Para toda a espécie de ente existe um supremo bem possível. Como o homem também é ente de uma certa espécie, deve haver também um certo bem supremo que lhe seja possível. Não me refiro ao bem supremo em sentido absoluto, mas o supremo bem para o homem, visto que os bens possíveis ao homem têm um fim e não procedem ao infinito. Investiguemos pela razão qual seja este supremo que é possível ao homem. Deve ser ele um bem que (...) se atribui à sua virtude superior. Não se trata, pois, de algo referente à alma vegetativa - que é própria das plantas - nem de algo referente a alma sensitiva - que é própria dos animais, e por isso os deleites sensíveis pertencem aos animais. A virtude superior do homem é a razão e a inteligência; e constitui a direção da vida humana tanto na teoria como na prática. Portanto, o bem supremo, que é possível ao homem, refere-se à sua inteligência. Por isso, devem doer-se os homens que se atêm apenas aos deleites sensíveis, porque relegam os bens intelectuais e assim jamais atingem seu bem supremo. Entregam- se tanto aos sentidos, a ponto de não procurarem o que é bem próprio do intelecto. Contra eles clama o Filósofo, quando diz: "Ai de vós, homens, que sois contados entre o número dos brutos, pois não cuidais daquilo que em vós é divino" [texto não encontrado]. O que ele chama de divino no homem é o intelecto. De fato, se algo de divino existe no homem, é digno que seja o intelecto. Assim, pois, como é divino aquilo que é ótimo no conjunto de todos os entes, assim também chamamos de divino àquilo que é o supremo no homem. Ora, no intelecto humano há uma potência especulativa e uma prática. Isto se manifesta pelo fato de que o homem por vezes é especulativo, a respeito daquelas coisas sobre as quais não exerce sua atividade, como no caso das coisas eternas; e por vezes é também ativo, segundo a determinação do intelecto, ao escolher uma coisa intermediária em todas as ações humanas. Assim sabemos que há genericamente no homem estas duas potências intelectuais. (shrink)

O problema da felicidade é recorrente nos tratados sobre Ética da Antiguidade. Os medievais defrontam-se com eles ao escreverem seus próprios textos. Neste trabalho procura-se analisar a forma como Tomás de Aquino e Boécio de Dácia, ao produzirem textos não teológicos, incorporam a seus tratados as obras antigas, principalmente de Aristóteles e Severino Boécio.

Careful examination of the arguments used in the De aeternitate mundi attributed to Boethius of Dacia shows that this is not a work of radical Aristotelianism, but a teaching text aimed at showing students how to approach the question of the eternity of the world in their disputations. A comparison of the text with some of the articles condemned in 1277 demonstrates that the articles do not originate from the text and that the work was not targeted by Tempier. (...) What is learned from the text about disputations on the eternity of the world is then used to show another way of reading these articles which is consistent with Tempier’s assertion that they were put forward by students during disputations and to some extent enables one to reconstruct the debates as they happened. This also shows how the students distorted the arguments of their masters for their own ends, which in turn suggests how the so-called ‘double truth’ may have been inspired by the De aeternitate mundi or a text like it. Finally, this helps explain the apparent reaction against the arguments used in the De aeternitate on the part of a number of philosophy teachers during the 1270s. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Boethii Daci Aliorumque Sophismata by Boethius of DaciaJulie Brumberg-ChaumontBoethius of Dacia. Boethii Daci Aliorumque Sophismata. Edited by Sten Ebbesen and Irène Rosier-Catach. Corpus Philosophorum Danicorum Medii Aevi, 9. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark, 2021. Pp. 624. Hardback, 400.00 DKK.This volume offers a reliable and accurate scholarly edition of two collections of thirteenthcentury sophismata (logical and grammatical puzzles) contained in ms. Brugge, Stedelijke Openbare Bibliotheek 509 (=B) (...) and ms. Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana 12 sin. 3 (=F). Taken together, these two collections constitute a set of twenty-three sophismata called "Sophismata Florentino-Brugensia" in the catalogue published by Sten Ebbesen and Frédéric Goubier (A Catalogue of Thirteenth-Century Sophismata [Paris: Vrin, 2010]). These sophismata were previously available only in partial editions. Specifically, the two versions of the sophisma "Omnis homo de necessitate est animal," previously both ascribed to Boethius of Dacia, were partially edited from F by Grabmann in 1940 and from B by Roos in 1962. Other sophismata in this collection have been previously edited by Ebbesen, but their editions should now be considered "obsolete," according to the editor himself (9). Each sophisma is identified by an S followed by a number (S1, S2, etc.). In turn, each sophisma deals with several issues or problems, each one of which is identified by a P followed by a number (P1, P2, etc.). The volume is very usefully completed by an index of explicit and implicit references to other works and an index of parallel passages, both compiled by Kristian Thomsen Purreskov (591–601). Finally, this edition is accompanied by a selective but still rich index of words, where special attention has been dedicated to the sophismata by Boethius of Dacia (603–24). All the material is presented in a clear and accurate way. There are only a few minor material errors (specifically, the running titles for problems in S4 are messy; at 33, "a*" should be read as "b*"; at 49, "S14" should be read as "S18").Sten Ebbesen is the sole editor of all sophismata except for the three that deal with grammatical subjects, for which Irène Rosier-Catach is the main editor, with Ebbesen serving as a coeditor.Concerning the authorship of each sophisma, Ebbesen follows the indications contained in F, but he also provides some independent discussions (24–26). Thus, he ascribes two sophismata to Boethius of Dacia, ten to Peter of Auvergne, one to an otherwise unknown Nicholas of Normandy, and the remaining ten to anonymous masters. They are listed in detail in the "Index sophismatum et problematum" (65–69).After a summary of the contents of the volume, Ebbesen's introduction contains five sections of different lengths: first, a history of the edition (7–9); second, a general description of the structure and functioning of sophismata (9–13); third, a description of the seven manuscripts used for the edition (14–22); fourth, a discussion about authorship (22–58); and fifth, an explanation of the principles of the edition (58–62). In the third section, Ebbesen provides a wealth of information about manuscripts, stemma codicum, and evaluations of variants, especially about the relationship between S and B for the sophismata contained in both manuscripts. In this regard, Ebbesen establishes that B and F are probably not two independent reportationes of the same oral disputation, that they had a common ancestor, and that they do not depend on one another (25–32). The fourth section, about authorship, demonstrates that the collection contained in F is earlier than that contained in B. One major result is that the text copied in B (S1B) ("Omnis homo de necessitate est animal") is not by Boethius of Dacia (35). Because of F priority, that manuscript is chosen as the main witness for those sophismata or parts of sophismata that are common to F and B.The second section makes an extremely significant historical and doctrinal contribution to the history of logic, particularly the history of logical practices and their textual records. [End Page 705] Three constitutive parts of a sophisma are identified: first, the sophismatic sentence itself; second, a brief disputation (called here corpus sophismatis) about the sophismatic sentence... (shrink)

