Journal articles on the topic 'Aristotle Logos (Philosophy)'

According to Aristotle,Metaphysics(a) 2.3, 995a7–8, there are people who will take seriously the arguments of a speaker (including, it seems, those of a philosopher) only if a poet can be cited as a ‘witness’ in support of them. Aristotle's passing observation sharply reminds us that Greek philosophy had developed within, and was surrounded by, a culture which extensively valued the authority of the poetic word and the poet's ‘voice’ from which it emanated. The currency of ideas, values, and images disseminated through familiarity with poetry had always been a force with which philosophy, in its various manifestations, needed to reckon. As a mode of thought and discourse which proclaimed its aspiration to wisdom, philosophy could not easily eschew some degree of dialogue with an art whose practitioners had traditionally (and for much longer than anyone had been called a ‘philosopher') been ranked prominently among thesophoi. Even Aristotle, who keeps aloof from the assumption that philosophical contentions stand in need of poetic support, cites and quotes poetry regularly in his own writings in ways which indicate the influence on him of a prevailing mentality that regarded poets and philosophers as pursuers, up to a point at least, of a common wisdom.

Plato opposed εἰκὼςμῦθος and εἰκὼςλόγος, thereby asserting the logos as the highest type of account, which revealed the strict rationality and intelligibility of the cosmos. Plato used the logos to affirm a new way of life in accordance with the intelligibility of the kalos cosmos and its copies (εἰκών) created by Theos. For Plato, therefore, dialogue as an exercise was more important than the results obtained, and for Aristotle, the discussion of problems had more educational value than their solution. Plato and Aristotle perceived the logos in the meanings of dialogue as the art of living by the highest account. They considered the logos as an opportunity to make a transition, or rather, self-transformation to the highest order, into which the idea of agathos was opened. The author argues the thesis put forward referring to the original texts of Plato. English version of the article on pp. 376-385 at URL: https://panor.ru/articles/eikslogos-or-a-rational-motivation-in-platos-philosophy/66016.html

AbstractThe core sense of pistis as understood in Posterior Analytics, De Anima, and the Rhetoric is not that of a logical relation in which cognitively grasped propositions stand in respect to one another, but the result of an act of socially embedded interpersonal communication, a willing acceptance of guidance offered in respect to action. Even when pistis seems to have an exclusively epistemological sense, this focal meaning of pistis is implicit; to have pistis in a proposition is to willingly accept that proposition as a basis for some kind of activity (albeit possibly theoretical) as a result of some kind of communicative act. This is in accordance with Aristotle’s understanding of argumentation as a social practice, entered into in order lead others to certain actions, for certain ends. Understanding pistis in this way allows us to understand how it is that pistis admits of quantitative variation.

Departing from Aristotle’s two-fold definition of anthrōpos (human) as having logos and being political, the argument of this article is that human beings are always fundamentally political for Aristotle. This position challenges the view that ethical life is prior to or beyond the scope of political life. Aristotle’s conception of the political nature of the human is developed through a reading of the linguistic argument at Politics 1.2; a careful treatment of autos, or self, in Aristotle; and an examination of the political nature of anthrōpos in the context of Aristotle’s candidates for the best life in Politics VII.1–3 and Nicomachean Ethics X.6–8. From this consideration the compatibility between Aristotle’s claims that anthrōpos is fundamentally political and that the highest end of the human is achieved in theoria is maintained, since even in pursuing the theoretic life, human beings take up the practical question of what the best life is.

Aristotle thinks that an account, alogos, of some sort is characteristic of craft,technē. Some scholars think that thelogoselement oftechnēis tagged onto experience as a theoretical element not directly engaged in successful production: I argue instead that thelogosgrounds the productive ability of craft, and also that is practically orientated in a way that distinguishes it from thelogosof theoretical science. Understanding thelogosof craft thus helps us explain how the craftsman differs both from the merely experienced practitioner and from the theoretical scientist.

In the Phaedo – a dialogue investigating the immortality of the soul – Socrates compares himself to the swans of Apollo who sing “most beautifully” before they die. Working principally from the Phaedo (but also Timaeus, Parmenides, and Philebus), the aim of this article is to determine the relation between the song of the swan and the song of the philosopher. First, we examine the use of language in human song as a way to consider the other side of logos: logos not only as word but logos as ratio – i.e., as a relation between temporally-ordered terms. This ratio we then examine as the sense of before-and-afterness that Aristotle explores, in Physics IV, as the “number of movement” that is time; for, through the counting of this “number of movement” (accomplished by the soul), we begin to understand how swans (through song) and philosophers (through dialogue) share a temporal orientation toward what transcends the present moment. This temporal orientation, I argue, pertains to sempiternity, an ageless or undying [ἀθάνατος] movement of the soul. Thus, I conclude that philosophy as “the highest kind of music” (Phaedo) – like the song of the swans of Apollo – concerns itself with the undying state of the soul and, hence, with ethos.

Abstract Something Aristotle calls ‘right logos’ plays a crucial role in his theory of virtue. But the meaning of ‘logos’ in this context is notoriously contested. I argue against the standard translation ‘reason’, and—drawing on parallels with Plato’s work, especially the Laws—in favor of its being used to denote what transforms an inferior epistemic state into a superior one: an explanatory account. Thus Aristotelian phronēsis, like his and Plato’s technē and epistēmē, is a matter of grasping explanatory accounts: in this case, accounts that identify the right action and say why it is right. Arguably, Aristotelian rationality is a matter of being able to grasp accounts in general.

Because of history, culture, and politics, European identity has its archetypical elements in ancient Greek culture. Ancient Greek philosophy brought Logos to fore and defined it as the crucial problem and the postulate of the human. We translate the Greek term Logos in English as reason or rationality. These terms, however, do not cover the semantic field of Logos since this includes, among other things, order of being, ground, language, argument etc. The juxtaposition of Logos (reason) to myth makes up the matrix of rationalism. Ancient Greek culture, however, was a culture of Logos (reason) as well as of myth and had enough room for forms, gods, and heroes, for science, poetry, and religious festivities. While ancient Greek culture seems to follow the logic of forms, modern European culture follows the logic of things. Plato criticizes myth and, at the same time, he sets out a philosophy of myth. He follows the principle of ‘giving reason’ (logon didonai) about things, as his master Socrates did. He establishes dialogue and defines dialectics as the science of principles and ideas and their relations to the things of this world. Aristotle did not accept Plato’s interpretation of Logos. He considered dialectics only as a theory of argumentation and defined his ‘first philosophy’ or ‘theology’ as the science of highest Being. His program of rationalism is based on ontology and accepts the primordial relation of Logos, life, and order of things. European modernity begins in philosophy with Descartes’ turn to the subject. Descartes defines the main elements of European rationality and their problems. He brings to fore the human subject as the ‘I’ that is free to doubt about everything it can know except itself. Knowledge has to consolidate the power and the mastery of humans over things and nature. Besides, the distinction between soul and body in terms of thinking thing and extended thing does not allow a unique conception of the human. Especially Kant and Hegel attempted to eliminate the impasses of Descartes’ and of Cartesians. While Kant defined freedom as the transcendental idea of reason, Hegel highlighted the reconciliation of spirit and nature. Nowadays there is a confusion regarding rationality. The power of humans over nature and over other humans as nature is increasing. We have lost the measure of our limits. Perhaps we need the ancient Greek grammar of Logos in order to define the measure and the limits of modern European rationality.

