解析芝诺悖论内含的逻辑漏洞

本文回顾了亚里士多德等人对芝诺悖论的一些看法，指出寻找该悖论推理过程逻辑漏洞的必要性，并试图给出对追龟辩和飞矢辩不同于亚里士多德、罗素等人的分析。     

亚里斯多德科学产生三条件和内在持久的科学热情

亚里斯多德认为,惊异、闲暇和自由是科学产生必需具备的三个条件.结合研究工作的经验,对基础科学发展的内在动力问题进行了探讨.     

17世纪英国自然哲学研究方法的近代转型:兼论伦敦皇家学会的诞生

对"自然哲学"事业的共同认知,构成了19世纪之前西方学术群体从事与自然有关的研究和讨论的基础。在英国从中世纪向现代过渡的进程中,自然哲学的研究方法同样经历了一场近代转型。17世纪英国学术共同体在对以亚里士多德为代表的古代权威的质疑中,逐步确立新的实验哲学的坚实基础,自然哲学家不再局限于不考虑现实状况的纯粹思辨,开始通过实验方法对现实世界中真实存在的现象及背后的规律展开观察和解释。伦敦皇家学会的诞生,正是这种转型过程影响力的有力证明,也是其在数十年发展之后水到渠成的成果。     

古希腊两种不同的"摹仿说"之比较

主要从文艺的本质、文艺的创造性以及文艺的社会作用几个方面分析比较了古希腊哲学家柏拉图和亚里士多德所提倡的“摹仿说”的不同内涵。指出亚里士多德的“摹仿说”是根据朴素的唯物主义哲学观对柏拉图的理论进行改造的结果,因而更具有进步性和合理性。     

Eugene O＇Neill＇s Desire Under, the Elms n the View of Aristotle＇s Tragedy Theory

Aristotle is the greatest scholar of ancient Greece, his Poetics is considered as a classic theoretical work in the history of westernliterature, which mainly refers to the theory of tragedy. The paper aims at analyzing Eugene O’Neill’s Desire Under the Elms by applyingAristotle’s Tragedy Theory in order to acquire a sharp and deep understanding of literature and art.     

位置的不动性——亚里士多德位置学说的理论困难

亚里士多德在《物理学》中首先将“位置”定义为“包围者与被包围者相接触的界面”.随后,为了解释“船在河里运动”的例子,他又引入了不动性要求,将位置定义为“包围者的第一个不动界面”.位置的不动性要求引发了种种理论困难.最核心的困难是:在具体运动现象中,位置常常无法同时满足不动性要求和邻近性要求.为了解决不动性问题,《物理学》的评注者做出了种种努力,但未能在亚里士多德的形而上学框架内彻底解决这个问题.这些理论困难揭示了位置学说中“不动性”概念的非技术化特征、位置概念的多重涵义以及静止与运动在本体论地位上的差异.     

Aristotle and His Idea on Imitation

Aristotle＇s contribution to art and literature is significant. His idea on imitation is a fundamental theory for further literacy critics This paper compares Aristotle＇s theory on imitation with Plato＇s, and summaries Aristotle＇s contributions to the field of art.     

Towards a science of the individual: the Aristotelian search for scientific knowledge of individual entities

This article seeks to take a step towards recognizing that science can deal with the concrete and individual as well as the universal. I shall concentrate on some of Aristotle’s texts, as there is a long tradition going back to Aristotle, according to which science deals only with the universal, although his work also contains texts of a very different tenor. He tries to improve the process of definition as an attempt to bring science closer to the concrete, but ends up realizing that there are some unreachable limits. There is, however, a second Aristotelian approach to the problem in Metaphysica M 10, a passage which takes scientific rapprochement to the individual further by introducing a distinction between science in potential and science in act. The former is universal, but the latter deals with individual substances and processes. Aristotle himself acknowledges here that in one sense science is universal and in another it is not, a position that raises important ontological and epistemological problems. Some suggestions are also offered concerning the kind of truth applicable to science in act, that is, practical truth.     

孟子与亚里士多德人性论路径的阐释

孟子和亚里士多德提出了不同的人性论假设,孟子认为人本性善,而亚里士多德则提出了结构性的人性论思想,这两种不同的道德哲学理论的产生有其内在的根由。处于转型中的中国,人们的生活模式的不同走向会影响人们对人性论思想的选择。     

Duhem’s theory of mixture in the light of the Stoic challenge to the Aristotelian conception

The bulk of Duhem’s writing which bears on the understanding of mixtures suggests he adopted an Aristotelian position which he opposed only to the atomic view. A third view from antiquity—that of the Stoics—seems not to be taken into account. But his lines of thought are not always as explicit as could be wished. The Stoic view is considered here from a perspective which Duhem might well have adopted. This provides a background against which his somewhat unorthodox Aristotelianism might be understood.