groggy 发表于 2025-3-23 12:47:01
ess, and need clarification. One is with regard to the possibility of final characterization of the ontological status of consciousness - a question we prefer to keep in abeyance till the more general one regarding ontological commitment in Phenomenology is dealt with (see Chapter VII). The other quCOLON 发表于 2025-3-23 17:53:32
http://reply.papertrans.cn/95/9413/941253/941253_12.png休息 发表于 2025-3-23 19:43:31
http://reply.papertrans.cn/95/9413/941253/941253_13.pngCustodian 发表于 2025-3-24 01:34:11
http://reply.papertrans.cn/95/9413/941253/941253_14.pngOutshine 发表于 2025-3-24 03:04:34
ern philosophers of process is sufficiently forceful to warrant that designation, the dissimilarity between the modes of thought of any ancient Greek and any modern is such that important differences in method, evidence and final aim are inevitable. Assuming that both ancient and modern philosophers规范就好 发表于 2025-3-24 10:22:15
http://reply.papertrans.cn/95/9413/941253/941253_16.pnganeurysm 发表于 2025-3-24 12:56:08
es. Instead, departing from a few definitions acceptable though probably not sufficient to most philosophers, a minimal case for the symbolic character of knowledge will be made and distinguished from the maximal or wider thesis of “symbolic forms” as represented by Cassirer. Santayana’s contributiojeopardize 发表于 2025-3-24 17:19:46
http://reply.papertrans.cn/95/9413/941253/941253_18.pngaverse 发表于 2025-3-24 21:08:09
P.I. Naumkin.J.-M. Bony F. Nicola .N. Burq T. Nishitani.C. Cazacu T. Okaji.J.-Y. Chemin 978-1-4899-9940-5978-1-4614-6348-1Series ISSN 1421-1750 Series E-ISSN 2374-0280sulcus 发表于 2025-3-24 23:47:07
0067-0057 rce for anyone interested in these disciplines. Being scientists themselves, the authors explain Payne-Scott’s scienti?c work in detail; therefore, the value and importance of her contributions can, for the ?rs978-3-642-26073-5978-3-642-03141-0Series ISSN 0067-0057 Series E-ISSN 2214-7985