{"id":6423,"date":"2023-01-26T17:46:38","date_gmt":"2023-01-26T15:46:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/?page_id=6423"},"modified":"2023-05-21T14:22:06","modified_gmt":"2023-05-21T12:22:06","slug":"volumul-18-2022","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/volumul-18-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Volumul 18 (2022)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
1. METAFIZIC\u0102 \u0218I \u0218TIIN\u021a\u0102<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Reprezent\u0103ri filosofice ale unit\u0103\u021bii existen\u021bei: prin credin\u021b\u0103 noetic\u0103 \u0219i credin\u021b\u0103 perceptiv\u0103<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Viorel Cernica<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 11\u201327]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

In the following paper, I suggest an interpretation of Petrovici\u2019s and Merleau-Ponty\u2019s philosophy, both of them structured in accordance with the concept of unity of existence (the world), itself given in a close relation with the idea about an existential subject. Each philosophy includes a representation of the unity of existence, founded, the first, in a spiritual conviction (noetic belief), and the second, in a perceptual faith. This representation is in the same time a privileged kind by which a subject enters the world. Also, I will suggest arguments in order to legitimate the idea that each representation and its construction let themselves be led by the regulativity of a model of philosophizing: the philosophy of life (in the context of a metaphysics) \u2013 Petrovici; the existential philosophy (in a phenomenological context) \u2013 Merleau-Ponty.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Metafizica \u0219tiin\u021bific\u0103 dup\u0103 Constantin Leonardescu<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bogdan Rusu<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 28\u201353]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

Constantin Leonardescu (1844\u20131907) was a professor of philosophy for 34 years at the University of Ia\u0219i. He was an adept of the French eclectic spiritualism, which he tried to reconcile with the positivism of Herbert Spencer and with the Darwinism of Ernst Haeckel, while countering Vasile Conta\u2019s brand of scientific materialism. Leonardescu argued against the positivist tenet of the incompatibility of metaphysics and positive science, based on the emergence of new \u201cpartial\u201d or \u201clocal\u201d metaphysics in the thought of contemporary genuine scientists, who philosophized disregarding the former metaphysical tradition, using only the concepts of their own disciplines and forging their own principles. Positive metaphysics exists thus potentially, the metaphysician\u2019s task being to systematize, or to \u201creconcile\u201d the local contributions of the scientists-philosophers in the framework of a general, unifying theory. This framework, he argues, is a generalization of \u201cDarwinism\u201d, that is, of the special metaphysics initiated by Darwin, then rendered general by Spencer and most importantly by Haeckel. However, philosophical Darwinism or \u201cevolutionary monism\u201d curiously vindicates, in Leonardescu\u2019s view, traditional spiritualism. Generalized Darwinism thus interpreted offered a fundamental theory in which science could achieve systematic unity and become a true mirror of the Totality, which is metaphysics\u2019 true object. Scientific metaphysics is principally a reflection upon science, taking as starting point the positive facts recognized as such by the sciences, and the empirical generalizations validated within each science, and aiming to ensure logical coherence amongst them, under the rule of the supreme evolution-principle.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Rela\u021bia dintre fenomenologie \u0219i metafizic\u0103 \u00een g\u00e2ndirea lui Mihai \u0218ora<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Victor Eugen Gelan<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 54\u201364]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

According to Mihai \u0218ora\u2019s theory\/philosophical stance, every inquiry into the relation between phenomenology and metaphysics must start first from the clarification of the notions of existence and in-sistence<\/em>. If, according to the existentialist phenomenology, existence sends to the fact of being situated in the exterior of your inner self (as Heidegger would put it that is being thrown out ahead in your existential projects), in-sistence<\/em> is, in \u0218ora\u2019s view, a way of being centered upon yourself, i.e. lying entirely in your own self. For Heidegger, the essence of the Dassein consists in the Dassein\u2019s existence. For \u0218ora, the integral existential project of man, being made of the man\u2019s totality of existential acts, does not come out from the mode of existence (as interpreted by Heidegger), but rather resides in the in-sistence<\/em>\u2019s mode. The passage from existence to in-sistence<\/em> marks here a leap from phenomenology to a sort of metaphysics which nonetheless does not cancel out the phenomenological inquiry, but rather attempts at integrating the latter in a broader and more comprehensive theory of being and grounding. The result of this analysis would be that phenomenology and metaphysics are in truth two complementary domains, and not two opposed approaches in philosophy.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Ion Petrovici \u2013 50<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Nota editorilor<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, p. 65]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

