Informacja

Drogi użytkowniku, aplikacja do prawidłowego działania wymaga obsługi JavaScript. Proszę włącz obsługę JavaScript w Twojej przeglądarce.

Wyszukujesz frazę "Ficino" wg kryterium: Temat


Wyświetlanie 1-7 z 7
Tytuł:
Marsilio Ficino i Platoński Charmides
Autorzy:
Piotrowska, Paulina
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/636255.pdf
Data publikacji:
2013
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego
Tematy:
Marsilio Ficino, temperantia, Renaissance neoplatonism
Opis:
Marsilio Ficino and Plato’s Charmides The following article, devoted to Ficino’s interpretation of Plato’s Charmides, consists of two parts. The first one is an introduction to Ficino’s comment. It brings up Ficino’s stylistics and the place of Charmides among the Plato’s dialogues. It seems that the decision to translate the works of Plato was not accidental. Th e philosopher’s views on governance perfectly justified the strong power of Cosimo de’ Medici in Florence. Poliziano praised his rule in his own preface to Charmides. Charmides, in turn, is an interesting dialogue because it was followed by Ficino’s censorship where the philosopher tackles Plato’s homoerotic fascinations. Th e translator, so honest and conscientious in other translations, this time decides to pare down the content of the dialogue. However, a comment written by him becomes a valuable compensation for these shortcomings. Ficino’s main philosophical notions (above all the prisca theologia doctrine) bloom in every passage of the paper. The author interweaves the wisdom of Arab mystics with the wisdom of ancient Greek mystics in order to reconcile these thoughts with the Christian revelation. Particularly interesting is the psychosomatic approach to human nature, that is the interdependence of the health of body and soul. As by the means of sophrosyne full harmony is to be discovered between them, we can even reach immortality. We are like Adam Kadmon, who, though imperfect, can improve his own and the world’s nature. The second part of the paper is a translation of Ficino’s synopsis of the dialogue, in which the author explains what can be understood under the term sophrosyne. Temperance needs to be instilled into a man’s mind early, as early as the patient is given medication. It should be given especially to young people, to those from noble families and to the beautiful. Physical beauty, in particular, hinders striking the right balance but, on the other hand, it can also stimulate insight into the beauty of the soul. The form allows us to explore the idea. When the violent desires are tamed, it is easier to balance all other activities. Th at is the reason why “moderation is best”, as Cleobulos of Lindos would say. When both the soul and body are healed, we achieve a harmonious consonance. In the spirit of this harmony, Pythagorean magical practices agree with the thoughts of Avicenna and Hippocrates’s medical practice to end up with the mysteries of Moses. That is what they have achieved – Enoch, Elijah and St. John the Evangelist. Enriched with necessary footnotes, the translation seems to represent an important example of Italian Renaissance interpretation of Platonic thought.
Źródło:
Terminus; 2013, 15, 1(26)
2084-3844
Pojawia się w:
Terminus
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
The objective character of virtues in Marsilio Ficino’s Platonic Theology
Autorzy:
Papiernik, Joanna
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/600474.pdf
Data publikacji:
2016
Wydawca:
Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
Tematy:
Marsilio Ficino
Platonism
Neoplatonism
ethics
virtue ethics
Opis:
Marsilio Ficino did not write a methodical, complete treatise on ethics, but the ethical questions are discussed in most of his writings, including his opus magnum entitled Theologia Platonica. The most important sources for Ficino’s ethical considerations are Platonic and Neoplatonic texts and this is strongly reflected in Theologia; one of the aspects of this dependence regards the nature of virtues: they are seen as unchangeable, indivisible and that is why they are objective. The main purpose of the paper is to present the objective character of virtues in Platonic Theology by invoking their definition, role and status with references to Plato’s works.
