Titlebook: ;

培養(yǎng)

高爾夫

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-5324-6 eliminated from causal statements. This paper argues that this reading can be refined, and that according to Ockham the analysis of causality can go one step further. In reaction to Scotus’s concept of essentially ordered causes, Ockham claims that a relation of “essential dependence” holds between

憎惡

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62068-3is, for Ockham, to obey divine commands, and what makes it right to do so. The most plausible explanations of what makes it right to obey divine commands are God’s goodness and God’s power. The textual evidence in Ockham points towards both, but I judge the preponderance of the evidence to lean in f

nauseate

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19401-8 are?both free of paradox and ungrounded. This paper outlines and defends Buridan’s approach and suggests that it may give reason to think that ungroundedness is not problematic in semantics or in metaphysics.

musicologist

Images, Buildings and the Living Context,etaphysical grounding of logic. As they assumed, it is at least sometimes a fact that a conclusion follows from some premises; here it is questioned how they thought this fact, or logical validity, to be grounded. The early medieval Arabic tradition (e.g. Ibn Sinā) thought in a way comparable to Imm

令人苦惱

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-86045-3nsensus that grounding is the same in all its typical instances. In this chapter I show that the late scholastic philosopher Francisco Suárez (1549–1617) can be seen as challenging this consensus since he gives an altogether different account of the way vital capacities are “grounded” in their under

因無茶而冷淡

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-16404-2this, thinks Wilson, is that the work that Big-G Grounding is invoked for can be better done by what she calls small-g grounding relations: membership, parenthood, realization, and so on. Contra Wilson, I argue that small-g grounding relations may not allow us to do all the grounding work that needs

最初

Introduction: Grounding Then and Now,stotelian tradition from the Middle Ages onward. A distinctive feature of medieval models of explanation is that they predate the divide between explanations in the humanities and social sciences and explanations in the natural sciences (e.g. physics, chemistry, and biology) that has become central

Visual-Acuity

,Ontological Priority and Grounding in Aristotle’s ,priority would make this plausible. This question is the focus of my paper. I will examine what has been the standard account of his notion of ontological priority—the “modal-existential” account—and the problems it entails, as well as some scholarly alternatives to it. I will defend my own alternat

murmur