3 resultados para Accouplement frère-soeur
em Portal de Revistas Científicas Complutenses - Espanha
Resumo:
Este artículo pretende ser complemento y continuación de mis anteriores trabajos sobre la figura de Petrus Hispanus O. P., Auctor Summularum. Comienzo presentando algunos nuevos documentos relacionados con las cuestiones ya examinadas en mis artículos de 1997 y 2001. A continuación, me ocupo de las cuestiones aplazadas en el artículo de 2001: los problemas relativos a la figura de “Petrus Ferrandi” y su posible relación con el “auctor Summularum”, así como los argumentos de Tugwell contra la hipótesis de la posible identidad de estas dos figuras, examinados ahora desde la perspectiva del autor de la Legenda prima. Tras analizar testimonios procedentes de muy diversos ámbitos, afirmo, por una parte, que la hipótesis de la identidad entre “Petrus Ferrandi” y “Petrus Hispanus” podría ser correcta y, por otra parte, que no hay argumentos concluyentes que obliguen a afirmar con seguridad que el autor de la Legenda prima es Pedro Ferrando. Aunque los análisis no permiten por el momento determinar si es “Petrus Alfonsi” o “Petrus Ferrandi” el “auctor Summularum”, los testimonios recogidos y las conexiones establecidas contribuirán, sin duda, a orientar futuras investigaciones en torno a la figura de “Petrus Hispanus”.
Resumo:
We aspire to shape the Constantine’s personality in particular by analyzing his loving relationship, first with Minervina and then with Fausta, and not forgetting the bond with his mother Helena, hence the reference to uxor, mater and concubina in our title. We will analyze if these women exercised any influence on the composition of his production rules and, if so, to what extent they were able to determine the historical development of the following decades. From this point of view we must consider in general the emperor had to combine their political claims and government with these relationships, showing great skill in handling times and ways, always putting the first to the second.
Resumo:
It is usually assumed that Heraclitus is, exclusively, the philosopher of flux, diversity and opposition while Parmenides puts the case for unity and changelessness. However, there is a significant common understanding of things (though in differing contexts), not simply an accidental similarity of understanding. Both philosophers, critically, distinguish two realms: on the one hand, there is the one, common realm, identical for all, which is grasped by the ‘logos that is common’(Heraclitus) or the steady nous (Parmenides) that follows a right method in order to interpret the real. On the other hand, the realm of multiplicity seen and heard by the senses, when interpreted by ‘barbarian souls’, is not understood in its common unity. Analogously, when grasped by the wandering weak nous it does not comprehend the real’s basic unity. In this paper I attempt to defend the thesis that both thinkers claim that the common logos (to put it in Heraclitean terms) or the steady intellect (to say it with Parmenides) grasp and affirm the unity of the real.