Źródło:
Internetowy Magazyn Filozoficzny Hybris; 2016, 34 (3)
1689-4286
Pojawia się w:
Internetowy Magazyn Filozoficzny Hybris
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Epidemic and the Individual: Renaissance Understandings of the Plague in View of Modern Experiences
Autorzy:
Blum, Paul Richard
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1636551.pdf
Data publikacji:
2020-12-16
Wydawca:
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II. Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL
Tematy:
plaga
syfilis
Marsilio Ficino
Girolamo Fracastoro
Jean Ferne
plague
syphilis
Opis:
Epidemia a jednostka: renesansowe rozumienie plag z perspektywy nowoczesnych doświadczeń Epidemie są wyzwaniem dla indywidualizmu. Chociaż myślimy o chorobach w kategoriach osobistego cierpienia i wyborów, plagi od dawna dotykają wspólnot i społeczności. Epidemie zwracają perspektywę na zbiorowość, transcendencję i to, co zewnętrzne, a strach, terapia i opieka stają się bardziej uniwersalne niż indywidualne. Oto wnioski, które możemy wyciągnąć z teorii epidemii filozofów renesansu. Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) udzielił „Rady przeciwko zarazie” (Consilio contro la pestilenzia), podkreślając harmonię ciała ze środowiskiem (powietrze i planety). Girolamo Fracastoro (1477–1553) stworzył pierwszy opis kiły (syfilisu) zarówno pod względem naukowym, jak i poetyckim (Syphilis sive de morbo gallico). Wymyślił nazwę dla tej dolegliwości. Postrzegał aktywność seksualną jako jedno z typowych zachowań międzyludzkich. Troska o zdrowie wymaga szacunku dla innych, a obwinianie innych (jak w przypadku „choroby francuskiej”) jest bezużyteczne. Jean Fernel (1497-1558) wezwał do ściśle medycznych badań epidemii, jednocześnie przyznając, że dane są niewystarczające, stąd tytuł jego książki De abditis rerum causis („Ukryte przyczyny”). W ten sposób wyjaśnił irracjonalne zachowanie populacji i niektórych uczonych. Zadaniem jest przeżycie w niepewności i powstrzymanie epidemii poprzez powstrzymanie nieznanego.
Epidemics are a challenge to individualism. While we tend to think of illnesses in terms of personal suffering and choices, plagues affect communities and societies over long times. Epidemics turn the perspective to the collective, the transcendent, and the external, and fear, therapy and care become universal, rather than individual. These are the lessons we can gather from Renaissance philosophers’ theories of epidemics. Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) gave “Advice against the pestilence” by emphasizing the harmony of body with the environment (air and the planets). Girolamo Fracastoro (1477–1553) produced the first description of “Syphilis,” both scientifically and poetically. He invented the name for that contagion. He saw sexual activity as one of the typical behaviors among fellow humans. Care for one’s health requires respect for the others; and blaming others (as in ‘French disease’) is useless. Jean Fernel (1497–1558) called for strictly medical research into epidemics; at the same time, he acknowledged the insufficiency of data; hence the title of his book De abditis rerum causis (“The hidden causes”). Thus, he explained the irrational behavior of populations and some scholars. The task is to live with uncertainty and to contain epidemics by containing the unknown.