Among the most controversial aspects of Aristotle’s philosophy is his endorsement of slavery. Natural slaves are excluded from political citizenship on ontological grounds and are thus constitutively unable to achieve the good life, identified with the collective cultivation of logos in the polis. Aristotle explicitly acknowledges their humanity, yet frequently emphasizes their proximity to animals. It is the latter that makes them purportedly unfit for the polis. I propose to use Agamben’s theory of the anthropological machine to make sense of this enigmatic exclusion and suggest a new conception of the good life and community detached from political rule. Aristotle’s distinction between humans and animals condemns slaves to bare life, but also reveals an opportunity for an inoperative form-of-life.

Heraclitus is one of the most influential and most controversial thinkers in the human history. His ideas had an impact on the formation and further development of some of the most important and most specific concepts in philosophy, such as idea, dialectics, logos, eternal return, etc. He exerted a significant influence over all great philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Nietzsche, etc. Heraclitus's ideas were exceptionally strange and unusual for his time, so many, very early, started suspecting they were of Greek origin. In this article, we analyze the theories about the Persian origin of the key Heraclitus’s ideas. We point to the most important research in that field, name some of the advantages and disadvantages of certain claims and make our own that is, to some extent, different from the previous ones. We show that Heraclitus was, to a large extent, under the influence of Persian Mazdaist teachings of his time, and that this impact was essential for the conceptualization of his most important concepts, such as teachings about logos, dialectical monism, Unus Mundus, Coincidentia Oppositorium, eternal movement, etc. Furthermore, Heraclitus was the first Greek thinker who mentioned the Zoroastrian magi in his work, criticized the practice of worshiping the idols, depicting the figures of deities, and religious exclusivism following the practice developed in the Achaemenid Empire.

Heidegger develops his reading of a-lētheia as privative unconcealment (Unverborgenheit) in tandem with his early phenomenological theory of truth. He is not simply reinterpreting a word, but rather reading Greek philosophy as having a primordial understanding of truth which has itself been concealed in interpretation. After shedding medieval and modern presuppositions of truth as correspondence, the existential truth-experience shows itself, no longer left puzzlingly implicit in unsatisfactory conventional readings of Greek philosophy. In Sein und Zeit §44, Heidegger resolves interpretive difficulties in Parmenides through his interpretation of alētheia and philologically grounds this reading in Heraclitus’s description of the unconcealing logos. Although this primordial sense of the word has already been obscured in Plato and Aristotle, the structural gradation of their theories of truth conserves the primordial pre-Socratic sense of truth as the experience of unconcealment.

Straipsnyje aptariama graikiškojo filosofavimo genezė, t. y. nagrinėjamos pirmojo filosofijos teiginio susiklostymo prielaidos ir tų prielaidų numanoma teiginio prasmė. Filosofijos istorijoje nusistovėjusios pirmųjų filosofų teiginių interpretacijos kilmė siejama su Aristotelio filosofija. Teigiama, kad Aristotelis graikiškąjį filosofavimą jau visiškai įkurdina rašte. Iš rašto pozicijų Aristotelis žvelgia ir į pirmųjų filosofų ištaras, todėl suvokia jas vien kaip rašto (teorinio mąstymo) elementus. Straipsnyje daroma prielaida, kad filosofavimas prasidėjo ne kaip raštas, o kaip su žmogaus veikla susijęs tradicinis kalbėjimas. Filosofavimo kaip konstruktyvios kalbėjimo atmainos specifiką lėmė antikoje susiklosčiusi refleksijos situacija, kuri siejama su septynių išminčių imperatyvu ‘Pažink save!’ Parodoma, kad šis imperatyvas steigia skirtį tarp logo ir kosmo, kurią antikos išminčius išgyvena kaip sinkretinio gyvenimo vidujybės netektį. Straipsnio autorius interpretuoja filosofavimą kaip kalbėjimą ir veikimą, kuriais antikos išminčius siekia susigrąžinti ikirefleksinę būseną. Teigiama, kad sinkretinių mąstymo įgūdžių nepraradęs antikos išminčius savąjį filosofavimą linkęs aiškinti kaip pritapimo prie kosmo būdą. Kadangi refleksija įkurdina žmogų teorinio mąstymo erdvėje, tai pritapimo prie kosmo veiksmas tegalimas mąstymo plotmėje, todėl filosofavimą steigianti skirtis tarp logo ir kosmo besiplėtojančiame filosofavime nuaidi skirtimis kosme. Tačiau pirmieji išminčiai dar tikisi pilnatviško pritapimo prie kosmo ir tokio pritapimo regimybę jie dar pelno kosmo kaip grožio išgyvenimu, kurį Platonas ir Aristotelis sieja su nuostaba. Pirmoji kanonizuotoji filosofijos ištara interpretuojama kaip estetinį pritapimą prie kosmo referuojantis poetinis bylojimas.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: raštas, priežastis, refleksija, kosmas, pritapimas, archė, grožis, tiesa, būtis.On the Nature (of Philosophy)Skirmantas Jankauskas SummaryThe paper deals with the genesis of Greek philosophy. The circumstances of the appearance of the first utterance in Greek philosophy and their impact upon its meaning are revealed. The traditional interpretation of the first utterances in the early Greek philosophy is attributed to Aristotle. The latter is said to have transferred Greek philosophizing totally into writing and subsequently to treat the first utterances as elements of writing. In the article, the suggestion is put forward that philosophizing did not begin as a writing but rather as a talking activity immersed in human activity in general. The specificity of philosophizing as constructive talking is related to the situation of reflection, caused by the imperative of the Seven Sages, namely by the imperative ‘Know thyself!”. It is shown here that the imperative introduces the difference between logos and cosmos, which is experienced by a Greek Sage as a loss of sincretic life. Philosophizing is then introduced as an activity of talking, provoked by the will to reestablish the original sincretic state. The author argues that because of syncretist skills, this activity is treated by early Greek philosophers as a way of partaking in cosmos. As reflection conveys a philosopher into the realm of theoretical thinking, partaking in cosmos is possible only as a way of thinking. Consequently, the difference between logos and cosmos in philosophizing resolves itself in the differences of cosmos. Nevertheless, the first philosophers still retained some hope for complete partaking in cosmos, and they gained the illusion of such a partaking by aesthetic experience of cosmos, which was attributed by Plato and Aristotle to wondering. Consequently, the first utterance of Greek philosophy is interpreted in this article as a kind of poetic discourse that refers to the activity of aesthetic partaking in cosmos.Keywords: writing, reason, reflection, cosmos, partaking, arche, the beautiful, truth, being.

