from the publisher:
STUDIA NEOARISTOTELICA 2015 published
The first 2015 issue of Studia Neoaristotelica offers two papers and two reviews. Vlastimil Vohánka (Olomouc, Czech Rep.) in "Necessary Laws? Seifert vs. Oderberg" addresses the thesis that no laws of nature are (metaphysically) necessary: i.e. true in every possible world. In particular Vohanka focuses on arguments for this thesis by Josef Seifert, a realist phenomenologian, and David Oderberg, an analytical neo-Aristotelian and argues that, as they stand, they are not convincing. He admits, however, that given God and his ability to do miracles, the idea of "meaningful" but non-necessary connection between essences is a better essentialist explanation of persistent regularities. This explanation implies that no law is necessary, be it weakly or strongly. Miroslav Hanke (Praha) in "Analysis of Self-Reference in Martin Le Maistre's Tractatus Consequentiarum" presents a formal reconstruction of an analysis of self-reference of Le Maistre, a a fifteenth century master. His approach is based upon the principle that sentential meaning is closed under entailment, which leads to a semantics compatible with the principle of bivalence and classical rules of inference. The issue is concluded with a review by Michael Sullivan of Edward Feser's Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction (Heusenstamm bei Frankfurt, 2014) and by Peter Forrest of James Franklin's An Aristotelian Realist Philosophy of Mathematics Mathematics as the Science of Quantity and Structure (New York, 2014)
2 comments:
hey ssmithty I really love what you wrote it is amasing .
The part about Seifert in Publisher's note is particularly interesting, since he's done a lot to introduce realist phenomenology to my native Russia, where, just like in many other places, the Continental quasi-philosophy reigns supreme. While discussion is important, it is kind of sad that analytic, realist-phenomenolgical and scholastic traditions cannot find a single voice, despite the differences. Philosophers must not forget that wider audience (something that was mentioned by Dr. Simpson, who's been linked here also, in relation to Scotus), like myself, that aren't a philosophers or a scholars of any sort but are also interested in these traditions. However, a lot of the times we are unable to receive a holistic presentation of a wider "realist" viewpoint.
Same can be said about the much needed debate around Feser's book. It surely has its drawbacks but nevertheless it is a great attempt at bringing the manualist tradition back to the public and people, who do not have the necessary talents to be philosophers per se. Feser, it seems, heard Sullivan's previous comments and since then got interested in Scotus a little more. Perhaps one day they can combine their efforts and write something truly neo-scholastic and not just neo-thomist or neo-scotist.
That being said, it is great to see this part of philosophical world come alive again!
Post a Comment