Být v či nebýt v?

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY

Studia Neoaristotelica Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5840/studneoar20221957

L. Novák

{"title":"Být v či nebýt v?","authors":"L. Novák","doi":"10.5840/studneoar20221957","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to compare the Thomist and the Scotist theory of relations. The main feature of the Thomist theory is an effort to minimize the ontological import of the specific essential ratio of relation as such, called esse ad, and to reduce the ontological import of its other aspect, the esse in or inherence understood as a common feature of all accidents, to the esse in of its foundation. The Scotists, on the other hand, have no tendency to deflate the esse ad of a relation. Moreover, according to Malafossa of Barge’s theory (adopted by B. Mastri and B. Belluto), a relation involves two different instances of esse in. The one, called esse in velut in subiecto, is that generic inherence common to all accidents (which, therefore, does not occur in the substantial relations of divine persons). The other, esse in velut in fundamento, belongs specifically to relation as such and reflects the fact that very relation, even a substantial one, is not only a relation towards something, but necessarily also a relation of something towards something else. In spite of the fact, therefore, that the Thomist and Scotist doctrines are usually grouped together as mere subvariants of anti-reductive realism, they must be regarded as substantially different.","PeriodicalId":55635,"journal":{"name":"Studia Neoaristotelica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Neoaristotelica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/studneoar20221957","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to compare the Thomist and the Scotist theory of relations. The main feature of the Thomist theory is an effort to minimize the ontological import of the specific essential ratio of relation as such, called esse ad, and to reduce the ontological import of its other aspect, the esse in or inherence understood as a common feature of all accidents, to the esse in of its foundation. The Scotists, on the other hand, have no tendency to deflate the esse ad of a relation. Moreover, according to Malafossa of Barge’s theory (adopted by B. Mastri and B. Belluto), a relation involves two different instances of esse in. The one, called esse in velut in subiecto, is that generic inherence common to all accidents (which, therefore, does not occur in the substantial relations of divine persons). The other, esse in velut in fundamento, belongs specifically to relation as such and reflects the fact that very relation, even a substantial one, is not only a relation towards something, but necessarily also a relation of something towards something else. In spite of the fact, therefore, that the Thomist and Scotist doctrines are usually grouped together as mere subvariants of anti-reductive realism, they must be regarded as substantially different.

查看原文本刊更多论文

在还是不在？

本文的目的是比较托马斯主义和苏格兰主义的关系理论。托马斯主义理论的主要特征是努力减少关系的特定本质比例的本体论重要性，即所谓的“本质”，并减少其其他方面的本体论重要性，即被理解为所有偶然事件的共同特征的“本质”或“内在”，到其基础的“本质”。另一方面，苏格兰人不倾向于贬低一段关系的价值。此外，根据Malafossa的Barge的理论(由B. Mastri和B. Belluto采用)，一种关系包含两种不同的esse in实例。一种，被称为“自在”，是所有偶然事件共有的一般内在(因此，它不会发生在神圣人物的实体关系中)。“他者”(esse in velut in fundamentento)特别属于关系本身，它反映了这样一个事实:任何关系，即使是实体的关系，不仅是对某物的关系，而且必然是某物对他物的关系。因此，尽管事实是，托马斯主义和苏格兰主义的学说通常被归类为仅仅是反还原现实主义的亚变体，但它们必须被视为本质上不同的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Studia Neoaristotelica Arts and Humanities-Philosophy

CiteScore

0.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Studia Neoaristotelica is a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal devoted to the promotion of Aristotelian philosophy broadly conceived, drawing on the rich legacy of the scholastic tradition and contemporary analytical metaphysics. Special emphasis is placed on the most advanced forms of scholastic thought that emerged during the Renaissance and Baroque periods. Our vision is to work toward a philosophical synthesis of analytic and scholastic methods and ideas, providing a contribution to Christian philosophy as well as wider secular thought. The journal is published by Editiones Scholasticae and the University of South Bohemia Faculty of Theology.