The title of this essay is rather ambitious and the space available is hardly sufficient to examine two words of almost limitless expanse—“human rights”—whether standing alone or in tandem. This requires that I begin with (and remained disciplined by) what a teacher of mine, Leo Strauss, called “low facts.” My low facts are these: We call ourselves humans because we have certain characteristics that define our nature. We are social and political animals, as Aristotle noted, and possess attributes not shared by other animals. The ancients noted this, of course, when they defined our principal behavioral and cognitive distinction from the rest of the natural world as the faculty of speech. The Greek word for this, logos, means much more than speech, as it connotes word and reason and, in the more common understanding, talking and writing, praising and criticizing, persuading and reading. While other animals communicate by making sounds of attraction or warning, leaving smells, and so on, none read newspapers, make speeches, publish their memoirs, or write poetry.

The Stoics try to demonstrate, in a theoretical context, more than any other philosophy, the link unifying the parts with the whole, in all areas of existence; namely, from man to divine reason, from god to nature – a tautological link in some cases – from matter to logos or creative pneuma. This unifying bond – hexis or continuity – guarantees the attachment between bodies which are in a state of sympathy (or interaction) which also constitutes their existence. It remains to seek the meaning of this notion; draw on its etymology: according to Bailly’s dictionary, the term hexis in Greek means among other meanings: action of possessing, possession. And according to the dictionary of L.‑S.‑J., hexis (proper noun) derives from the future of the verb ἕξω, from the verb ἔχω, (to have, to possess); in its intransitive form refers to a permanent condition, namely to an act, which results from practice.In order to make an attempt to define this concept or to orient its function, it seems appropriate for us to do some research – we could say historical –, consulting texts prior to Stoicism, examining its place and the nuances it takes in different contexts and finally, follow its interpretation where, according to philosophical approaches, it sometimes means disposition, habit, or situation. Nevertheless, the Stoics give this term an original meaning, different from the one that was granted to it until then. It is the hectic pneuma or the tension (tonos) prevalent in the universe. In this perspective, we will try to define its function and compare it with the notion of hexis in Aristotle, where it acquires the meaning of metaxy, in his Metaphysics, Δ, 1022b12.

On prend co mme point de départ la distinction aristotelicienne entre Logos apophantikos (discours prédicatif vrai ou faux) et Logos semantikos (discours qui possede une signification, mais n’est ni vrai ni faux) - Aristote - De L ’Interprétation, 4, 17a. Cette distinction conduit Aristote à faire la séparation du discours scientifique, passible de vérité, des sciences théorétiques - et du discours non-scientifique, dépossedé de vérité - Rhetorique et Poétique. Le discours scientifique (théorique) aurait, d'après Aristote, une primauté indiscutable. Dans le présent travail on défend que le discours prédicatif (Logos apophantikos) est subordonné au discours non-prédicatif, qu'il présuppose. C'est l'étude de la structure "en tant que" (structure d e l'expérience - Als Struktur) qui le montre. La structure "en tant que" apophantique s'enracine dans l'expérience de la substance. La structure "en tant que" herméneutique renvoye à une dimension communicative (tradition et pré-compréhension du monde). Cette dimension communicative du discours devient ignorée quand on donne une primauté exclusive au Logos apophantikos, à l'expérience (muette ) de la substance. Par contre, la dimension communicative du discours est bien présupposée, de façon explicite, par Aristote lui-même, dans la Rhétorique et la Poétique, bien qu'il la consi d ere subordonnée. On demande s'il est possible de soutenir la subordination de la Rhétorique et de la Poétique à la Philosophie théorique, alors que le Logos apophantikos, chemin conducteur de la pensée d'Aristote, devient lui-même subordonné (dérivé).

The consistency of the author describes many things about the fifteen themes in his book that human beings in life are still aware of their nature as intelligent animals. Pius Pandor explained the biographies and teachings of the great Greek philosophers, medieval, modern, and contemporary philosophers in order to specifically distinguish these themes, but the basic framework remains in Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle. The main purpose of this book is to take the reader slowly to understand and love philosophy. Understand and love philosophy with criticism and wisdom. Criticism means that philosophy is here to raise our awareness so as not to be carried away in the safe zone of life, but to dare to explore the dark alleys of life in a zone of challenge. While wisdom means that philosophy offers both depth and breadth of thinking horizons in the oceans of life. Konsistensi penulis memaparkan banyak hal mengenai lima belas tema dalam bukunya bahwa manusia dalam hidup tetap menyadari kodaratnya sebagai binatang berakal budi. Pius Pandor memaparkan biografi serta ajaran para filsuf besar Yunani, filsuf abad pertengahan, modern, sampai dengan kontemporer untuk membedakan secara spesifik tema-tema itu, namun kerangka dasarnya tetap pada filsuf Yunani, terutama Aristoteles. Tujuan utama dari buku ini berusha untuk mengantar pembaca secara perlahan memahami dan mencintai filsafat. Memahami dan mencintai filsafat dengan kritik dan kebijaksanaan. Kritik berarti filsafat hadir untuk membangkitkan kesadaran kita agar tidak terhanyut dalam zona aman kehidupan, tetapi berani menelusuri lorong-lorong gelap kehidupan dalam zona tantangan. Sedangakan kebijaksanaan berarti filsafat menawarkan kedalaman sekaligus keluasan cakrawala berpikir dalam mengarungi samudera kehidupan.

En la presentación de Aristóteles, Gorgias parece ser sólo un retórico incapaz de expresar cualquier propuesta filosóficamente interesante. La razón de esto es que, en la opinión de Aristóteles, una manera clara y precisa de hablar es una cualidad necesaria de todo filósofo, y Gorgias prefiere un estilo de discurso complejo y obscuro. Desde el punto de vista de la evolución de la retórica, Aristóteles cree que Gorgias tiene una desventaja, pues él apela a las emociones y a las pasiones, y no al logos.

