Herakleitas ir Hipokratas: elementų paradigma

The article analyses the remaining fragments and testimonies of Heraclitean philosophy and their connection with Hippocratic medicine. It is claimed that both schools belong to the same philosophical-scientific paradigm of the elements. Therefore, theoretical insights of the school of Cos might well serve explaining complicated and often difficult to interpret Heraclitean thoughts. Moreover, it is plausible that parts of Corpus Hippocraticum were written under the influence of the Heraclitean philosophy and therefore its analysis and interpretative application allows us to partially reconstruct the fragmented Heraclitean ideas into the single unified system. The article uses comparative analysis of both thinking traditions in regard to psychological, ethical, physiological, cosmological, and medical ideas. Similarities in explaining human nature are revealed. It is shown that science (medicine) and philosophy in Antiquity use the same paradigmatic utterances to describe reality. Therefore, there are many mutual interconnecting principles between early philosophy and medicine.Straipsnyje nagrinėjama Herakleito filosofijos išlikusių fragmentų bei liudijimų ir Hipokrato medicinos sąsajos. Teigiama, kad abi mokyklos priklauso tai pačiai mokslinei-filosofinei elementų paradigmai. Todėl Koso mokyklos teorinės įžvalgos gali padėti paaiškinti painias ir dažnai sunkiai interpretacijai pasiduodančias Herakleito mintis. Be to, tikėtina, kad dalį Corpus Hippocraticum veikalų yra paveikusi efeziečio filosofija, todėl jų analizė ir pritaikymas interpretacijai leidžia fragmentiškas Herakleito ištaras susieti į dalinę, vientisai rekonstruojamą sistemą. Straipsnyje yra pritaikoma lyginamoji abiejų mąstymo tradicijų analizė psichologijos, etikos, fiziologijos, kosmologijos ir medicinos klausimų atžvilgiu. Atskleidžiami žmogaus prigimties aiškinimų panašumai. Parodoma, kad Antikos mokslas (medicina) ir filosofija naudoja tas pačias paradigmines ištaras tikrovei aprašyti. Todėl tarp ankstyvosios filosofijos ir medicinos egzistuoja daug bendrų principų ir panašumų

R. DESCARTES IR I. NEWTONAS: GAMTOS FILOSOFIJOS SISTEMŲ PANAŠUMAI IR SKIRTUMAI (LAIKO IR ERDVĖS ASPEKTAI)

Erdvės ir laiko sampratų istorijoje I. Newtonas yra neabejotinai viena svarbiausių figūrų. Absoliučios erdvės ir laiko idėjos ilgą laiką buvo plačiai pripažintos ir realiai paneigtos tik XX a. pradžioje, atsiradus specialiajai reliatyvumo teorijai. Tačiau niutoniškajai mechanikai įsitvirtinti reikėjo nukonkuruoti R. Descartes’o gamtamokslines pažiūras. Kita vertus, ar gali būti, kad abiejų filosofų pažiūros yra ne tiek prieštaraujančios, kiek panašios? Ar gali būti, kad I. Newtonas pasinaudojo R. Descartes’o idėjomis, konstruodamas savo garsiuosius judėjimo dėsnius, kuriais konstatavo laiko ir erdvės absoliutumą? Šie probleminiai klausimai yra nagrinėjami straipsnyje.Reikšminiai žodžiai: erdvė, laikas, judėjimo dėsniai, reliatyvumas. R. DESCARTES AND I. NEWTON: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEIR SYSTEMS OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHYJonas Čiurlionis Summary Throughout the history of undertanding space and time, I. Newton is undoubtedly one of the most important figures. His ideas of absolute space and time were widely accepted and refused only in the beginning of the 20th century with the rise of special theory of reliativity. However, in order to be recognized, Newtonian mechanics had to win the competition against Cartesian natural philosophy. On the other hand, can it be that views of both philosophers are more similar than contradictory? Can it be that I. Newton used the ideas of R. Descartes while constructing his famous laws of motion – the foundation for the absolute space and time? These and similar problematic questions are discussed in the article.Keywords: space, time, laws of motion, relativity

