Notice: تابع WP_Block_Type_Registry::register به طورنادرست فراخوانی شد. نامهای نوع بلوک نباید حروف بزرگ داشته باشند. لطفاً برای اطلاعات بیشتر، اشکال زدایی در وردپرس را مشاهده کنید. (این پیام در نگارش 5.0.0 افزوده شده است.) in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5313
Warning: Use of undefined constant TDC_PATH_LEGACY - assumed 'TDC_PATH_LEGACY' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-content/plugins/td-composer/td-composer.php on line 109
Warning: Use of undefined constant TDSP_THEME_PATH - assumed 'TDSP_THEME_PATH' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-content/plugins/td-composer/td-composer.php on line 113 بایگانیهای 419 - خانه اخلاق پژوهان جوان Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-ulike/inc/general-functions.php on line 807
Monte Johnson examines the most controversial aspects of Aristiotle’snatural philosophy: his teleology. Is teleology about causation or explanation?Does it exclude or obviate mechanism, determinism, or materialism? Is it focusedon the good of individual organisms, or is god or man the ultimate end of allprocesses and entities? Is teleology restricted to living things, or does itapply to the cosmos as a whole? Does it identify objectively existent causes inthe world, or is it merely a heuristic for our understanding of other causalprocesses? Johnson argues that Aristotle’s aporetic approach drives a middlecourse between these traditional oppositions, and avoids the dilemma, frequentlyurged against teleology, between backwards causation and anthropomorphism.Although these issues have been debated with extraordinary depth by Aristotlescholars, and touched upon by many in the wider philosophical and scientificcommunity as well, there is no comprehensive historical treatment of the issue. Aristotle is commonly considered the inventor of teleology, although the preciseterm originated in the eighteenth century. If teleology means the use of endsand goals in natural science, then Aristotle was rather a critical innovator ofteleological explanation. Teleological notions were widespread among hispredecessors, but Aristotle rejected their conception of extrinsic causes suchas mind or god as the primary causes for natural things. Aristotle’s radicalalternative was to assert nature itself as an internal principle of change andan end, and his teleological explanations focus on the intrinsic ends of naturalsubstances – those ends that benefit the natural thing itself. Aristotle’s use of ends was subsequently conflated with incompatible’teleological’ notions, including proofs for the existence of a providential ordesigner god, vitalism and animism, opposition to mechanism and non-teleologicalcausation, and anthropocentrism. Johnson addresses these misconceptions throughan elaboration of Aristotle’s methodological statements, as well as anexamination of the explanations actually offered in the scientific works.
This work offers a new understanding of Kant on the freedom of the will. Voeller looks in detail at theGroundwork of the Metaphysics of Moralsand theCritique of Practical Reasonagainst the background of Kant’s critical philosophy as a whole. Voeller’s book is essential reading for those interested in moral philosophy, Kant, philosophy of religion, philosophy of action and freedom of the will.
The idea that we are in some significant sense responsible for our emotions is an idea that Robert Solomon has developed for almost three decades. Here, in a single volume, he traces the development of this theory of emotions and elaborate it in detail. Two themes run through his work: the first presents a “cognitive” theory of emotions in which emotions are construed primarily as evaluative judgments. The second proposes an “existentialist” perspective in which he defends the idea that, as we are responsible for our emotions. Indeed, sometimes it even makes sense to say that we “choose” them. While the first claim has gained increasing currency in the literature, his claim about responsibility for emotions has continued to meet with considerable resistance and misinterpretation. The new emphasis on evolutionary biology and neurology has (mistakenly) reinforced the popular prejudice that emotions “happen” to us and are entirely beyond our control. This volume is also a kind of intellectual memoir of Solomon1s own development as a thinker. The essays written in the 1980s elaborate the themes of the “intentionality” of emotion and the claim that emotions are “judgments”; in this period, he is also increasingly preoccupied with how emotions vary and are identified in a variety of cultures. In the 1990’s, his interests evolve to consider the social and political role of emotions and theories about emotion. The final section presents his current philosophical position on the seeming “passivity” of the passions. Despite his own critical assessment of his earlier work, he continues to argue that, in the final analysis, we are responsible for our emotions and existential quality of our lives.
ما از اخلاق چه انتظاری داریم؟ این سوال شاید تاحدودی برای عموم مردم و یا متخصصان این رشته قابل پاسخ باشد؛ اینکه خوب بودن را به ما بیاموزد و در تنظیم روابط فردی م...
جشن کتاب تهران به ایستگاه سی و یکم رسیده است. حال و احوال نشر کتاب خوب نیست و باید فرهنگدوستان را به خرید و هدیه دادن کتاب ترغیب نمود. خانه اخلاقپژوهان جوان ب...
بنیاد کتابهای اخلاق اسلامی عمدتا پالایش جان از آلودگیها و آراستن آن به زیباییها است. اندیشه محوری این قبیل کتابها آن است که انسان فعلی آنی نیست که باید باشد...
-
0 Comments