ABSTRACT Short story writing is a literary art whose creativity heavily depends upon the interplay between the writer and his influence upon the reader. There are four modes of discourse employed in creative writing: exposition, description, narration and persuasion. Exposition is concerned with the layout, style and organisation of events and the actors within them. It is the immediate revelation to the readers of the setting and other background information that is necessary for understanding the plot. Description employs the use of language terms in ‘graphical’ or picturesque representation of something or someone through detailed characterisation of colour, motion, sound, taste, smell and touch. Narration is the telling of a story in fiction, non-fiction, poetry or drama. Persuasion is a form of argumentation where the language employed is intended to convince, principally through appeals to reason or to emotion. This study is focalized on the mode of persuasion with the rhetorical and classical theories as the point of reference. The Greek philosopher Aristotle upheld the view that narration, whose essential purpose is to become persuasive, could only enjoy viability if it possessed the following appeals: ethos, logos, pathos and kairos. This study was a confirmation of Aristotle’s contention across first language and second language English readers; this was underscored by an annexed anthology within the study, depicting divergent fictional settings and all emanating from the same writer, to which reading subjects from these variegated contexts were exposed. Thereafter comprehensive questionnaire covering various dimensions of ethos, logos, pathos and kairos was used to elicit the reader responses in regard to their appreciation and understanding of story. The study is useful not only in cementing the classical tradition, but also as an indication that even in modern rhetoric, logos and kairos must be regarded as basic in any communication while ethos and pathos are mainly appellative, although of relative importance.

Freud tracked the psyche along the paths of sleep, following the “royal road” of dreams. For the ancient Greeks, too, the psyche was revealed in sleep, not through the semiotics of dreams but through the peculiar state of being we occupy while asleep. As a “borderland between living and not living” (as Aristotle puts it), sleep offered unique access to the psukhē, that element within the self unassimilable to waking consciousness. This paper examines how Greek philosophers theorized the sleep state and the somnolent psukhē, focusing on Heraclitus, Plato, and Aristotle. Each of the three attempts to reclaim sleep for waking life and to join the sleeping soul to the philosophical self. But that attempt never fully succeeds. Instead sleep consistently emerges as a philosophical blindspot, a state that—unlike dreams—cannot be spoken by philosophy's logos nor fully illuminated by philosophical analysis.

The article is devoted to the myth of ‘Hercules at the crossroads’ and its ethical aspects. The myth was created in circles of Pythagoreans, and was kind of incentives to the right – according to the Pythagoreans – way of life. The echoes of the myth we can find in Plato’s philosophy, the life of Christ, as well as in popular movies such as Star Wars or The Matrix. The author of article adapts the myth of Hercules in their philosophical workshops ΛΕΓΩ-ΛΟΓΟΣ (LEGO–LOGOS). During the workshops ΛΕΓΩ-ΛΟΓΟΣ, participants read the texts of various philosophers: Plato’s, Aristotle’s, Cicero’s, Marcus Aurelius’, and later thinkers’: Leonardo Da Vinci’s, Descartes’ and others’. All texts are selected by a philosophical key, with a strong ethical message in the background built on the canvas of the myth of Hercules at the crossroads. This idea is presented by the author in order to illustrate its meaning with the help of classical philosophy and modern, philosophically saturated movies.

The present paper remains modest in its scope: It seeks only to undertake some exploratory and preparatory investigations with a view to addressing a more difficult and far-reaching question. The issue, in brief, is the following: In the 1920s, Heidegger engages in an incisive and comprehensive critique of techn!, which I shall render here as “production” or “productive comportment,” arguing that it furnishes the foundation and horizon for Greek ontology, and by extension for the entire Western philosophical tradition, a horizon that is problematically reductive because the ontology it gives rise to understands the Being of beings in general in terms of independent presence-at-hand, the appropriate mode of access to which is theoretical apprehension. Not only philosophy and ontology, but science and its outgrowth, modern technicity—itself a monstrous transformation of techn!—would be an almost inexorable consequence of this fateful Greek beginning. The project of a “destructuring of the history of ontology” announced in Being and Time would seek to retrieve and to open up an entirely other dimension of Being, a dimension foreclosed by the Greek beginning and yet awaiting us precisely as the unthought of that beginning and the tradition to which it gave rise. The destructuring would take as its guiding thread an understanding of the Being of Dasein—designating the being that we ourselves in each case are—as radically temporal, never simply present-at-hand, and essentially inaccessible to theoretical apprehension. Yet the critical resource for this analytic of the Being of Dasein was, for the early Heidegger, itself provided by Greek philosophy: It was Aristotle’s insight into the Being of the human being as praxis, and its authentic mode of self-disclosure, phron!sis, that led Heidegger to see the radically different kind of temporality pertaining to human existence, by contrast with the theoretically ascertained time of nature as something present-at-hand, and provided a key insight into the essence of “truth” (aletheia) as unconcealment. Aristotle’s insight into this more primordial sense of aletheia or “truth” as the knowing self-disclosure of our radically temporal Being-in-the-world as praxis, as opposed to truth conceived as a property of logos, judgment, or theoretical knowledge, was a forgotten thread of Greek philosophy that could shed light upon the limits and foundations of the theoretical tradition that dominates the subsequent history of ontology.

Straipsnyje analizuojama būties, žinojimo ir kalbos santykio filosofinė refleksija antikoje, besiremianti būties ir mąstymo vienovės pajauta sinkretiniame graikų mąstyme. Būdingiausia jos išraiška – antikinės filosofijos bandymai aiškinti pasaulio prigimtį bei ryšius ir siekti tikrojo žinojimo, išreikšto „tikrųjų daiktų”, t. y. esmių, vardais. Argumentuojama, kaip Platono siekis ieškoti „tikrųjų daiktų” vardų implikuoja teorinę kalbos tinkamumo žinojimui analizę ir pirmą kartą minties istorijoje iškelia filosofijai pažintinių kalbos galimybių tyrimo uždavinį. Kartu parodoma nevienareikšmė autoriaus pozicija, neduodanti konkretaus atsakymo, kokios yra kalbos galimybės atskleisti daiktų esmę. Aristotelio bandymai žinojimą tyrinėti kaip loginio samprotavimo rezultatą ir pastangos ieškoti tikslesnių minties atitikmenų kalboje leidžia argumentuoti, kaip antikoje įsitvirtina metodologinė nuostata, kalbą tapatinanti su žinojimu ir tirianti jos galimybes vaizduoti pasaulį, įžvelgti jo prigimtį.Reikšminiai žodžiai: epistemologija, logos, kalba ir žinojimas, vardas ir daiktas, Aristotelio logika. PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTION ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THINGS AND THEIR NAMES IN THE ANTIQUITYNijolė Aukštuolytė Summary The article discusses the Antique philosophical reflection of the relationship between being, knowing and language, based on the unity of being and thinking in the syncretic thinking of the Greek philosophers. Itsmost characteristic manifestation lies in the attempts of ancient philosophy to explain the nature and relationships of the world and to seek for true knowing, conceived as knowledge of ‘true things’, in other words,the names of the essence. The article argues that Plato’s search for the names of ‘true things’ implies a theoretical analysis of the adequacy of language for knowing as well as raises the objective of philosophical analysis of the cognitive potential of language. Plato’s ambiguous stance with reference to the potential of language to reveal the essence of things is also shown. Aristotle’s attempts to analyze knowing as a result of logical thinking and his attempts to search for more precise equivalents of thought in language led to the idea of the methodological approach which identifies language as knowing and focuses on the analysis of its potential to depict the world and penetrate into its nature. Keywords: epistemology, logos, language and knowledge, word and thing, Aristotle’s logic.

