The direct reference point for these analyses is the process of making moral decisions, but a particular point of interest is the difficulty associated with making decisions when acting subjects are aware that their choice of moral good can lead to the breakdown of relationships with those close to them or to their exclusion from the group that have been most important to them so far in their lives, consequently causing them to experience loneliness. This difficulty is a challenge for (...) education, which in supporting the moral development of a maturing person should prepare her/him for choosing moral good even if this requires personal sacrifices. In these analyses, assuming that knowledge of moral good is not sufficient for morally good actions, I refer mainly to the virtues of character that facilitate making morally good decisions and I seek the answer to the question: what character traits should be shaped in maturing persons, so that as adults they can resist moral evil, even when this will clearly lead to the experience of loneliness? I propose these character traits as expressing moral virtues—especially the cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude. In this way, I join in the discussion relating to the teleology of education. I do not touch on the methodology of education, however. The argument is presented in two parts. In the first, I introduce the problem of decision-making implying consent to loneliness. In the second, I reflect on the characteristics of a person who is capable of making such a decision. (shrink)

One of the main challenges of the nonreductionist approach to complex structures and phenomena in philosophy of biology is its defense of the plausibility of the theory of emergence and downward causation. The tension between remaining faithful to the rules of physicalism and physical causal closure, while defending the novelty and distinctiveness of emergents from their basal constituents, makes the argumentation of many proponents of emergentism lacking in coherency and precision. In this article I aim at answering the suggestion of (...) several thinkers to redefine emergence and downward causation in terms of the broader Aristotelian view of causation. In addition, I further develop this interdisciplinary conversation to include theological implications of emergentism, analyzed in reference to Aquinas’ understanding of divine action in terms of the same fourfold division of causes—bringing thus natural science, philosophy, and theology into creative and fruitful dialogue. (shrink)

آکوئیناس، برخلاف تلقی شارحان بزرگی چون ژیلسون، نه تصحیحی در برهان‌های امکان سینوی و ابن‌رشدی صورت داده است، و نه اساساً به مواضع اختلاف آن‌ها آگاهی داشته است. از این رو حتی نتوانسته است در موارد اختلاف آنها، آگاهانه وارد بحث شود و داوری درستی بکند یا دست کم از یکی از آن دو آگاهانه جانبداری کند. تقریر‌ نخست او ترکیبی ناشیانه از تقریرهای سینوی و ابن‌رشدی است که حاکی از عدم تسلط او بر مبانی فلسفی ابن‌سینا و ابن‌رشد است. (...) در تقریر دوم هم بنا بر یک قرائت از آن، همین اشکال وارد است، علاوه بر آن که فرض‌های نادرستی هم در کار آورده است. در هر حال، او تحت تأثیر ابن‌رشد برهان‌های خویش را دو مرحله ای تنظیم کرده است، بی آن که بداند که ابن‌رشد در این کار معذور بوده است.محوریت علل و معلول‌های طبیعی در این برهان و تطبیق امتناع تسلسل بر آن از دیگر اشکالات این تقریر است. (shrink)