U članku se razmatra grčki ideal mjere, najčešće izražen pojmom sredine. To nije samo svegrčki ideal nego drevna i svevremena baština, koja je konvergirala odgoju u ujednosti ‘dobrote i ljepote’. On je življen u polisu, kao što je bio i personalna, unutarduševna težnja. U Aristotelovoj politici počelo mjere prvenstveno je vezano za balansiranje političkih poredaka, ali postoji i druga perspektiva u kojoj je više riječ o vrlini i moralnim kvalitetama aristokracije, gdje se identificira dobrog čovjeka i građanina. Taj pristup srodniji (...) je istraživanjama u Aristotelovim etičkim tekstovima. Pažljiva analiza ovih distinkcija iz knjige Politika zaključuje se s uvidima o odgoju i vrlini kao komplementarnim aspektima praktičke filozofije. The article considers the Greek ideal of moderation, most often expressed through the notion of the Mean. It is not merely a pangreek ideal, but an ancient and everlasting inheritance, which converged to the education in the unity of ‘goodness and beauty’. It is lived in the polis, as it was also a personal aspiration of the inner soul. In Aristotle’s politics, the source of moderation is primarily connected to the balance of political orders, however there is another perspective in which it is more about the virtue and moral qualities of aristocracy, which identifies the good man and citizen. That approach is more akin to research conducted in Aristotle’s texts on ethics. Careful analysis of these distinctions from the book Politics is concluded with insights on education and virtue as complementary aspects of practical philosophy. (shrink)

A historical and philosophical reassessment of the impact of Aristotle and early-modern Aristotelianism on the development of Kant’s transcendental philosophy. Kant and Aristotle reassesses the prevailing understanding of Kant as an anti-Aristotelian philosopher. Taking epistemology, logic, and methodology to be the key disciplines through which Kant’s transcendental philosophy stood as an independent form of philosophy, Marco Sgarbi shows that Kant drew important elements of his logic and metaphysical doctrines from Aristotelian ideas that were absent in other philosophical traditions, such as (...) the distinction of matter and form of knowledge, the division of transcendental logic into analytic and dialectic, the theory of categories and schema, and the methodological issues of the architectonic. Drawing from unpublished documents including lectures, catalogues, academic programs, and the Aristotelian-Scholastic handbooks that were officially adopted at Königsberg University where Kant taught, Sgarbi further demonstrates the historical and philosophical importance of Aristotle and Aristotelianism to these disciplines from the late sixteenth century to the first half of the eighteenth century. (shrink)

This paper critiques a narrative concerning causality in later scholasticism due to, among others, Des Chene, Carraud, Schmaltz, Schmid, and Pasnau. On this account, internal developments in the scholastic tradition culminating in Suárez lead to the efficient cause being regarded as the paradigmatic kind of cause, anticipating a view explicitly held by the Cartesians. Focusing on Suárez and his scholastic reception, I defend the following claims: a) Suárez’s definition of cause does not privilege efficient causation; b) Suárez’s readers, from Timpler (...) to Arriaga, did not interpret him as privileging efficient causation; c) it is only much later, in Clauberg, that we find a narrowing of the meaning of causation to efficient causal action; but d) this shift is better explained by Clauberg’s rejection of substance hylomorphism in favor of Descartes’s doctrine of substance, rather than by any troubles within the Aristotelian causal framework. (shrink)

Considerando la variedad de críticas a Aristóteles que se encuentra entre autores de la modernidad temprana, el artículo pregunta por la existencia de una crítica característicamente protestante. Las objeciones de Lutero son así explicadas como una variante reformacional de un tipo de crítica a Aristóteles común en el agustinismo tardomedieval. Finalmente, se evalúa los efectos de esta posición en Melanchthon.

In the Discours de la méthode, Descartes presents himself as a heroic figure, standing up against the current Aristotelian orthodoxy in philosophy, and offering something new, a mechanist physics and the metaphysics to go along with it. But Descartes was by no means the only challenger to Aristotelian natural philosophy: by Descartes’s day, there were many. Descartes was read as one of this group, generally called the novatores (innovators) in Latin, and often severely criticized for their advocacy of the new. (...) Descartes himself wanted to separate his philosophy from that of the novatores, who were thought to seek novelty rather than truth. But it was not so easy to distance himself. Many contemporary commentators, like Charles Sorel, put Descartes squarely in their camp, but at exactly the moment when novelty and innovation in natural philosophy was changing from being worthy of scorn to being praiseworthy. (shrink)

Summary The article discusses the decline of Aristotelian physics at the University of Paris in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. A course of physics remained essentially Aristotelian until the final decade of the seventeenth century, when it came under the influence of Descartes. But the history of physics teaching over this period cannot be properly appreciated if it is simply seen in terms of the replacement of one physical philosophy by another. Long before the 1690s, the traditional Aristotelianism of (...) the Schools had been forced to come to terms with the New Science to some degree, while the Cartesianism of the early eighteenth century was always alive to the challenges to Descartes's particular physical theories. Except in the early seventeenth century the physics course at Paris was always in a state of change. The replacement of Aristotelian by Cartesian physics too involved the development of a novel epistemology. Although both Aristotelian and Cartesian professors believed that natural philosophy was a science of causes based upon a priori principles, the latter had a far more probabilist conception of physics. (shrink)