Abstract: Knowledge of the presence (ḥuḍūrī) with mystical experience as describe above is deemed the most popular models of knowledge in Islamic philosophy at the same coloring methodology and epistemology of Islam. Through logical arguments, semantic analysis and epistemo¬logy sharp Suhrawardī considered very successfully demonstrate authenticity huduri science as a science model of non-representational. Among the classical epistemological problems that have not been resolved until now -but able to be dissected in clear and distinct- is about the relationship of subject and object of knowledge, that is the problem more acute in modern Western philosophy. What is interesting is when when to review the issues very carefully and consistently Mehdi directing and bringing the students (who interest in Islamic philosophy) into the recesses of the inner world and the dialogue with the depth of their own existence. It is undeniable that Ha'iri Mehdi Yazdi take existentialist philosophy illumination Suhrawardī and MullaṢadrā as a main reference, as he learned the lesson of Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Ibn Sīnā, and al-Ṭūsī, citing the idea of a number of Western philosophers were actually familiar with the science huduri that he wanted to offer. However unique, he expertly directs their ideas to the conclusion that it is inevitable for us to acknowledge the existence of non - phenomenal knowledge. Abstrak:Pengetahuan dengan kehadiran (ḥuḍūrī) dibarengai pengalaman mistik seperti yang paprkan diatas dipandang model pengetahuan yang paling populer dalam filsafat Islam sekaligus mewarnai metodologi dan epistemologi Islam. Melalui argumen-argumen logis, analisis semantik dan epistemologi yang tajam Suhrawardī dipandang sangat berhasil mendemonstrasikan keautentikan ilmu huduri sebagai sebuah model ilmu non-representasional. Diantara problem-problem klasik episte-mologis yang belum terselesaikan hingga kini—tetapi mampu dibedah secara clear dan distink—adalah tentang hubungan subjek dan objek pengetahuan, yang problemnya makin akut dalam filsafat Barat modern. Yang menarik adalah ketika ketika mengulas masalah-masalah itu Mehdi sangat cermat dan konsisten mengarahkan dan membawa para murid-muridnya (peminat filsafat Islam) memasuki relung-relung dunia batin dan berdialog dengan kedalaman eksistensi mereka sendiri. Tak dapat dipungkiri bahwa Mehdi Ha’iri Yazdi mengambil filsafat iluminasi Suhrawardī dan eksistensialis MullaṢadrā sebagai acuan utamanya, seraya memetik pelajaran dari Plato, aristoteles, Plotinus, Ibn Sīnā, dan al-Ṭūsī, mengutip gagasan sejumlah filosof Barat yang sebetulnya asing dengan ilmu ḥuḍūrī yang hendak ia tawarkan. Akan tetapi uniknya, dengan piawai ia mengarahkan gagasan-gagasan mereka kepada penarik¬an kesimpulan bahwa adalah tak terelakkan bagi kita untuk mengakui eksistensi pengetahuan non-fenomenal itu. Keywords: ilmu ḥuḍūrī, khazanah, epistemologi, cogito ergo sum, atheisme.

Illocutionary force may be qualified according to Aristotle's classical triadic distinction of logos as a degree of verity, ethos as a degree of credibility or authority and pathos as eloquence or passional intensity. Jakobson 's model of linguistic functions can be understood as operating performatively with greater advantages to pragmatic theory than Searle and Vanderveken's taxonomy of illocutionary acts. Consequently, these three dimensions can also be found in the aesthetic as in other linguistic functions proposed by Jakobson when examined from a pragmatic viewpoint. By detecting the direction of fit and establishing a distinction between conversion and constitution, we may better understand not only the difference between the aesthetic and other functions but a variety of instances besides the artistic in which the aesthetic is displayed. Therefore, pathos can be clearly differentiated from the aesthetic as a dimension that may weigh, together with logos and ethos, upon the aesthetic function of an illocutionary act.

After a short biographical summary of Aristotle’s life, this lecture turns to the different ways in which Aristotle and Plato practiced philosophy, identifiable in the different ways they presented their ideas. Through this lecture’s lens we view these philosophers’ texts, Aristotle’s logic, syllogism, Aristotle’s rhetorica, and the distinction he drew between ethos, pathos, and logos, referring to the speaker, the audience, and the discourse. Suivant un bref sommaire biographique de la vie d’Aristote, ce cours se penche sur les différentes manières dont Aristote et Platon pratiquaient la philosophie, identifiables par les façons divergentes dont ils présentaient leurs idées. Dans ce cours, on passe en revue les textes de ces philosophes, la logique d’Aristote, le syllogisme, la Rhétorique d’Aristote, et la distinction que celui-ci a faite entre ethos, pathos et logos, c’est-à-dire l’orateur, l’auditoire et le discours.

