5,510 research outputs found
Premessa: Leibniz e l'«arte di comporre dialoghi»
No full textThis preface introduces 16 dialogues or fragments of dialogue composed by Leibniz, edited and translated in 2007 by several scholars under Francesco Piro's direction. In his Preface, Piro explains the reasons of Leibniz's involvement with the "art of composing dialogues", connecting this involvement with Leibniz's epistemological "perspectivism" and with his virtualist interpretation of the Doctrine of Innate Ideas. Moreover, the preface discusses Leibniz's first attempts of Theodicy, his way to monadology, and other sides of Leibniz's philosophy which can be more clearly understood through his dialogues. Piro's Preface is followed by an Introduction to each dialogue composed by the editors/translaters of the single works: the Introduction to the dialogues 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 and 14-15 are even by Piro
La critica socialista al “modello emiliano”. Un ricordo, trent’anni dopo
No full textFranco Piro, storico dell’economia e intellettuale socialista, torna a riflettere sul “modello emiliano”, oltre trent’anni dopo lo choc del 1977 e il convegno bolognese del 1978. Conclusa la sua parabola, il modello può oggi essere adeguatamente analizzato e periodizzato, recuperando alcuni spunti critici di allora, sulla staticità e l’autoritarismo del Pci; ma anche approfittando di una nuova generazione di studi, più attenta al legame tra piano nazionale e livello locale
Leibniz and Pufendorf on Human Solidarity
No full textFrancesco Piro (Salerno) wendet sich in seiner Untersuchung „Leibniz and Pufendorf
on Human Solidarity“ vergleichend der Frage zu, welche Rolle die menschliche Solidarität
in der Naturrechtskonzeption Leibniz spielte. Er stellt dabei eine Fortführung der Lehre
von Grotius als auch darin übereinstimmende Gemeinsamkeiten mit Pufendorfs Ausführungen zur menschlichen Solidarität fest. Bei den zwei Zeitgenossen spielt die menschliche
Solidarität im Rahmen der innoxia utilitas eine entscheidende Rolle. Beiden Konzepten
ist gemeinsam, dass nur die absolute Bedürftigkeit (necessitas) einen Anspruch auf Hilfe im Sinne eines vollkommenen Rechts gibt. Die Unterscheidung zwischen vollkommenen
Rechten (jura) und unvollkommenen Rechten (aptitudines) geht dabei auf Grotius zurück.
Anders als bei Pufendorf, der die mitmenschlichen Pflichten und ihre Grenzen anhand
vieler praktischer Beispiele verdeutlicht, bleibt das Konzept bei Leibniz zunächst abstrakt
und findet erst 1696 in seinem Werk de utilitate innoxia eine praktische Konkretisierung.
Leibniz’ eigenständiger Beitrag besteht darin, der „communitas naturalis“ eine normative
Funktion für die menschliche Solidarität zuzuerkennen, ohne dabei ihre reale Vorexistenz
zuzugeben (dall'introduzione dei proff. Armgardt e Busche
C'è logica nel pensiero critico?
No full textThis paper gives an account of the experiment of a short series of lectures which was posited by the author at the beginning of the first year of the Degree of Education at the University of Salerno and whose content was the structure of argumentation and the rules of dialogue. If the series of lectures was appreciated by the students, the main difficulty concerned how to introduce and to discuss logic and its basical contents (propositional logic, categorical logic, modalities and so on) in the run of the lectures. The author attempts to show that this introduction is factually necessary even if it stays hard, proposing some ways in order to do that
Introduzione
No full textThe paper introduces Francesco D'Errico's guide to jazz improvisation clearing up the philosophical values which are involved in D'Errico's approach and, furthermore, the crucial importance that a pedagogy of creativity can play in our actual educational plan
Morfologie del rapporto parti-tutto. Totalità e complessità nelle filosofie dell'età moderna
No full textL’ammirazione in Cartesio e Spinoza. Classificazione degli affetti e costituzione dello spazio antropologico
No full textThe status of «Admiration» in Descartes and Spinoza is illustrated by F. Piro as an index of different anthropological options, concerning the relationships between emotions and rationality and the role that they play in social, political and religious behavior. The differences in metaphysical assumptions that separate the two thinkers as well as the internal evolution of their thinking are enucleated under such perspective. In the background there are at least three main philosophical issues: (i) the classic issue of the «primary» emotions (also in the current form of a question about the «anthropological universals»); (ii) the issue of the existence and nature of moral sentiments and, at the end, (iii) that of the status of the «admirable» or «amazing» in the age of the scientific revolution
L'action des créatures et le concours de Dieu chez Leibniz: entre trans-créationnistes et durandiens
No full text40. fascicolo degli "Studia Leibnitiana Sonderhefte", il libro analizza l'influenza storica e i contenuti degli Essais de Théodicée del 1710, composti da un Leibniz quasi anziano ma ancora molto lucido e arrivato nel periodo più maturo della sua produzione filosofica. Il saggio di Francesco Piro analizza il contesto della teoria leibniziana dell'azione, contesto che è dominato ancora soprattutto da grandi opzioni teologiche: Dio soltanto agisce, come affermano Malebranche e gli occasionalisti; oppure: Dio lascia che le creature agiscono, come sostengono i pochi seguaci di Durando di San Porziano; o infine Dio e le creature co-agiscono nel produrre lo stesso identico evento, come sostengono i tomisti e sostiene Leibniz. La posizione di Leibniz è però fondata non sulle tradizionali idee tomistiche, ma su una raffinata e importante distinzione ontologica tra l'evento e l'azione, che sono, pur nella loro identità de facto, aspetti di due modalità di approccio diverse al mondo
Essenza, causa e ratio in Spinoza e Leibniz
No full textThe paper focuses Spinoza's definition of an "essence" and sketches the chief logical differences subsisting between Spinoza's concept of the essence of the singular entities and Leibniz's one. At the opinion of the author, these differences show the deep heterogeneity subsisting between Leibniz's metaphysics and Spinoza's one even in the so-called "monist" phase of Leibniz's thought (april-october 1676) and can help us to explain why Leibniz could shift so quickly from his 1676 monism to his mature pluralistic view
- …
