LADISLAV HEJDÁNEK ARCHIVES | Cardfile

Jean Brun (1961)

Les mathématiques traitent des êtres immuables mais non séparés (les figures des êtres immuables par leur essence, mais ils ne sont pas séparés car il n´y a pas de figures séparés de ce dont il y a figure, ni de nombres séparés des choses nombrées; cf. Phys. II 2 193 b 22 sq.); la physique traite des êtres qui on en eux-mêmes un principe de mouvement et qui sont par conséquent des êtres mobiles et séparés les uns des autres; quant à la métaphysique, elle s´occupe de l´Etre immobile et séparé (cf. Méta. E 1 1026 a 13; K 7 1064 a 28).
(6514, Aristote et le Lycée, P.U.F., Paris 1961, p. 51.)

Lucius Annaeus Seneca (-5 - +65)

Epistula LXXVIII.
Toto contra ille pugnet animo; vincetur, si cesserit, vincet, si se contra dolorem suum intenderit. Nunc hoc plerique faciunt, adtrahunt in se ruinam, cui obstandum est. Istud quod premit, quod inpendet, quod urget, si subducere te coeperis, sequetur et gravius incumbet; si contra steteris et obniti volueris, repelletur. …
[Let such a man fight against them with all his might: if he once gives way, he will be vanquished; but if he strives against his sufferings, he will conquer. As it is, however, what most men do is to drag down upon their own heads a falling ruin which they ought to try to support. If you begin to withdraw your support from that which thrusts toward you and totters and is ready to plunge, it will follow you and lean more heavily upon you; but if you hold your ground and make up your mind to push against it, it will be forced back. …]
(…., Ad Lucilium Epistulae morales, London 1970, p. 190 / 191.)

www (2005)

Charles Hartshorne is considered by many philosophers to be one of the most important philosophers of religion and metaphysicians of the twentieth century. Although Hartshorne often criticized the metaphysics of substance found in medieval philosophy, he was very much like medieval thinkers in developing a philosophy that was theocentric. Throughout his career he defended the rationality of theism and for several decades was almost alone in doing so among English-language philosophers. Hartshorne was also one of the thinkers responsible for the rediscovery of St. Anselm's ontological argument. But his most influential contribution to philosophical theism did not concern arguments for the existence of God, but rather was related to a theory of the actuality of God, i.e., how God exists. In traditional or classical theism, God was seen as the supreme, unchanging being, but in Hartshorne's process-based or neoclassical conception, God is seen as supreme becoming in which there is a factor of supreme being. That is, we humans become for a while, whereas God always becomes, Hartshorne maintains. The neoclassical view of Hartshorne has influenced the way many philosophers understand the concept of God. In fact, a small number of scholars—some philosophers and some theologians—think of him as the greatest metaphysician of the second half of the twentieth century, yet, with a few exceptions to be treated below, his work has not been very influential among analytic philosophers who are theists.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
First published Mon Jul 23, 2001; substantive revision Thu Dec 15, 2005

René Descartes (před 1650)

Omnem igitur collocabit industriam in distinguendis & examinandis illis tribus cognoscendi modis, vidensque veritatem proprie vel falsitatem non nisi in solo intellectu esse posse, sed tantummodo ab aliis doubus suam saepe originem ducere, ……
(pag. 66)
Zaměří tedy veškeré úsilí na rozlišení a prozkoumání těch tří způsobů poznání, a když uvidí, že pravda či nepravda může ve vlastní smyslu být pouze v samotném intelektu, zatím co v oněch dalších dvou má často jen svůj původ, …
(str. 67)
(7192, Regulae ad directionem ingenii – Pravidla pro vedení rozumu, Praha 2000, str. 66 a 67.)

Tomáš Akvinský (1224/5-1284)

Articulus quartus
Quarto quaeritur utrum sit tantum una veritas qua omnia sunt vera. Et videtur quod sic: Anselmus enim dicit in libro De veritate31 quod sicut tempus se habet ad temporalia ita veritas ad res veras; sed tempus ita se habet ad omnia temporalia quod est unum tempus tantum; ergo ita se habebit veritas ad omnia vera quod erit tantum una veritas.
(5845, Von der Wahrheit – De veritate, Quaest.I; F.Meiner, Hamburg 1986, S. 24.)