Źródło:
Roczniki Kulturoznawcze; 2020, 11, 3; 53-68
2082-8578
Pojawia się w:
Roczniki Kulturoznawcze
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Ficino And Savonarola Two Faces of the Florence Renaissance
Autorzy:
Gawrońska-Oramus, Beata
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1806836.pdf
Data publikacji:
2019-10-23
Wydawca:
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II. Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL
Tematy:
Ficino; Savonarola; Pico della Mirandola; neo-Platonism; art; religion; Renaissance; republic; piagnoni; Apologia contra Savonarolam
Opis:
The Polish version of the article was published in “Roczniki Humanistyczne,” vol. 61 (2013), issue 4. Analysis of the mutual relations between the main intellectual and spiritual authority of the Plato Academy—Marsilio Ficino on the one hand, and Girolamo Savonarola, whose activity was a reaction to the secularization of de Medici times on the other, and a thorough study of their argument that turned into a ruthless struggle, are possible on the basis of selected sources and studies of the subject. The most significant are the following: Savonarola, Prediche e scritti; Guida Spirituale—Vita Christiana; Apologetico: indole e natura dell'arte poetica; De contempt mundi as well as Ficino’s letters and Apologia contra Savonarolam; and also Giovanni Pica della Mirandoli’s De hominis dignitate. The two adversaries’ mutual relations were both surprisingly similar and contradictory. They both came from families of court doctors, which gave them access to broad knowledge of man’s nature that was available to doctors at those times and let them grow up in the circles of sophisticated Renaissance elites. Ficino lived in de Medicis' residences in Florence, and Savonarola in the palace belonging to d’Este family in Ferrara. Ficino eagerly used the benefits of such a situation, whereas Savonarola became an implacable enemy of the oligarchy that limited the citizens’ freedom they had at that time, and a determined supporter of the republic, to whose revival in Florence he contributed a lot. This situated them in opposing political camps. They were similarly educated and had broad intellectual horizons. They left impressive works of literature concerned with the domain of spirituality, philosophy, religion, literature and arts, and their texts contain fewer contradictions than it could be supposed. Being priests, they aimed at defending the Christian religion. Ficino wanted to reconcile the religious doctrine with the world of ancient philosophy and in order to do this he did a formidable work to make a translation of Plato’s works. He wanted to fish souls in the intellectual net of Plato’s philosophy and to convert them. And it is here that they differed from each other. Savonarola’s attitude towards the antiquity was hostile; he struggled for the purity of the Christian doctrine and for the simplicity of its followers’ lives. He called upon people to repent and convert. He first of all noticed an urgent need to deeply reform the Church, which led him to an immediate conflict with Pope Alexander VI Borgia. In accordance with the spirit of the era, he was interested in astrology and prepared accurate horoscopes. Savonarola rejected astrology, and he believed that God, like in the past, sends prophets to the believers. His sermons, which had an immense impact on the listeners, were based on prophetic visions, especially ones concerning the future of Florence, Italy and the Church. His moral authority and his predictions that came true, were one of the reasons why his influence increased so much that after the fall of the House of Medici he could be considered an informal head of the Republic of Florence. It was then that he carried out the strict reforms, whose part were the famous “Bonfires of the Vanities.” Ficino only seemingly passively observed the preacher’s work. Nevertheless, over the years a conflict arose between the two great personalities. It had the character of political struggle. It was accompanied by a rivalry for intellectual and spiritual influence, as well as by a deepening mutual hostility. Ficino expressed it in Apologia contra Savonarolam written soon after Savonarola’s tragic death; the monk was executed according to Alexander VI Borgia’s judgment. The sensible neo-Platonist did not hesitate to thank the Pope for liberating Florence from Savonarola’s influence and he called his opponent a demon and the antichrist deceiving the believers. How deep must the conflict have been since it led Ficino to formulating his thoughts in this way, and how must it have divided Florence's community? The dispute between the leading moralizers of those times must have caused anxiety in their contemporaries. Both the antagonists died within a year, one after the other, and their ideas had impact even long after their deaths, finding their reflection in the next century’s thought and arts. 
Źródło:
Roczniki Humanistyczne; 2018, 66, 4 Selected Papers in English; 63-86
0035-7707
Pojawia się w:
Roczniki Humanistyczne
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Bernard of Lublin (Bernardus Lublinius) and his Ficinian anthology: some observations
Biernat z Lublina (Bernardus Lublinius) i jego antologia ficiniańska: kilka uwag
Autorzy:
Olszaniec, Włodzimierz
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/614235.pdf
Data publikacji:
2016
Wydawca:
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Tematy:
Biernat z Lublina
Marsilio Ficino
łacińskie przekłady w renesansie
Bernard of Lublin
Renaissance Latin translations
Opis:
Niniejszy artykuł ma w zamierzeniu naświetlić grupę problemów zwiazanych z antologią tekstów filozoficznych przekazaną przez autograficzny rękopis Biernata (Bernarda) z Lublina. Autor artykułu skupia się na dwóch zagadnieniach: problemie źródeł wypisów Biernata z łacińskich przekładów dialogów hermetycznych i dzieł Platona (w tłumaczeniu Marsilia Ficina) oraz metodzie kompilacyjnej zastosowanej przez polskiego pisarza. W zamierzeniu autora spostrzeżenia zawarte w artykule mają być użyteczne w przyszłych badaniach nad antologią, w tym w przygotowywanej edycji krytycznej.
