Forum Philosophicum Opis...2 fr Reviewers 2016 John R. Betz University of Notre Dame Dmitriy Biriukov Saint-Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation; Russian Christian Academy for the Humanities, St Petersburg Tara CollingtonUniversity of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Patrick J. Connolly Iowa State University, USA Paul DeHart Vanderbilt University Alexandre Dessingué University of Stavanger, Norway Travis Dumsday Concordia University of Edmonton, Canada Marcus Duwell Utrecht University, Netherlands Lorne Falkenstein Western University, London, Ontario, Canada Gary Gabor Hamline University, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA Gregory E. Ganssle Biola University, California, USA Adam Grobler University of Opole, Poland Douglas Hedley University of Cambridge John Henry University of Edinburgh Rafał Ilnicki Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland Muayyad Jabri University of New England, Australia Paweł Kawalec Catholic University of Lublin, Poland Andrzej Kiepas University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland Jeff Malpas University of Tasmania, Australia Petr Moiseev The Higher School of Economics at Perm, Russia Olha Mukha Dragomanov National Pedagogical University, Kyiv, Ukraine R. David Nelson Baker Academic & Brazos Press, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA Michael Northcott University of Edinburgh David Novak University of Toronto, Canada Graham Oppy Monash University, Australia Michał Paluch Collegium Joanneum—Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Warsaw David E. Pratt  Saint Martin’s University, W Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0100 Omniscience, Free Will, and Religious Belief In this paper, I examine a standard foreknowledge argument and some interesting ways of handling it, along with some criticisms. I argue that there are philosophically interesting notions of free will that are compatible with determinism. These are the notions of free will that matter to ordinary life, and I argue that these generate a way for a philosophically interesting understanding of free will to be compatible with belief in God’s infallible foreknowledge. I discuss two key questions—the empirical question and the divine interference question—that are often neglected in the contemporary debate on foreknowledge and free will. Finally, I provide some answers to these questions that I hope can advance the debate. Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0100 Schmalenbach on Standing Alone before God: A Philosophical Case-Study in Ontologico-Historical Understanding This article explores the clarificatory potential of a specific way of approaching philosophical problems, centered on the analysis of the ways in which philosophers treat the relationship between ontological and historical forms of commitment. Its distinctive feature is a refusal to begin from any premises that might be considered “ontologistic” or “historicistic.” Instead, the relative status of the two forms of commitment is left open, to emerge in the light of more specific inquiries themselves. In this case the topic in question is furnished by an essay from the early twentieth century German philosopher Herman Schmalenbach, entitled “Der Genealogie der Einsamkeit” (somewhat problematically translated as “On Lonesomeness”). The aim is to show how the import of Schmalenbach’s historico-philosophical treatment of certain features arguably central to the spiritual practices and religious beliefs of Christianity can be more effectively grasped when approached in these terms. The first part provides an overview of the key points of Schmalenbach’s essay, while the second presents some conceptual-analytic considerations as a basis for exploring relations between ontological and historical forms of commitment as these figure in his text. Some possible broader implications for Christianity and its relationship to modern society are then also briefly sketched.   Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0100 Intersections between Paul Ricœur’s Conception of Narrative Identity and Mikhail Bakhtin’s Notion of the Polyphony of Speech Proposing his conception of narrative identity in Oneself as Another, Paul Ricœur holds that human life is comprehensible, once the story of a man’s life has actually been told, and it is the narrative of one’s life which constructs one’s identity. Developing his theory of heteroglossia and the polyphony of human speech, explicated chiefly in Speech Genres and The Dialogic Imagination, Mikhail Bakhtin recognizes the intrinsically intertwining character of utterance and response. According to him, utterance is always addressed to someone and antedates an answer. Bakhtin’s “addressivity,” as well as his view of discourse as fundamentally dialogic, are convergent with Ricœur’s elucidation both of man’s answerability to the Other and of narrative identity. The dynamic character of narrative identity, as construed by Ricœur, converges with the dynamic nature of language as viewed by Bakhtin. The aim of this article is to study the intersections of Ricœur’s narrative theory and Bakhtin’s recognition of the polyphonic nature of speech. I view these as inherently interrelated, and as testifying, respectively, to the philosophical and linguistic aspects of one and the same phenomenological vision. That vision accounts for selfhood, understood as vulnerable and contextualized, while also recognizing that it is conveyed by means of language with its essentially dialogic openness.  Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0100 Tomasz Mróz. Selected Issues in the History of Polish Philosophy (Erasmus Lectures at Vilnius University) This article reviews the book Selected Issues in the History of Polish Philosophy (Erasmus Lectures at Vilnius University), by Tomasz Mróz.  Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0100 Iamblichus’ Response to Aristotle’s and Pseudo-Archytas’ Theories of Time This article aims to shed light on certain aspects of Iamblichus’ theory of time that have not been sufficiently examined to date in the scholarly literature. As of today, there are a mere handful of scholarly works tackling Iamblichus’ solutions to the paradoxes of time in particular, and his contribution to the developments of the Neoplatonic theory of the subject more generally. This article attempts to redress the lack of literature on this topic by examining Iamblichus’ response to Aristotle’s and Pseudo-Archytas’ theories of time. It begins with a brief survey of the philosophical developments that led to and were formative for Iamblichus’ philosophical explorations of the area in question. Then it moves on to provide a detailed account of Iamblichus’ own unique and puzzling theory of time. The author applies the method of comparative analysis, scrutinizing Iamblichus’ solution to the paradoxes of time against the backdrop of Aristotle’s and Pseudo-Archytas’ theories. The author identifies firm scholarly grounds for doing so from within the tradition of Iamblichus studies initiated by the ground-breaking research of Shmuel Sambursky and Salomon Pines and continued, inter alia, in the subtly nuanced analysis of Richard Sorabji and John Dillon. The author concludes that Iamblichus successfully resolved the paradoxes of time and that his conception lent itself to a more effective highlighting of the ordering function of time. Wed, 15 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0100 The Imagination in Kant and Fichte, and Some Reflections on Heidegger’s Interpretation The paper deals with the meaning of the transcendental imagination in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, comparing it with the productive imagination proposed by Fichte in his Wissenschaftslehre of 1794. It also presents Heidegger’s views concerning both Kant and Fichte. Regarding Kant there is also a discussion of the difference between the first and second editions of the First Critique. It may be noted that Heidegger prefers the first edition to the second, since, in his view, the latter leads into German Idealism. In Fichte’s philosophy the imagination plays a considerably larger role than it does in Kant. And Heidegger early on (in 1929) recognizes the importance of Fichte as a philosopher in its own right, and not just, as was customary in the period, a mere transitional figure between Kant and Hegel. The paper concludes with a critique of Heidegger’s views regarding both Fichte and Kant. Though there is an addendum discussing the function of the imagination in the aesthetics of Kant (classicism), in that of Fichte (romanticism), and a brief comparison with Heidegger’s own aesthetics.     Thu, 15 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0200 Boards Editorial Board Marcin Podbielski, Editor-in-ChiefJesuit University Ignatianum in Kraków Anna Abram, Associate EditorHeythrop College, University of London Anna Zhyrkova, Associate Editor for Ancient, Patristic, Medieval and Russian PhilosophyJesuit University Ignatianum in Kraków Robert Grzywacz SJ, Associate Editor for Philosophy of ReligionJesuit University Ignatianum in Kraków Tomasz Dekert, Review and Web EditorJesuit University Ignatianum in Kraków Carl Humphries, Language EditorJesuit University Ignatianum in Kraków Roman Małecki, SecretaryJesuit University Ignatianum in Kraków, Poland Advisory Board Elizabeth BurnsHeythrop College, University of London Petr DvořákAcademy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Philosophy, Prague;Palacky University, Olomouc, Department of Philosophy and Patristic StudiesEditor-in-chief of Filosofický časopis, Prague Paweł KawalecCatholic University of Lublin, Faculty of Philosophy Joshtrom Isaac KureethadamSalesian Pontifical University, Rome, Faculty of Philosophy Dariusz ŁukasiewiczKazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz, Institute of Philosophy Petr A. MoiseevThe Higher School of Economics in Perm, Russia, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities Fr. David Pratt,Saint Martin’s University Rev. Mark SultanaUniversity of Malta, Faculty of Theology Andrey TikhonovSouthern Federal University at Rostov-on-Don, Department of Philosophy and Cultural Studies Thu, 09 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0100 Issues Planned for 2017 Forum Philosophicum invites submissions to two general, non-thematic issues, to be published in 2017. We publish both short papers and longer essays (up to 15,000 words), on a variety of subjects pertinent to our Mission. In an era when authors are frequently asked to contribute to the costs associated with their publications, we are happy to stress that we never charge our authors submission or publication fees, and that we provide, at our own expense, linguistic correction of papers by non-native speakers of English accepted for publication. More on our submission requirements may be found here. Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0100 Online Presence Full text databases Philosophy Documentation Center (all issues) EBSCO Academic Search Premiere (issues since 2006) Indexes: Philosopher’s Index The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Index Copernicus Google Scholar PhilPapers Base d’Information Bibliographique en Patristique (Papers on Patristics) WorldCat ATLA Catholic Periodical and Literature Index (the journal has been accepted for indexation in late 2015) Sat, 17 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0100