ABSOLIUTIZMO IR RELIACIONIZMO KONTROVERSIJA: NEWTONAS VS. LEIBNIZAS

The article deals with a controversy between absolutist and relationist conceptions of space and time. Comparison between Newton’s and Leibniz’s theories is drawn. Points of view of other philosophers who took part in the discussion are also analysed. Strong and weak parts of both theories are revealed. The article is not aimed at taking sides in the debate rather it provides the reader with a possibility to construct his own assessment. The publication states that premises of both conceptions of space and time are metaphysical rather than physical. However, this classical debate is still relevant in today’s modern scientific context.Straipsnyje nagrinėjama absoliutistinės ir reliacionistinės erdvės ir laiko koncepcijų kontroversija. Lyginamos Newtono ir Leibnizo teorijos, pateikiami kitų diskusijoje dalyvavusių filosofų požiūriai. Atskleidžiami abiejų teorijų argumentacijų trūkumai ir privalumai. Straipsniu nesiekiama atstovauti kuriai nors pozicijai, lyginamoji abiejų požiūrių analizė leidžia skaitytojui susidaryti nešališką vertinimą. Teigiama, kad abiejų erdvės ir laiko sampratų prielaidos yra greičiau metafizinės nei fizikinės. Nurodoma, kad klasikinė diskusija yra vis dar aktuali šiuolaikiniame moksliniame kontekste

KETURIŲ ELEMENTŲ METAFIZIŠKUMAS ARISTOTELIO FIZIKOJE

The article analyzes a problem of four elements in Aristotle’s physics. It is claimed that elements are grounded metaphysically as first substances and manifestations of matter. Most of the time analysis of Aristotle’s philosophy draws attention to form as substance. The article reveals that despite the importance of form in a physical world of generation and corruption primary substances that defy the material Being cannot be ignored. Thus four elements are “embodiment” of prime matter. It is shown that the system of four elements, while serving as the basis to physics, at the same time is inseparable from the general Aristotelian philosophical system. Great importance is given to the issue of opposites, which form the essential physical system of first principles.Straipsnyje nagrinėjama keturių elementų problema Aristotelio fizikoje. Teigiama, kad jų pagrindas yra metafizinis, nes elementai yra pirminės substancijos ir kartu – materijos apraiškos. Aristotelio filosofijoje dažniausiai kreipiamas dėmesys į formos kaip substancijos reikšmę. Parodoma, kad šalia formos svarbos fizikiniame atsiradimo ir išnykimo pasaulyje negalima ignoruoti pirminių substancijų, apibrėžiančių materialią Būtį. Atskleidžiamas pirmųjų elementų, materijos bei formos, santykio problemiškumas. Parodoma, kad elementų sistema, nors yra fizikos pagrindas, neatsiejama nuo bendros aristotelinės filosofijos. Reikšmė teikiama priešybių klausimo nagrinėjimui, parodant, kad jos sudaro esminę fizikinę pirmųjų pradų sistemą

NIEKIS IR ESMAS – FILOSOFINĖ ODISĖJA

Šliogeris A. Niekis ir Esmas. T. 1: Pakeliui į niekį, 408 p. ISBN 9955-605-08-1; T. 2: Pakeliui į Esmą, 580 p. ISBN 9955-605-10-3. Vilnius: UAB „Apostrofa“, 2005

Dichotomy of body/space and soul/time in classical metaphysics

The relationship between body and soul in classical metaphysics was always a problematic one. This issue was one of the major points of philosophical concern – starting with the Pythagorean treatment of the body as a prison for one’s soul, the Platonic and medieval distinction of temporal and eternal, and ending with the Cartesian attempt to solve the problem of body-soul dualism. The body-soul distinction was linked to the difference of space and time. St. Augustine’s presentism in his concept of time related time to the soul. The subjectivistic psychological concept of time was long based on the statement that ‘the soul counts time’. Only the modern scientific revolution opened the door for different views. This situation existed almost until Newton who tried to imply an objective mathematical measurement. However, mathematics as a sphere of pure thinking or, according to Kant, synthetic a priori knowledge, is directly linked to the thinking part of the soul in classical metaphysics. Body, on the other hand, was always treated as space, and its extensity and division – as the main properties directly revealing it.While the Modern Era tried to overcome this distinction by unifying both parts, it is still deeply rooted in the Western classical metaphysical thought. The role of Euclidean geometry is important in the classical notion of the body. For ages it has been understood as the ratio of proportions of geometrical figures expressed in Euclidean space and bounded by straight lines and points as ‘atoms’ of such geometry. Geometrization becomes especially apparent with Renaissance linear perspective. Any attempts to break this geometrical order are fruitless until the establishment of non-Euclidean geometry. One of the last classical metaphysical thinkers, Kant tried to move space and time into the sphere of pure reason. However, he failed to resolve the problem of controversy between empirical realism and transcendental idealism. This paper deals with the analysis of body-space and soul-time structures in the classical metaphysical worldview