Źródło:
Vox Patrum; 2016, 65; 491-496
0860-9411
2719-3586
Pojawia się w:
Vox Patrum
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Hermes Trismegistos według Marsilia Ficina. Argumentum – przekład i komentarz
Hermes Trismegistus according to Marsilio Ficino: Argumentum—Translation and Commentary
Autorzy:
Jagiełło, Mieszek
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1787915.pdf
Data publikacji:
2021-04-05
Wydawca:
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II. Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL
Tematy:
Korpus Hermetyczny
Marsilio Ficino
Hermes Trismegistos
Augustyn
Laktancjusz
Klemens Aleksandryjski
Corpus Hermeticum
Hermes Trismegistus
Augustine
Lactantius
Clement of Alexandria
Opis:
Tak zwany Korpus Hermetyczny doczekał się już wielu przekładów, między innymi na język polski, choć polskie przekłady powstawały głównie na podstawie wcześniejszych tłumaczeń na inne języki nowożytne, którym pośredniczyła wersja łacińska. Długą tradycję przekładów tego filozoficzno-mistyczno-ezoterycznego dzieła zapoczątkował Marsilio Ficino w 1463 r., dokonując tłumaczenia z greki na łacinę. Łacińska wersja Korpusu do 1585 r. doczekała się aż szesnastu edycji. Nie wszystkie wydania uwzględniały również wstęp, którym Ficino opatrzył swój przekład. W owym wstępie Ficino odwołuje się do znanej mu tradycji o boskim mędrcu-proroku – zarówno antycznej, jak i wczesnochrześcijańskiej. W niniejszej pracy Ficinowski wstęp do Korpusu Hermetycznego został opatrzony własnym komentarzem wstępnym, który daje polskiemu czytelnikowi możliwość zapoznania się z ówczesnym stanem wiedzy na temat Hermesa Trismegistosa oraz interpretacją tejże wiedzy. Następnie zaprezentowane zostaje nowe polskie tłumaczenie oryginalnego wstępu Ficina, w którym tenże streścił dla swego zleceniodawcy, Kosmy Medyceusza, dostępne mu informacje o Hermesie Trismegistosie, a jednocześnie ukierunkował chrześcijańską recepcję antycznego hermetyzmu od renesansu aż do oświecenia.
The so-called Corpus Hermeticum has had a long history of translations, initiated by Marsilio Ficino’s Latin version of the Greek original he prepared in 1463. So far Polish translations of the entire text remain rather less precise due to the fact that they are third-degree translations mediated by translations into other modern languages from the Latin version. Ficino’s Latin translation had an introduction, in which he laid out both the ancient and early Christian tradition regarding Hermes Trismegistus. The presented article provides a commentary to Ficino’s introduction and gives the Polish audience an opportunity to have all pieces of information that Ficino had access to in order to understand the knowledge of the time. Further, this paper presents the new Polish translation of Ficino’s introduction.