ABSTRACTThe ontological foundations of bioethics are traced from the "Nicomachean Ethics" (EN) Aristotle. To do this, we analyze the "Biological Treaties", the "Treaties Psychological" and "Metaphysics" Aristotle latter being considered the seminal work of Western ontological thought. The "Midpoint" the "Prudence", "Justice", the Amistad, the "Act", the "Power", the "substance" and "Alma", respectively, are basic categories, from which raised the respective discussions and interpretations. Various secondary sources provided the corresponding interpretative approaches theoretically required to support this research. The Spanish translation of the EN, by Marías, J. (1970), was the immediate source taken as a basis for interpretive contributions corresponding, which was analyzed by Books reason of logical and systematic sequence of this work. . Bioethics is assumed that since it implies deliberation prerequisite for formulating conclusions should be viewed as a tool for decision making. These decisions take transcendent nature they involve inherent addressing "Being" as "Being and" Being "in Society problems. Bioethics is ethics while applied to the field of life and health of man stands as a discipline whose identity logos after seat logical and epistemological found precisely in philosophy. The contemporary ethical proposals analyzed in this study do not provide length and breadth from Aristotle EN as basic references for redefinition. Research conducted suggests the adoption of a new logo to redefine "Bioethics" based on ethics, psychology and Aristotelian Biology. For purposes of defining the present manuscript. The most significant findings related to the analysis of the Nicomachean Ethics (EN) Disclosed.RESUMENSe rastrean los fundamentos ontológicos de la Bioética desde la “Ética a Nicómaco” (EN) de Aristóteles. Para ello se analizan los “Tratados Biológicos”, los “Tratados Psicológicos” y la “Metafísica” aristotélica por ser considerada esta última la obra fundamental del pensamiento ontológico occidental. El “Punto Medio”, la “Prudencia”, la “Justicia”, la Amistad, el “Acto”, la “Potencia”, la “Sustancia” y el “Alma”, respectivamente, constituyen categorías básicas, a partir de las cuales se plantean las respectivas discusiones e interpretaciones. Diversas fuentes secundarias aportaron las correspondientes aproxima-ciones interpretativas requeridas para fundamentar teóricamente esta Investigación. La traducción al español de la EN, realiza-da por Marías, J. (1970), constituyó la fuente inmediata tomada como base para los correspondientes aportes interpretativos, la cual fue analizada por Libros en razón de la secuencia lógica y sistemática de esta obra. Se asume que la Bioética en tanto que implica deliberación, paso previo para la formulación de conclusiones, debe ser vista como una herramienta para la toma de decisiones. Estas decisiones adquieren carácter trascendente porque implican el abordaje de problemas inherentes al “Ser” en cuanto “Ser y al “Ser” en Sociedad. La Bioética en tanto que es ética aplicada al campo de la vida y la salud del hombre se erige como un logos tras disciplinario cuya identidad y asiento epistemológico se encuentran precisamente en la filosofía. Las propuestas éticas contemporáneas analizadas en este estudio no aportan extensión y amplitud desde la EN de Aristóteles como referentes básicos para su redefinición. La Investigación realizada sugiere la adopción de un nuevo logos para redefinir la “Bioética” con fundamento en la Ética, la Psicología y la Biología aristotélica. Para fines de delimitar el presente manuscrito. Se exponen los hallazgos más significativos relacionados con la el análisis de la Ética a Nicómaco (EN).

AbstractTrue to its semantic origin, the term ›pistis‹ indicates, in ancient Greek, a work of the ›peitho‹. Accordingly Aristotle’s Rhetoric explores the famous trinity of persuasion - ›logos‹, ›ethos‹, and ›pathos‹ - under the heading of ›pistis‹. As the Rhetoric is a study of man as much as a believer as in need of belief, it is only fair to ask what can be gathered from this work and from an investigation of the art of persuasion in general when it comes to Christian theology of faith. All the more so, because Christian thinking was not only shaped by ancient philosophy proper but also to a high degree by the rhetoric tradition; for the majority of the founding fathers of Christian theology were well versed in the subject.Via the topic of ›persuasion‹ versus ›force‹ I am tracing the influence of the rhetoric tradition right from the first theological thinkers of Christianity through to the Regensburg speech of pope Benedict XVI

