LEADER 04149nam a22005175i 4500
001 810109
003 TR_AnAIT
005 20260131021239
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 121227s1954 ne | s |||| 0|eng d
020 |a9789401195041|9978-94-011-9504-1
024 7 |a10.1007/978-94-011-9504-1|2doi
041 |aeng
049 |aTürk Tarih Kurumu Kütüphanesi
050 4|aBD300-450
072 7|aHPJ|2bicssc
072 7|aPHI013000|2bisacsh
072 7|aQDTJ|2thema
082 04|a111|223
090 |aDK/11392
100 1 |aMarx, Werner.|eauthor.|4aut|4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut
245 14|aThe Meaning of Aristotle’s ‘Ontology’|h[electronic resource] /|cby Werner Marx.
250 |a1st ed. 1954.
264 1|aDordrecht :|bSpringer Netherlands :|bImprint: Springer,|c1954.
300 |aX, 67 p. 1 illus.|bonline resource.
336 |atext|btxt|2rdacontent
337 |acomputer|bc|2rdamedia
338 |aonline resource|bcr|2rdacarrier
347 |atext file|bPDF|2rda
505 0 |aQuestion and Method -- I. The Formula of Ontology -- II. The Keyterms -- 1. The philo-sophical attitude -- 2. Episteme -- 3. Noesis and Noeton -- 4. Aletheuein and Aletheia -- III. The Physis Einai or On -- IV. The Physis Ousia -- V. Ousia and Ousiai -- VI. The Ousiology -- 1. Method and Goal -- 2. The Grammatical Approach, the Definitional Approach -- 3. The Eidos-Hyle Approach, the Eidos-Steresis Approach -- 4. The Potency-Act Approach -- 5. The Causal Approach.
520 |aThis study forms part of a wider investigation whieh will inquire into the relationship of Ontology and Anthropology. Since the meaning of the term 'ontology' is far from clear, the immediate task is to ask the 'father of ontology' what he might have understood it to mean. The introductory chapter emphasizes the fact that Aristotle hirnself never used the term 'ontology. ' It should be stressed at once that, even had be used it, he could not very weH have employed it to denote the discipline of ontology. For it was only during the era of the schoolmen that the vast and rich body of the prote philosophia came to be disciplined into classifications; these classifications reflected the Christian, - not the pagan Greek -, view of all-that-is. The metaphysica specialis dealing with God (theology), his creatures (psychology), and the created universe (cosmology), was differentiated from the metaphysica generalis, dealing with being-in-general (ens commune). This latter discipline amounted to the 'discipline of ontology'. 1 We are not concemed with the meaning of the metaphysica generalis. We wish to approach our problem with an open mind and want to hear directly from Aristotle - on the basis of the text of the prote Philosophia alone - which body of thought he might have called his 'ontology' and what its meaning might have been.
532 8 |aAccessibility summary: This PDF is not accessible. It is based on scanned pages and does not support features such as screen reader compatibility or described non-text content (images, graphs etc). However, it likely supports searchable and selectable text based on OCR (Optical Character Recognition). Users with accessibility needs may not be able to use this content effectively. Please contact us at accessibilitysupport@springernature.com if you require assistance or an alternative format.
532 8 |aInaccessible, or known limited accessibility
532 8 |aNo reading system accessibility options actively disabled
532 8 |aPublisher contact for further accessibility information: accessibilitysupport@springernature.com
650 0|aOntology.
650 0|aPhilosophy, Ancient.
650 14|aOntology.
650 24|aAncient Philosophy / Classical Philosophy.
710 2 |aSpringerLink (Online service)
773 0 |tSpringer Nature eBook
776 08|iPrinted edition:|z9789401186902
776 08|iPrinted edition:|z9789401195058
856 40|uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9504-1
912 |aZDB-2-SHU
912 |aZDB-2-SXPR
912 |aZDB-2-BAE
950 |aHumanities, Social Sciences and Law (SpringerNature-11648)
950 |aPhilosophy and Religion (R0) (SpringerNature-43725)