Źródło:
Roczniki Humanistyczne; 2021, 69, 3; 31-46
0035-7707
Pojawia się w:
Roczniki Humanistyczne
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
Tytuł:
Ficino i Savonarola. Dwa oblicza florenckiego renesansu
Ficino and Savonarola. Two faces of the Florence Renaissance
Autorzy:
Gawrońska-Oramus, Beata
Powiązania:
https://bibliotekanauki.pl/articles/1890573.pdf
Data publikacji:
2013
Wydawca:
Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II. Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL
Tematy:
Ficino
Savonarola
Pico della Mirandola
neoplatonizm
sztuka
religia
renesans
republika
piagnoni
Apologia contra Savonarolam
neo-Platonism
art
religion
Renaissance
republic
Opis:
Analysis of the mutual relations between the main intellectual and spiritual authority of the Plato Academy – Marsilio Ficino on the one hand, and Girolamo Savonarola, whose activity was a reaction to the secularization of the Medicean times on the other, and a thorough study of their argument that turned into a ruthless struggle, are possible on the basis of selected sources and studies of the subject. The most significant are the following: Savonarola, Prediche e scritti; Guida Spirituale – Vita Christiana; Apologetico: indole e natura dell’arte poetica; De contempt mundi as well as Ficino’s letters and Apologia contra Savonarolam; and also Giovanni Pica della Mirandoli’s De hominis dignitate. The two adversaries’ mutual relations assumed the shape of surprising similarities and contradictions. They both came from the families of court doctors, which gave them access to broad knowledge of man’s nature that was available to doctors at those times, and let them grow up in the circles of sophisticated Renaissance elites. Ficino lived in the Medici’s residences in Florence, and Savonarola in the palace belonging to the Este family in Ferrara. Ficino eagerly used the benefits of such a situation, whereas Savonarola became an implacable enemy of the oligarchy that limited the citizens’ freedom they had at that time, and a determined supporter of the republic, to whose revival in Florence he contributed a lot. This situated them in political camps that opposed each other. They were similarly educated and had broad intellectual horizons. They left impressive works of literature concerned with the domain of spirituality, philosophy, religion, literature and arts, and their texts contain fewer contradictions than it could be supposed. Being priests they aimed at defending the Christian religion. Ficino wanted to reconcile the religious doctrine with the world of ancient philosophy and in order to do this he did gigantic work to make a translation of Plato’s works. He wanted to fish souls in the intellectual net of Plato’s philosophy and to convert them. And it is here that they differed from each other. Savonarola’s attitude towards the antiquity was hostile; he struggled for the purity of the Christian doctrine and for the simplicity of its followers’ lives. He called upon people to repent and convert. He first of all noticed an urgent need to deeply reform the Chuch, which led him to an immediate conflict with Pope Alexander VI Borgia. In accordance with the spirit of the epoch he was interested in astrology and he cast accurate horoscopes. Savonarola rejected astrology, and he believed that God, like in the past, sends prophets to the believers. His sermons, that had an immense impact on the listeners, were based on prophetic visions, especially ones concerning the future of Florence, Italy and the Church. His moral authority and his predictions that came true, were one of the reasons why his influence increased so much that after the fall of the House of Medici he could be considered an informal head of the Republic of Florence. It was then that he carried out the strict reforms, whose part were the famous „Bonfires of the Vanities”. Seemingly Ficino passively observed the preacher’s work. Nevertheless over the years a conflict arose between the two great personalities. It had the character of a political struggle. It was accompanied by a rivalry for intellectual and spiritual influence, as well as by a deepening mutual hostility. Ficino expressed it in Apologia contra Savonarolam written soon after Savonarola’s tragic death; the monk was executed according to Alexander VI Borgia’s judgment. The sensible neo-Platonist had no hesitation in thanking the Pope for liberating Florence from Savonarola’s influence and he called his opponent a demon and the Antichrist deceiving the believers. How deep must the conflict have been since it led Ficino to formulating his thoughts in this way, and how must it have divided Florence’s community? The dispute between the leading moralizers of those times must have caused anxiety in their contemporaries. Both the antagonists died within a year, one after the other, and their ideas had impact even long after their deaths, finding their reflection in the next century’s thought and arts.
Źródło:
Roczniki Humanistyczne; 2013, 61, 4; 103-126
0035-7707
Pojawia się w:
Roczniki Humanistyczne
Dostawca treści:
Biblioteka Nauki
Artykuł
    Wyświetlanie 1-7 z 7

    Ta witryna wykorzystuje pliki cookies do przechowywania informacji na Twoim komputerze. Pliki cookies stosujemy w celu świadczenia usług na najwyższym poziomie, w tym w sposób dostosowany do indywidualnych potrzeb. Korzystanie z witryny bez zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies oznacza, że będą one zamieszczane w Twoim komputerze. W każdym momencie możesz dokonać zmiany ustawień dotyczących cookies