\u201eSpiritul \u0219tiin\u021bific\u201d \u0219i \u201espiritul filosofic\u201d \u00een viziunea lui Ion Petrovici<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Constantin Stoenescu<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 67\u201378]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

The Romanian philosopher Ion Petrovici deals in his last study sent for publication during his life with the comparative analysis of \u201cthe philosophical spirit\u201d, \u201cthe scientific spirit\u201d, and \u201cthe theological spirit\u201d. Censorship removed considerations on \u201cthe theological spirit\u201d. Petrovici characterizes \u201cthe philosophical spirit\u201d by the overall perspective it seeks and by its role in relation to scientific research. It also distinguishes between \u201cphilosophical spirit\u201d and philosophical doctrine. Finally, the similarities and differences between \u201cthe scientific spirit\u201d and \u201cthe philosophical spirit\u201d are analyzed.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Paralelismul psihofizic ca descriere \u0219i paralelismul psihofizic ca solu\u021bie<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mona Mamulea<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 79\u201390]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

The PhD dissertation defended by Ion Petrovici in 1905 triggered criticism related to its sources, method and aim. Although the author made use of the term \u2018psychophysical parallelism\u2019 in the title \u2013 the critics reproached \u2013, the work had nothing to do with scientific psychology. The following paper discusses the distinction between psychophysical parallelism as description and psychophysical parallelism as solution to the mind\u2013body problem. Only the former can be considered a proper scientific approach.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Ion Petrovici: despre necesitatea metafizicii sau c\u00e2t de aproape suntem de adev\u0103r?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mihai Popa<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 91\u2013100]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

In a conference held at Sorbonne on March 25, 1936, \u201cLa connaissance humaine et le transcendent\u201d (Human knowledge and the transcendent), Ion Petrovici discussed the following problem which he traced through the history of philosophy to the present day: Is thought capable of perceiving reality itself? He distinguished between the gnoseological and ontological aspects of the problem. The first one is related to the nature and capacity of human functions (sensation, perception, intellect, reason) to intuit and render reality in knowledge. The second one belongs to the very structure of reality, of the object of knowledge. Fundamental categories of Kant\u2019s philosophy, such as existence, causality, and substance are brought into discussion. Provocative, but often puzzling, is that, from whatever field we start, we quickly reach a result that has an almost apodictic meaning: thinking always aims beyond itself.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Sfera \u0219i con\u021binutul no\u021biunilor la Ion Petrovici \u0219i Edmond Goblot: o inadverten\u021b\u0103 istoriografic\u0103<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ovidiu G. Grama<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 101\u2013110]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

The paper tries to identify the imperfections of a small book review from 1920, which had a disproportionate impact on subsequent Romanian philosophical historiography. The review in question is signed by Petre Andrei; he points to a parallel between certain novel ideas of the logicians Ion Petrovici and Edmond Goblot, drawing attention to the complete similarity of their conceptions and the priority that the former would have over the latter regarding their thoughts on the relationship between the intension and the extension of logical concepts. But the ideas were not so novel, the similarity was not so complete, and the priority did not exist, or at least this is what I will try to establish.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Ion Petrovici \u0219i Alexandru Mironescu \u2013 utiliz\u0103ri ale termenului adev\u0103r<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marian George Panait<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 111\u2013121]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

The purpose of this text is to emphasize the positioning \u2013 on account of the use of the term \u2018truth\u2019 \u2013 of philosophy, respectively theology concerning the metaphysical principle. I sketch an interpretative grid that I apply, as an illustration, to the uses of the term \u2018truth\u2019 in the theory of knowledge of Ion Petrovici and Alexandru Mironescu. At stake in the investigation is to reveal the difficulty that a person with both philosophical and theological commitments about the principle must face.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Ion Petrovici \u00eentre metafizic\u0103 de consolare \u0219i g\u00e2ndire categorial\u0103<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adrian Ciocioman<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 122\u2013130]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