This article aims to analyse an intercultural telephone invitation given by a Chinese tutor to an Australian student, and highlight general principles of intercultural invitations. This anecdote is based on a true story that took place in a university in Australia, but the persons' names used here are fictitious for the sake of confidentiality. Below is the transcript of the actual conversation between the Chinese tutor Dr Lin Liang (L) and his student Catherine Jones (C): C: Catherine speaking. L: Hi, Catherine, this is Lin. C: Hi, Teacher Lin. L: I would like to invite you to our New Year's party to be held in my house this Saturday evening. C: This Saturday? I am afraid I won't be able to make it because I am going to my best friend's birthday party. L: You know this is the end of our school year. It would be so nice for all of our classmates to gather together. C: But I have already promised my friend. L: En... It is a pity... C: Sorry about that, but -- L: Never mind. Enjoy your party then. C: Thanks. L: That's OK, bye. C: Bye. However, the story does not end here. About two hours later, Dr Lin rang Catherine a second time, asking if it was still possible for her to consider attending the Saturday party. Late in the evening around 9.00 pm, Dr Lin rang her yet again to invite her to the party, saying it would be OK even if she stayed just for a short while. The next day, Catherine lodged a complaint with the Dean, alleging that Dr. Lin's repeated calls constituted sexual harassment. Dr. Lin was highly distressed to learn of the complaint, and explained that he just wanted to indicate sincerity and warmth as required by an invitation, and had no other intentions. This communication breakdown invites a number of questions: What are the factors underlying Catherine's interpretation that Dr. Lin's repeated calls constituted sexual harassment? What are the factors underlying Dr. Lin's contention that his actions were intended to emphasise his sincerity? What factors would need to be recognised in order to facilitate culturally competent performances on both their parts? In order to answer these questions, this article will adopt a holistic approach based on an analytic framework encompassing three theoretical dimensions. This framework is comprised as follows: Differences in intercultural exchange and politeness behaviour; Aristotle's distinction between the three orientations of persuasive/rhetorical appeal; ethos, pathos, and logos; Austin and Searle's theory of speech acts, as applied to politeness behaviour and felicity conditions in communicative interaction as applied to the act of inviting. These approaches are conceptualised as three overlapping spheres, and their relatedness can be further illustrated: Figure 1 First and foremost, the case study in question is related to an intercultural interaction between the Australian and Chinese culture, and some research findings in relevant areas may help highlight the differences in politeness behaviour between high-context and low-context cultures (Hall). According to Hall, high-context cultures such as Chinese tend to stress the use of internalised or implicit message while low-context cultures tend to emphasise the use of explicit messages. In other words, in Chinese culture, the message may have some shared implied meanings that may go beyond the linguistic forms used in the message. Kaplan's model on oriental circularity and western linearity seemed to in accordance with Hall's model. Young's exploration of the directness and indirectness of American and Chinese requests further substantiated this point. In a similar way, differences may arise in determining the criteria for appropriate behaviour relating to the use of other directives across cultures. As Gao and Ting-Toomey suggest, Chinese culture seems to pay attention to qing (reciprocity and feelings of obligation) and guanxi (relationship building), while in low-context cultures such a stress tends to be missing. This difference may also help explain the differences in communicative patterns as discussed by Kaplan and Young. Zhu found that in making a sales offer, Chinese companies often try to establish a long-term relationship with their clients ("Structural Moves"). In contrast, Australian companies seem to mainly focus on promoting products. The stress on qing in Chinese culture may also be a crucial factor that contributes to the different criteria for a polite invitation as compared to the Australian culture. The following discussion will further explore the other two parameters (see Figure 1) the two cultures differ in when making an invitation, which may have finally led to the breakdown in communication between Dr. Lin and Catherine. As shown in Figure 1, the argument underpinning this approach is that a given illocutionary act reflects culture-specific preferences for certain persuasive/rhetorical orientations, thereby affecting the socio-linguistic performance, i.e. parole as opposed to langue (Cullen) related to politeness principles. In short, the persuasive/rhetorical orientation varies between cultures, which means that the nature of ostensibly equivalent illocutionary acts also varies. Consequently, cross-cultural competence will be limited unless one is aware of the rhetorical and politeness codes implicit in the performance of certain communicative actions. Note that rhetorical orientation may also influence the politeness behaviour directly as a specification of that orientation. This in turn requires an awareness of cultural preferences toward certain persuasive/rhetorical orientations. The interconnections between them and the theoretical utility of this approach will be made explicit in the course of this discussion. Austin and Searle conceptualise the speech acts as comprising of locution (langue) and illocution (parole). What is of vital importance is the illocutionary force of an utterance which is the performance of a speech act, such as an invitation. According to Searle, an invitation is a directive used to get the addressee to do something. Invitation can be understood as a particular form of persuasive speech act. It is generally intended to produce a particular response (i.e. acceptance). As an illocutionary action, an invitation seeks to establish a relationship of social expectations between the host and invitee. This requires certain felicity conditions to be met. In other words, for the speech act to be socially significant, it must create a shared sense of meaning in regard to some perceived change or modification to existing social relations. These are often so obvious that they require little explanation. However, felicity conditions in speech-acts are culture-specific and may include rhetorical and politeness devices that are not obvious to other cultures. Politeness behaviour in invitations, related to using appropriate language forms, is an important element in competent illocutionary performance. Leech contends that polite illocutions are likely to be seen as minimising the addressee's cost and maximising his/her benefits, and the opposite is true for the addresser. Politeness behaviour can also be further explained in the light of Brown and Levinson's face-saving theory. Many actions we perform with words are potential face-threatening acts, such as requests and invitations (Brown and Levinson). The addresser is thus often confronted with negative face wants and has to address them by applying Leech's principles, in which maximising the addressee's benefits is the dominant strategy to gain politeness. However, strategies to maximise the addressee's benefits can be culture-specific. This is further connected to the persuasive/rhetorical orientation. Based on Aristotle, the appeal from ethos emphasises the persuader's (host's) character and status or other social conventions which might oblige compliance. The appeal from pathos emphasises emotion/feelings (either positive or negative) in inducing the desired response. The appeal from logos emphasises reason and the logical consistency of the proposal with the ideas and motives of the persuadee (invitee). Moran and Stripp found that western cultures tend to have a logical orientation, while others such as Japanese and Chinese tend to be characterised by emotional or dogmatic orientations. In a similar manner, Chinese scholars seem to address ethos, logos and pathos at the same time, in particular the logos and pathos. These principles remain a well-accepted principle in Chinese writing theories. Li, for example, clearly explicates the persuasive principle in writing as qing li (the combination of the emotional and logical approaches). The explicitly preferred qing (feelings/emotions) can be seen as part of the Confucian values relating to harmony, consensus and relationship building as noted by Hofstede and Bond. The different rhetorical orientations are also further explored by Campbell. This difference may suggest that the preferred rhetorical orientations are also a key aspect underpinning competent illocutionary performance. For example in Chinese invitations, a stress on the emotional approach may validate behaviours such as repeating the invitation even after initial refusal. However, a stress on the logical orientation, such as in western cultures, may negate the validity of these politeness conditions. This clearly points out the necessity of understanding the criteria for competent performance across cultures. The felicity conditions of invitation in Euro-Australian culture require, first, that the potential host be in a legitimate position to offer hospitality, and second, that the potential guest be -- at least theoretically -- able and willing to accept. Thirdly, the locutionary form of politeness requires use of conventionally appropriate terms of address and wording. The illocutionary form requires that the host symbolically offer hospitality to the invitee without the imposition of charges or other demands. Furthermore, the implied benefit to the invitee would ideally be achieved though implied cost to the host (even if the invitee is addressed as if their presence constitutes the bestowal of a favour). Fourthly, depending on the nature of the relationship between the host and invitee, certain persuasive/rhetorical orientations are preferred over others (eg. an appeal to emotion may seem out of place in formal invitation). The initial invitation meets these criteria. Dr. Lin offers and Catherine declines, citing a plausible and legitimate reason for being unavailable. From Catherine's perspective, the felicity conditions for invitation are now redundant. She has already declined in a manner which makes it clear that she is socially obliged to be elsewhere. From a persuasive/rhetorical perspective, the first invitation was primarily based on an appeal from logos/reason. i.e. Dr. Lin did not know that Catherine had already committed herself to other plans and it would be reasonable to suppose that she might appreciate being invited to a social occasion. This was backed up by a secondary appeal from pathos/emotion, whereby Dr. Lin pointed out that it would be nice for the whole class to get together. However, the priority of attending a best friend's birthday-party over-rides both these appeals. In Euro-Australian culture, close personal friends enjoy greater social priority than classmates or more distant associates. For Dr. Lin, however, the politeness criteria for invitation were still applicable. From a Chinese cultural perspective, the illocutionary performance of invitation may require repetition of the offer, even if the initial approach has been declined. According to Zhu (Business Communication), in Chinese culture repeating invitations is an accepted ritual to indicate sincerity and hospitality. Thus in Dr. Lin's view the second approach is required to perform the illocutionary act competently. The persuasive appeal, however, has become oriented toward ethos, reflecting Chinese conventions pertaining to politeness behaviour. For Dr. Lin not to repeat the invitation might suggest that Catherine's presence was of merely casual concern. Therefore the sincerity of the invitation demanded the gesture of repetition, regardless of the logical grounds cited for the initial refusal. Unfortunately, Dr. Lin and Catherine perceive the second invitation in very different ways based on the illocutionary performance criteria of their respective cultures. For Catherine, the logical basis for her initial refusal renders Dr. Lin's performance incompetent, and creates uncertainty about his apparent motives. In Euro-Australian culture, the repeated invitation makes no logical sense, since a perfectly legitimate reason for declining has already been provided. Therefore the communicative action cannot be interpreted as an invitation. If it is, then it is performed in a culturally incompetent fashion which could legitimately be construed as pestering. Repeating an invitation which has already been declined may appear to be an emotional appeal. While an illocutionary invitation based on pathos conceivably may be competent in Euro-Australian culture, the only circumstances that it would occur in is between relatively close friends. The power-relations between Catherine, as student, and Dr. Lin, as tutor, precludes felicity in this case. Thus the same locutionary action is interpreted as two quite different illocutionary actions. This depends on the interpreter's culturally specific understanding of the social significance of the locution. Since Catherine's cultural conventions would implicitly deny the validity of a repeated invitation, the communicative action must be construed as something else. Catherine may have classified the repeated invitation as a minor issue of little consequence. However, when Dr. Lin called her up to invite her a third time, she interpreted the illocutionary act as harassment. From a contemporary Euro-Australian perspective, pestering may be irritating, but harassment is political in nature. Three factors lead Catherine to this conclusion. First, after two previous declinations, the third invitation could not fulfil the illocutionary performance criteria of a legitimate invitation. In particular, the persuasive/rhetorical orientation of the repeated appeals were not oriented toward logos, as befits the formality of the lecturer-student relation. Indeed, it was Dr. Lin's apparent attempt to approach Catherine in a non-formal manner (apparently oriented toward pathos rather than logos) which led her to this interpretation. Second, the fact that Dr. Lin' social status is higher than Catherine's introduced the problem of the implicit power-relations in the discourse. For Catherine, the third invitation was intrusive and pushy, and it seemed that her explanations had been ignored. The evening call demanded that she re-engage in the discourse of day-time student-tutor power-relations. Since she is subordinate to Dr. Lin, other strategies through which she might have asserted her rights may have carried the risk of subsequent disfavour. However, she obviously resented what she perceived as an attempt to inappropriately use status to interfere with her personal affairs and sought out higher authority to rectify the situation, hence the complaint of harassment made to the Dean. Ironically, Dr. Lin's third invitation in the evening may well have been intended to reduce the social distance between himself and Catherine created by workplace space-time power-relations. For Dr. Lin, the first invitation expressed the illocutionary intent. The second call made sure that the invitee was made to feel assured of the sincerity of the invitation, and the third ring expressed the would-be host's appreciation. Establishing a host-guest relationship is a key illocutionary function in Chinese invitation. Note though, that there may also be a 'face' consideration here. Dr. Lin attempts to facilitate Catherine's attendance by pointing out that it would be acceptable to attend for a brief period. This suggests a re-emphasis on the orientation to logos, since it points out a compromise which allows Catherine to attend both parties. It also allowed Dr. Lin to save 'face' by not having his invitation totally disregarded. However, it failed as an illocutionary performance because the felicity conditions for polite invitation had already been violated as far as Catherine was concerned, even though they remained intact throughout for Dr. Lin. In conclusion, it can be seen from the above analysis of the communication breakdown that persuasive orientations and politeness principles are interrelated and culturally sensitive. Euro-Australian culture stresses the logical orientation in illocutionary performance whereas Chinese culture seems to emphasise both the logical and emotional approaches. Without a recognition of this difference, specific politeness behaviours in intercultural invitations can lead to illocutionary incompetence. This has been exemplified by Catherine's misconstrual of Dr. Lin's intended invitation-performance as harassment. Therefore in intercultural communication, one ought not to judge a speech act such as an invitation based on one's own culture's felicity conditions. First and foremost, a basic understanding of persuasive orientations between cultures is essential. With appropriate understanding of these principles one can avoid misinterpreting the intent of the addresser, thus overcoming barriers in intercultural communication. Specifically, further appreciation of the interplay between rhetorical orientation, politeness codes and felicity conditions in illocutionary performances in different cultures is required for a fuller comprehension of potential cross-cultural incompetence. With this in mind, greater tolerance can be achieved, and intercultural competence enhanced. References Aristotle. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Trans. George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford UP, 1991. Austin, John. L. How to Do Things with Words. New York: Oxford UP, 1962. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1987. Campbell, Charles. P. "Rhetorical Ethos: A Bridge between High-Context and Low-Context Cultures? The Cultural Context in Business Communication. Eds. Susanne Niemeier, Charles P. Campbell and René Dirven. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1998. 31-47. Cullen, Johnathan. Saussure. 2nd ed. London: Fontana, 1985. Ge Gao, and S. Ting-Toomey. Communicating Effectively with the Chinese. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 1998. Hall, E. T. Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1977. Hofstede, G., and M. H. Bond. "The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots to Economic Growth." Organisational Dynamics 16.4 (1988): 4-21. Kaplan, R. B. "Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education." Language Learning 16 (1966): 1-20. Leech, Geoffery. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman, 1983. Li Xiaoming. "Good Writing" in Cross-Cultural Context. Albany, NY: State U of New York P, 1996. Moran, R. T., and W. G. Stripp. Successful International Business Negotiations. Houston: Gulf, 1991. Searle, John R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1969. Young, Linda Wai Ling, ed. Crosstalk and Culture in Sino-American Communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 1994. Zhu Yunxia. Business Communication in China. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 1999. ---. Structural Moves Reflected in English and Chinese Sales Letters. Discourse Studies (In Press). Citation reference for this article MLA style: Zhu Yunxia, Peter Thompson. "Invitation or Sexual Harassment? An Analysis of an Intercultural Communication Breakdown." M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3.4 (2000). [your date of access] <http://www.api-network.com/mc/0008/invitation.php>. Chicago style: Zhu Yunxia, Peter Thompson, "Invitation or Sexual Harassment? An Analysis of an Intercultural Communication Breakdown," M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3, no. 4 (2000), <http://www.api-network.com/mc/0008/invitation.php> ([your date of access]). APA style: Zhu Yunxia, Peter Thompson. (2000) Invitation or sexual harassment? An analysis of an intercultural communication breakdown. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3(4). <http://www.api-network.com/mc/0008/invitation.php> ([your date of access]).

