of this correspondence, which would presuppose a transcendent standpoint that, for lack of existence, becomes a mere vanishing point of reflection. The standpoint of reflection corresponds (...) to the adoption of a transcendent standpoint that is nevertheless anchored in the cognizing subject. The question of correspondence thus becomes a question of certainty. This leads to a second, this time theoretical short-circuit, namely the conflation of the actual question of a theory of the phenomenon of cognition, the question of the genesis (or generation) of the content of cognition, with the question of the certainty of this content. This conflation ultimately leads to the question of which (by definition subjective) elements of the cognitive process can guarantee certainty, and thus to a further, third, namely methodological short-circuit through the definition of the (in truth holistic) cognitive situation in terms of a subject-object opposition and the associated exclusion of the knowledge of the empirical natural sciences from cognitive reflection. The aim of this short paper (which is the introduction to a recent publication entitled 'Rehabilitation of Pure Reason') is to find an adequate understanding of the phenomenon of cognition by reversing these short-circuits in reverse order, i.e. by starting from the affirmative acknowledgement of the holism of the real cognitive situation, which excludes subjective certainty as a reasonable goal of cognition from the outset. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Excerpt from Einführung in eine Philosophie des Geisteslebens About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, (...) however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain (...) in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)

Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Josef von / Polarität.

It has become common to draw parallels between scholastic philosophy and modern analytic philosophy. As this paper will show, there exist historical reasons within the scholastic tradition itself to support such comparisons. These reasons bolster a Similarity Thesis regarding the style of reasoning in modern analytic and premodern scholastic thought. In the case of early modern scholastics, it is even possible to substantiate an Identification Thesis, indicating that they primarily identified as scholastics with reference to a reasoning style closely resembling (...) that of post-1970 analytic philosophy. While historians of scholastic thought are correct in asserting that there is no single essential characteristic of scholasticism, but rather a plurality of characteristics, the specific role of a particular reasoning style in defining scholastic theology demonstrates that only this style or method was essential for the self-identification of early modern scholastics as scholastics. This discussion primarily centers on definitions of scholastic theology, as explicit definitions of scholastic philosophy appear to be relatively rare in the scholastic tradition. However, it should be noted that the “analytic” reasoning style associated with scholastic theology was evidently a characteristic of scholastic philosophy as well. (shrink)

Es scheint, als wären wir ein halbes Jahrhundert lang an einem Denker vorbeigegangen, der uns zur Wissens- und Wissenschaftsproblematik mehr zu sagen hatte als mancher, den wir feiern. Gemeint ist der russische Philosoph Semen Ljudvigovic Frank. Auf der Basis seiner Forschungen versucht diese Studie systematisch-kritisch einen Neuansatz, der zu ungewohnten Konsequenzen vor allem in Wissenschaftstheorie, Anthropologie und Religionsphilosophie führt.

The ethical problem in the present time.--The ethical principle.--A defence of the ethical principle.--Evolution of the ethical principle.--Morality and religion.--The present status of morality.

The immediate source of Grotius’s etiamsi-claim (natural law would be valid even if there were no God or human affairs were no concern for him) has never been convincingly identified. This paper argues that Grotius’s formulation of the claim derives from a very similar sentence of Bartolomé de Medina (1527–1580), a Spanish scholastic and eminent member of the School of Salamanca, whose work Grotius quotes in De iure belli ac pacis. Medina ascribes the sentence to Seneca, but there is apparently (...) no such proposition in Seneca’s extant works. Nevertheless, related propositions were attributed to Seneca in the medieval period, not least in sermons and pastoral writings, even in vernacular languages. This shows that, even outside academic debates, counterfactual reasoning involving God’s non-existence or indifference to human affairs was not considered illicit or dangerous in the Middle Ages. (shrink)

The concept of event provides the essential bridge from the realm of virtuality of the quantum state to real phenomena in space and time. We ask how much we can gather from existing theory about the localization of an event and point out that decoherence and coarse graining—though important—do not suffice for a consistent interpretation without the additional principle of random realization.