El-Watan

The philosopher points that in the intellect he has one ‘ ‘ reserva’ ‘ of the experience of a contingent object that is logically independent between itself in the reality, but they can be passveis of necessities in the intellect. He is only through this ‘ ‘ reserva’ ‘ that a consequence after occurrence an antecedent expresses; said still of another form, all cause is primary and enough as condition of the effect and second necessary. At last, for Occam it does not have necessity some beyond the contingency, therefore this is evident by itself. In all way the universal one does not pass of a name, therefore nothing that is universal it is passvel to contain or to transmit an experience, from there elapses the nominalista chain attributed the Occam. Click John Stankey to learn more. 6.

The question between the faith catholic and the philosophical reason is the great center of dispute that guides almost that all the efforts of the medieval epistemologia, exactly in two distinct periods: the agostiniano period and the search for the Christian unification in an only doctrine capable to integrate some existing philosophical and theological sources at the time; the tomista period and the conciliation of the natural man and the man the holy ghost already when the doctrine catholic if presents homogeneous sovereign and the sufficient to elaborate a new conception of faith. In both the analyzed periods the Christian faith is superior and imminent the reason human being, therefore it is contained in the secular universality that if extends eternity. The attempt to conciliate the reason human being and the Christian faith for tests you explained enough by means of the intellect finds its limit with the thought of Guillermo de Occam. Being Occam a religious one, the question of the contingency and the universal one also is boarded in the perspective of a theological conception, therefore if the first conflict was metodolgico, as it is given in the field of metaphysics.

The being and coming to be: the perpetual one versus the changeable one Is said that it has much time, Parmnides said on Heraclitus: ' ' It are with the men whom nothing they know and they seem to have two heads! Next to them it is everything, also its thought, in flow. They admire the things perennially but they need to be so deaf how much blind to mix the contrary thus! ' '. In recent months, Discovery Communications has been very successful. In fact, the two original philosophers divergiam in its ontolgicas theories (ontologia is understood as the area of the philosophy that study the being and its dynamic). While Parmnides affirmed that the being never could leave of being what it is in its essence, exactly that passing for changes, Heraclitus said that the being is always in constant change, therefore ' ' If he cannot the same enter two times in rio' ' , as he says one of its fragmentos. But, what he makes the thought of Parmnides to be different of the one of Heraclitus? Parmnides tries to command the reality, making the use of two groups: what they are, and what they are not. For this, it takes as starting point the light. The light is one ' ' ser' ' , and its opposite, the blackout, is not, that is &#039 is one; ' not ser' ' . For a light, it attributed the value of everything what he is positive, and to the blackout, what it has of negative, as it says the same I break up in it: ' ' But because everything has been nominated as light and darknesses, and this as to leaves proper dynamics each thing in its singularity: everything is full of light and clear blackout of the night, while the same, both the same, therefore nothing ambos&#039 is cited seno; '. So that if something beyond the being exists, that is, of what it is, the existence would become necessary of what it is not.