In the following paper, Ion Petrovici\u2019s concept of metaphysics is taken into consideration. Starting from the debates on metaphysics that were at their peak at the beginning of the last century, the present paper explores the possibility of a metaphysical approach from the point of view of a categorial thinking while emphasizing on the relationship between metaphysics and religion. In Petrovici\u2019s view, metaphysics is an expression of a tendency of the soul, as well as of a need for absolute truth \u2013 expression that aims at a practicality intrinsic to the discourse. The metaphysics as science becomes therefore a metaphysics of consolation that seeks the meaning of Being and eternity at the expense of the factual truth. In the end, the relationship between scientific and metaphysical progress will be addressed.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Bibliografie<\/strong> tematic\u0103<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Ion Petrovici: o bibliografie a exegezei<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Titus Lates<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 131\u2013143]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
2. FILOSOFIE CONTEMPORAN\u0102 ROM\u00c2NEASC\u0102 \u0218I EUROPEAN\u0102: INTERFEREN\u021aE<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

G\u00e2ndirea slab\u0103 \u0219i ontologia noician\u0103<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cristina-Anita Drella<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 147\u2013157]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

The following essay is an approach of Noica\u2019s ontology considered as \u201cweak thought\u201d (Gianni Vattimo). In the first section of the paper, I will clarify the concept of \u201cweak thought\u201d and I will argue for an alternative Romanian term designed to replace \u201cweak\u201d. In the second section I will examine the extent to which Noica\u2019s ontology can be read as a weak ontology.\u00a0<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
3. RESTITUIRI<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Ioan Petru Culianu, Mircea Eliade \u0219i felix culpa<\/em>. Supplementa<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Liviu Borda\u0219<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 161\u2013199]<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\tAbstract<\/span><\/div>

The article discusses new unpublished documents which supplement those presented in the earlier articles published in this journal (the issues VIII, IX and X). Appendix 1 contains seven new pieces belonging to the correspondence of I. P. Culianu with Mac Linscott Ricketts. In order to further contextualise them I have added a contemporary exchange between Ricketts and Joseph M. Kitagawa, along with Kitagawa\u2019s unpublished review of Ricketts\u2019 monograph about Mircea Eliade (appendices 3 and 5). Appendix 2 adds three new pieces to the correspondence of I. P. Culianu with Mircea and Christinel Eliade. Again, for a better contextualisation and understanding of them, I added the exchanges of Fernand Schwarz with Mircea and Christinel Eliade (appendix 4). In most of these documents, the main topic of interest for the discussion carried on in the article is Culianu\u2019s attitude towards the accusations of philo-Fascism and anti-Semitism brought to Mircea Eliade.\u00a0<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
4. SEMNAL<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Istoria filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u00een anul 2021<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Bibliografie de] Titus Lates<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 203\u2013204]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Cite\u0219te<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Descarc\u0103<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. METAFIZIC\u0102 \u0218I \u0218TIIN\u021a\u0102 Reprezent\u0103ri filosofice ale unit\u0103\u021bii existen\u021bei: prin credin\u021b\u0103 noetic\u0103 \u0219i credin\u021b\u0103 perceptiv\u0103 Viorel Cernica [Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 11\u201327] Metafizica \u0219tiin\u021bific\u0103 dup\u0103 Constantin Leonardescu Bogdan Rusu [Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici, Bucure\u015fti, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"disabled","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[366],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6423","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","category-sifr18"],"featured_image_src":null,"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"SIFR","author_link":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/author\/sifr\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"1. METAFIZIC\u0102 \u0218I \u0218TIIN\u021a\u0102 Reprezent\u0103ri filosofice ale unit\u0103\u021bii existen\u021bei: prin credin\u021b\u0103 noetic\u0103 \u0219i credin\u021b\u0103 perceptiv\u0103 Viorel Cernica [Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 11\u201327] Metafizica \u0219tiin\u021bific\u0103 dup\u0103 Constantin Leonardescu Bogdan Rusu [Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici, Bucure\u015fti,…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6423","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6423"}],"version-history":[{"count":137,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6423\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7682,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6423\/revisions\/7682"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6423"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6423"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6423"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}