Ethics of the corpus Hippocraticum: philosophical foundations of a contemporary debate

The article deals with a contemporary debate on Hippocratic ethics. Both the opponents and proponents of Hippocratic medical ethics seem to ignore the complexity of the said ethical system. The ethics of the Corpus Hippocraticum can be properly understood only in relation to physiological, psychological, and other factors. Therefore, the ongoing debate only partially represents ethical issues, and a number of arguments in it cannot be considered as valid. Moreover, the complexity of Hippocratic ethics reveals that quite a few of its principles are still valid today and deserve to be further analyzed. In addition, some of its principles have been incontestably incorporated into contemporary medical ethics. Keywords: bioethics, elements and humors, Hippocratic ethics, holistic approach, medicin

Apie tapatybę ir vienalaikiškumą

While we often talk about different types of identity, logical, ontological, or Leibniz’s Identity of Indiscernibles, we often tend to overlook that any question regarding “What is identical?” or “How is it identical?” depends upon “When is it identical?” or “Where is it identical?” Therefore, identity cannot be understood without spacio-temporal reference. Also, as any object can be described as an event or to make it stricter – any object is an event, thus anything considered to be simultaneous also must be considered as identical in time. However, while simultaneous objects (events) are considered to be identical in time, not all identical objects (events) are considered to be simultaneous. Following this consideration, four possible types of spacio-temporal identity are analysed. Any object (event) can be identical: in Time and Space; in Time but not in Space; in Space but not in Time; neither in Space nor in Time.Therefore, all objects (events) that are considered as being identical fall into one of these four spatio-temporal types. This is true whether we have properties, features, qualities or any other factors which let us consider objects (events) as identical. As we can see, only cases A and B apply to the notion of simultaneity, where objects (events) are considered to be identical in time. We also know that simultaneity is relative and depends upon a system of reference. Therefore, we may expect that the same applies to identity thus forming an idea of relativity of identity in those types that depend on time

P. Lyndsas: judėjimo neapibrėžtumo problema

Straipsnyje yra analizuojama Peterio Lyndso iškelta judėjimo neapibrėžtumo problema. Kai kurie mokslininkai Peterio Lyndso idėjas prilygino vienam svarbesnių poeinšteininių atradimų erdvės ir laiko problematikoje. Autoriaus teigimu, Peterio Lyndso samprotavimai akimirkos - intervalo paskyros atžvilgiu prieštarauja analitinei fizinės erdvės bei laiko geometrijai, jie nėra originalūs ir geriausiu atveju gali būti vadinami aristoteliškos minties pratęsimu. Svarbaus reliatyvumo teorijos komponento - "menamojo laiko" kritika yra nepagrįsta. Peterio Lyndso teigimu, remiantis judėjimu neapibrėžtumu, galima išspręsti kai kurias iš Zenono Elėjiečio aporijų, išskyrus Stadiono aporiją. Straipsnio autorius argumentuotai įrodo, kad visų Zenono Elėjiečio aporijų neįmanoma išspręsti remiantis judėjimo neapibrėžtumo idėja. Judėjimo neapibrėžtumo principas, paaiškinantis vieną aporiją, netinka kitų aporijų sprendimo būdams. Strėlės, Achilo ir vėžlio bei Dichotomijos aporijos yra sprendžiamos nevienodai. Atlikta analizė leidžia teigti, jog nors Peterio Lyndso idėjos nėra traktuotinos kaip revoliucingas atradimas erdvės ir laiko tyrimų sferoje, tačiau jos yra įdomios filosofine prasme.Peter's Lynd's article "Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminancy vs. Discontinuity" published in Foundations of Physics Letters in 2003 made quite a buzz not only in academia but also attracted attention of leading media around the globe. Lynd’s ideas about indeterminancy of motion were regarded by some as one of the greatest discoveries in problematics of space and time since Einstein. My article examines the importance and originality of P. Lynd's ideas. In the first part of it, the general principal of indeterminancy of motion is discussed. Special emphasis is made on instant - interval issue as well as Lynd's critics of concept of imaginary time. Second part of the article is based on Lynd's paper "Zeno's Paradoxes: A Timely Solution". Through short analysis of historical solutions of Zeno's paradoxes it is shown that Lynd's proposed solution is insufficient. At the same time a new way of solving "Achiles and Tortoise" paradox is presented. Finally, conclusions of the article reveal that although Lynd's articles are interesting as philosophical speculations, they are far from introducing revolutionary concepts of space and time