Proposes an innovative rethinking of Aristotle’s work as a system that integrates his theology with his doctrine of reproduction and life. In this deep rethinking of Aristotle’s work, Abraham P. Bos argues that scholarship on Aristotle’s philosophy has erred since antiquity in denying the connection between his theology and his doctrine of reproduction and life in the earthly sphere. Beginning with an analysis of God’s role in the Aristotelian system, Bos explores how this relates to other elements of his philosophy, (...) especially to his theory of reproduction. The argument he develops is that in talking about the cosmos, Aristotle rejected Plato’s metaphor of artisanal production by a divine Demiurge in favor of a biotic metaphor based on the transmission of life in reproduction, in which pneuma—not breath as it is often interpreted but the life-bearing spirit in animals and plants—plays a key and sustaining role as the vital principle in all that lives. In making this case, he defends the authenticity of the treatises De Mundo and De Spiritu as Aristotle’s, and demonstrates Aristotle’s works as a unified system that sharply and comprehensively refutes Plato’s, and in particular replaces Plato’s doctrine of the soul with a theory in which the soul is clearly distinguished from the intellect. “Bos offers a fresh, interesting, and important perspective. His interpretation will be very controversial, but if he is right, the standard Anglo-American interpretation of Aristotle will have to change radically.” — Malcolm Wilson, author of Structure and Method in Aristotle’s Meteorologica: A More Disorderly Nature. (shrink)

The article is an attempt to systematize views on the subject of history of philosophy. Starting point of the analysis are the conceptions occurring in the post-Kantian philosophy, where significant differences in understanding the history of philosophy reveals themselves. History of philosophy may be understood as doxography, as a history of concepts, as history of idea, as a history of problems or, finally, as a philosophical history of philosophy. Author presents main assumptions of each of before mentioned approaches, pointing to (...) the special value of history of philosophy treated as a history of problems and philosophical history of philosophy. Additionally author appeals to Polish researchers of that problem being Kazimierz Twardowski, Zbigniew Kuderowicz or Mieczysław Gogacz. Separate position in presented analysis takes hermeneutics and her characteristic criticism of the position presented by Wilhelm Dilthey. (shrink)