分离的判断与形而上学的主体

Q3 Arts and Humanities Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI:10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0159
Guy-François Delaporte
{"title":"分离的判断与形而上学的主体","authors":"Guy-François Delaporte","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With this second dialogue, Salviati wants to remove Simplicio’s difficulties on the actual distinction of essence and being as well as on the notion of the act of being (actus essendi). Feeling that he had skipped stages in their first dialogue, he suggests going back to the determination of the exact subject of metaphysics according to Thomas Aquinas. He will progress in two steps: the transition from «first perceived being» to «common being» or «being as being» by a judgment of separation, and then the definition of the subject of metaphysics as «being negatively or neutrally immaterial». With this conclusion, Salviati intends to lead Simplicio to understand the autonomy of the principles of metaphysics towards philosophy of nature. Simplicio remains curious but dubious. Is not the negatively immaterial being a simple dialectical notion that Salviati would take for a metaphysical one? Is the independence of metaphysics from physics therefore also ensured? And consequently, is there actually a difference between the first perceived being and the common being, subject of metaphysics? What is, actually, the subject of metaphysics?","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Jugement de séparation et sujet de la métaphysique\",\"authors\":\"Guy-François Delaporte\",\"doi\":\"10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0159\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With this second dialogue, Salviati wants to remove Simplicio’s difficulties on the actual distinction of essence and being as well as on the notion of the act of being (actus essendi). Feeling that he had skipped stages in their first dialogue, he suggests going back to the determination of the exact subject of metaphysics according to Thomas Aquinas. He will progress in two steps: the transition from «first perceived being» to «common being» or «being as being» by a judgment of separation, and then the definition of the subject of metaphysics as «being negatively or neutrally immaterial». With this conclusion, Salviati intends to lead Simplicio to understand the autonomy of the principles of metaphysics towards philosophy of nature. Simplicio remains curious but dubious. Is not the negatively immaterial being a simple dialectical notion that Salviati would take for a metaphysical one? Is the independence of metaphysics from physics therefore also ensured? And consequently, is there actually a difference between the first perceived being and the common being, subject of metaphysics? What is, actually, the subject of metaphysics?\",\"PeriodicalId\":36725,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0159\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在第二段对话中,萨尔维阿提想要消除辛普利西奥的困难,关于本质和存在的实际区别,以及存在行为的概念(本质)。感觉自己跳过了他们第一次对话的阶段,他建议回到托马斯·阿奎那对形而上学的确切主题的确定。他将分两步前进:通过分离的判断从“最初被感知的存在”过渡到“共同存在”或“作为存在的存在”,然后将形而上学的主体定义为“消极的或中性的非物质的存在”。通过这个结论,萨尔维亚提试图引导辛普利西奥理解形而上学原则对自然哲学的自主性。辛普利西奥仍然很好奇,但也很怀疑。否定的非物质不就是一个简单的辩证概念吗萨尔维亚提会把它当作形而上学的?形而上学独立于物理学是否也因此得到了保证?因此,在第一个被感知的存在和普通的存在,形而上学的主体之间,真的有区别吗?玄学的主题到底是什么?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Jugement de séparation et sujet de la métaphysique
With this second dialogue, Salviati wants to remove Simplicio’s difficulties on the actual distinction of essence and being as well as on the notion of the act of being (actus essendi). Feeling that he had skipped stages in their first dialogue, he suggests going back to the determination of the exact subject of metaphysics according to Thomas Aquinas. He will progress in two steps: the transition from «first perceived being» to «common being» or «being as being» by a judgment of separation, and then the definition of the subject of metaphysics as «being negatively or neutrally immaterial». With this conclusion, Salviati intends to lead Simplicio to understand the autonomy of the principles of metaphysics towards philosophy of nature. Simplicio remains curious but dubious. Is not the negatively immaterial being a simple dialectical notion that Salviati would take for a metaphysical one? Is the independence of metaphysics from physics therefore also ensured? And consequently, is there actually a difference between the first perceived being and the common being, subject of metaphysics? What is, actually, the subject of metaphysics?
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Time for Truth: Tarski Between Heidegger and Rorty The Crowning of Anarchy, Remarks on the Age of Pure Difference Hospitalidade e conflito: o problema do “reconhecimento” no acolhimento de refugiados A “Modest” Primitivist Theory of Truth: The Ineffability of Truth, Effability of the Correspondence Relation A Holistic Double-Reference Explanatory Basis for a Unifying Pluralist Account of Truth
×
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