Teodycea a logika modalna. Bogusława Wolniewicza polemika z krytyką teodycei u Pierre’a Bayle’a

Mateusz Mirosławski
{"title":"Teodycea a logika modalna. Bogusława Wolniewicza polemika z krytyką teodycei u Pierre’a Bayle’a","authors":"Mateusz Mirosławski","doi":"10.15633/r.2443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The essay aims at presenting original ideas of Boguslaw Wolniewicz in the field of modal logic, which improve the traditional theodicy, criticized by Pierre Bayle. The classical theodicy attempts to reconcile divine omnipotence and God’s goodness. According to classical theodicy both of these elements can be reconciled, because evil is not the work of God, but a work of man – freedom is in fact necessary for a man so that he could do good, but to do good, a person automatically has to be able to do the evil (understood morally, not physically). Bayle’s argument says that freedom implies the possibility of evil and it does not imply its existence, and this means that evil can be avoided even with the assumption of freedom. Wolniewicz tries to refute that argument. He quotes a little known definitions of possibility derived from the logic of Megarian. It turns out to be an inspiration for him to introduce an original definition of possibility – “what is possible = what happened or what will happen in the future.” With this interpretation of possibility classic theodicy seems to be efficient.","PeriodicalId":308936,"journal":{"name":"Racjonalia. Z punktu widzenia humanistyki","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Racjonalia. Z punktu widzenia humanistyki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15633/r.2443","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The essay aims at presenting original ideas of Boguslaw Wolniewicz in the field of modal logic, which improve the traditional theodicy, criticized by Pierre Bayle. The classical theodicy attempts to reconcile divine omnipotence and God’s goodness. According to classical theodicy both of these elements can be reconciled, because evil is not the work of God, but a work of man – freedom is in fact necessary for a man so that he could do good, but to do good, a person automatically has to be able to do the evil (understood morally, not physically). Bayle’s argument says that freedom implies the possibility of evil and it does not imply its existence, and this means that evil can be avoided even with the assumption of freedom. Wolniewicz tries to refute that argument. He quotes a little known definitions of possibility derived from the logic of Megarian. It turns out to be an inspiration for him to introduce an original definition of possibility – “what is possible = what happened or what will happen in the future.” With this interpretation of possibility classic theodicy seems to be efficient.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
本文旨在提出博格斯劳·沃尔尼维茨在模态逻辑领域的原创思想,这些思想改进了被皮埃尔·贝利批判的传统神正论。古典神学试图调和神的全能和上帝的善良。根据经典的神正论,这两个因素可以调和,因为邪恶不是上帝的工作,而是人的工作——事实上,自由对一个人来说是必要的,这样他就可以做好事,但要做好事,一个人就必须能够做坏事(从道德上理解,而不是从身体上理解)。Bayle的论点是,自由意味着恶的可能性,但并不意味着恶的存在,这意味着即使假设有自由,恶也可以避免。Wolniewicz试图反驳这一观点。他引用了一个鲜为人知的关于可能性的定义,这个定义来自米加里安的逻辑。这启发了他对可能性的原始定义——“可能=已经发生的或将来会发生的事情”。对于这种可能性的解释,经典的神正论似乎是有效的。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Konferencja: Wszyscy jesteśmy filozofami. Kraków, 13–14 grudnia 2017 Teodycea a logika modalna. Bogusława Wolniewicza polemika z krytyką teodycei u Pierre’a Bayle’a „Religia Natury”. O relacji człowiek–przyroda Świat poza boską kontrolą. Jedna z odpowiedzi na problem zła naturalnego Krytyka i propozycje rozszerzenia ontycznych podstaw odpowiedzialności Romana Ingardena
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1