Aristotle, Copernicus, Bruno: centrality, the principle of movement and the extension of the Universe

This paper¹ studies the different conceptions of both centrality and the principle or starting point of motion in the Universe held by Aristotle and later on by Copernicanism until Kepler and Bruno. According to Aristotle, the true centre of the Universe is the sphere of the fixed stars. This is also the starting point of motion. From this point of view, the diurnal motion is the fundamental one. Our analysis gives pride of place to De caelo II, 10, a chapter of Aristotle’s text which curiously allows an ‘Alpetragian’ reading of the transmission of motion.In Copernicus and the Copernicans, natural centrality is identified with the geometrical centre and, therefore, the Sun is acknowledged as the body through which the Deity acts on the world and it also plays the role of the principle and starting point of cosmic motion. This motion, however, is no longer diurnal motion, but the annual periodical motion of the planets. Within this context, we pose the question of to what extent it is possible to think that, before Kepler, there is a tacit attribution of a dynamic or motive role to the Sun by Copernicus, Rheticus, and Digges.For Bruno, since the Universe is infinite and homogeneous and the relationship of the Deity with it is one of indifferent presence everywhere, the Universe has no absolute centre, for any point is a centre. By the same token, there is no place that enjoys the prerogative of being—as being the seat of God—the motionless principle and starting point of motion.     

Historical antecedents to the philosophy of Paul Feyerabend

Paul Feyerabend has been considered a very radical philosopher of science for proposing that we may advance hypotheses contrary to well-confirmed experimental results, that observations make theoretical assumptions, that all methodological rules have exceptions, that ordinary citizens may challenge the judgment of experts, and that human happiness should be a key value for science. As radical as these theses may sound, they all have historical antecedents. In defending the Copernican view, Galileo exemplified the first two; Mill, Aristotle and Machiavelli all argued for pluralism; Aristotle gave commonsense reasons for why ordinary citizens may be able to judge the work of experts; and a combination of Plato's and Aristotle's views can offer strong support for the connection between science and happiness.     

哲学思想:系统科学形成的形而上学基础

哲学思想为系统科学的形成提供形而上学基础:亚里士多德的"整体不等于部分之和"的思想;马克思和恩格斯的世界普遍联系和永恒发展的观点;柏格森生命哲学对机械论观点的批驳,其观点认为宇宙处于永恒流动、生成和创造之中,本质是一种"生命之流",处于永恒的"绵延"流动之中,或者说不可逆和生成思想;怀特海机体哲学的整体——联系观和过程——生成观思想。     

古代政治哲学的两个理想之维

在古代政治哲学的范围之内可以发现,定义"正义"概念的一个重要根据是政治理想的确立。研究政治理想具有第一哲学和伦理学两个维度,我们可以在柏拉图和亚里士多德的政治哲学中考察这两个维度的内在关系。     

François Viète: between analysis and cryptanalysis

François Viète is considered the father both of modern algebra and of modern cryptanalysis. The paper outlines Viète’s major contributions in these two mathematical fields and argues that, despite an obvious parallel between them, there is an essential difference. Viète’s ‘new algebra’ relies on his reform of the classical method of analysis and synthesis, in particular on a new conception of analysis and the introduction of a new formalism. The procedures he suggests to decrypt coded messages are particular forms of analysis based on the use of formal methods. However, Viète’s algebraic analysis is not an analysis in the same sense as his cryptanalysis is. In Aristotelian terms, the first is a form of ‘’, while the second is a form of . While the first is a top-down argument from the point of view of the human subject, since it is an argument going from what is not actual to what is actual for such a subject, the second one is a bottom-up argument from this same point of view, since it starts from what is first for us and proceed towards what is first by nature.     

Francesco Patrizi’s two books on space: geometry, mathematics, and dialectic beyond Aristotelian science

Francesco Patrizi was a competent Greek scholar, a mathematician, and a Neoplatonic thinker, well known for his sharp critique of Aristotle and the Aristotelian tradition. In this article I shall present, in the first part, the importance of the concept of a three-dimensional space which is regarded as a body, as opposed to the Aristotelian two-dimensional space or interval, in Patrizi’s discussion of physical space. This point, I shall argue, is an essential part of Patrizi’s overall critique of Aristotelian science, in which Epicurean, Stoic, and mainly Neoplatonic elements were brought together, in what seems like an original theory of space and a radical revision of Aristotelian physics. Moreover, I shall try to show Patrizi’s dialectical method of definition, his geometrical argumentation, and trace some of the ideas and terms used by him back to Proclus’ Commentary on Euclid. This text of Proclus, as will be shown in the second part of the article, was also important for Patrizi’s discussion of mathematical space, where Patrizi deals with the status of mathematics and redefines some mathematical concepts such as the point and the line according to his new theory of space.     

亚里士多德与西方古典修辞学理论

亚里士多德被视为西方古典修辞学理论的创始人,他编写的论著《修辞学》被认为是西方古典修辞学的理论核心。剖析亚里士多德的修辞思想,可以较为系统地归纳总结出西方古典修辞理论体系,理顺西方古典修辞理论的脉络,这将有利于加深对古典修辞学理论的认识和理解。     

论亚里士多德灵魂学说中的系统论思想

亚里士多德系统论思想在其灵魂学说中充分展示。他从整体性思想出发,论证灵魂先于肉体、灵魂离不开肉体之间的辩证关系。他剖析了作为人的＂思想的灵魂＂的三种活动,即灵魂的理论性活动、实践性活动与创制性活动之间既相互区别又相互关联的内在本性,并进一步阐释了灵魂三种活动所产生的三种知识,即科学知识、实践知识与创制知识之间的根本性区别。     

思孟学派与亚里士多德德性构建方式差异之探讨

思孟学派与亚里士多德的伦理学虽然都是德性伦理学，但双方的德性构建方式具有很大的差异：思孟学派采用了辩证思维，认为德性是人先天本有的，注重人的内在道德修养和情感的基础作用，而亚里士多德采用了形式思维，认为德性是人后天训导和培养的，注重人的外在道德行为和理性的指导作用。此外，双方的伦理学与其形而上学、政治学的关系也不相同，体现了统一与基础、合一与分离的特色。