Propose une hypothèse originale sur les sources de la pensée de Bergson et sa portée profonde, sur le mouvement de son oeuvre et la méthode qui s'impose pour la lire, sur la place de sa philosophie dans l'histoire.

Vasile Frãteanu, Tratat de metafizicã Editura Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, 2002.

Razón, poesía, historia.--La cuestión del estoicismo español.--El querer.

A questão "se uma elocução perde seu significado com a destruição das coisas "surge como uma questão sobre o valor-verdade de declarações com um termo vazio como sujeito, a saber, como um subproblema do sofisma "Se 'omnis homo de necessitate est animal' é verdade quando não há homem algum ". Neste trabalho, trarei as discussões conforme elas se apresentam em "De signis" IV.2 de Roger Bacon, em "Quaestiones logicales", q. 2–3 de Peter John Olivi, no OHNEA de Boethius of (...) class='Hi'>Dacia, e no OHNEA de Anonymus Alani. Tais textos nos apresentam quatro modos diversos de nos relacionarmos com a questão sobre significação para OHNEA e, assim, com quatro posições diferentes sobre a relação entre significação e referência vazia. Usarei Anonymus Alani como o fio conductor de minha análise, inserindo outras posições onde tal se fizer relevante.The question 'whether an utterance loses its signification with the destruction of things ' is raised as a question about the truth-value of assertions with an empty term as a subject, namely as a sub-problem of the sophism 'Whether "omnis homo de necessitate est animal" is true when no man exists '. In this paper, I shall introduce the discussions as they are present in Roger Bacon's "De signis" IV.2, Peter John Olivi's "Quaestiones logicales", q. 2–3, Boethius of Dacia's OHNEA, and Anonymus Alani's OHNEA. These texts present us with four different ways of relating the question about signification to OHNEA, and therefore with four different positions regarding the relation between signification and empty reference. I shall use Anonymus Alani as the guiding thread of my analysis, inserting other positions where it is relevant. (shrink)

Israel Knohl Mesia dinainte de Iisus. Slujitorul pãtimitor de la Marea Moartã Traducere de Ana-Elena Ilinca, Ed. Dacia, Cluj-Napoca, 2001.

The paper provides a reconstruction of the notion of material Apriori while exhibiting the anti-Kantian inspiration and factual grounding thereof. The attempt is made to show that a non-formal Apriori obtains because the sensuous has a normative character; further, that the difference between material and formal eidetic laws is rooted in the difference between sensuous contents, given in experience, and intellectual contents, originating in activities of judgement. The material Apriori is not independent of all experience, since it is grounded on (...) sensuous eidetic contents and thus depends on the latter’s givenness and characteristics. It is thanks precisely to this ,contingency‘ that it has an ontological significance. (shrink)

Un verbe exprime en français l'un des secrets de notre être et l'une des clés de notre époque maniaco-dépressive : ce verbe, c'est revivre. Il a deux sens que tout paraît opposer. Revivre, c'est en effet renaître, retrouver le sentiment d'être vivant et relié à autrui. Mais c'est aussi se laisser rattraper par "un passé qui ne passe pas » et se replier sur soi-même. Chacun de nous fait cette double expérience, souvent sans le savoir. Il faut pourtant la penser, (...) l'affronter, résister à ce qui nous enferme, accéder à ce qui nous délivre. Inventaire de nos blessures et de nos ressources, diagnostic du moment présent, parcours dans les idées et les oeuvres, ces propos renouent avec les actes les plus intenses de notre vie. Un art de vivre, c'est-à-dire de revivre, qui pourrait bien être le seul possible aujourd'hui. (4e de couv.). (shrink)

Hegel is most famous for his view that conflicts between contrary positions are necessarily resolved. Whereas this optimism, inherent in modernity as such, has been challenged from Kierkegaard onward, many critics have misconstrued Hegel's own intentions. Focusing on the Science of Logic, this transformative reading of Hegel on the one hand exposes the immense force of Hegel's conception of tragedy, logic, nature, history, time, language, spirit, politics, and philosophy itself. Drawing out the implications of Hegel's insight into tragic conflicts, on (...) the other hand, De Boer brings into play a form of negativity that allows us to understand why the entanglement of complementary positions always tends to turn into their conflict, but not necessarily into its resolution. (shrink)