Abstract Tracing philosophical education at Potchefstroom a century ago It is to be regretted that the history of education in Philosophy at other universities, like the Free University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands (established in 1880) has been documented in several publications, while very little is known about who taught and what was taught in Philosophy during the early days of the later to be known Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education (established already in 1869). The introduction indicates that also about the teaching of this subject in general in South Africa not much has been documented. Nevertheless, from the start philosophy was regarded as an important part of the academic curriculum for the training of future ministers (and later also teachers) of the Reformed Churches in South Africa. From about the second decade of the twentieth century two types of Christian Philosophy emerged more clearly. Prof Ferdinand Postma (1879-1950) taught in the line of the logos philosophy of his Dutch mentor, Jan Woltjer (1849-1917), but no traces of this tradition were left after Postma. Prof Sietse Los (1871-1944) followed the Herman Bavinck line, the influence of which was still discernible in the philosophy of H.G. Stoker (1899-1993). This investigation focuses on the philosophical tradition represented by Los a century ago. This overview consists of the following four main parts. Firstly, it investigates the historical background of Reformed theology, especially as it was represented by A. Kuyper and H. Bavinck, the mentors of Los. This is, secondly, followed by some biographical notes on Los. The third, or main section, is devoted to an analysis of Los’s philosophical anthropology from seven of his books published in South Africa and the Netherlands between 1904 and 1944. His view of being human boils down to a Christian-biblicist reinterpretation of preceding Aristotelinising and Platonising ideas about the human being. He supported Aristotle’s and his subsequent followers’ views as embedded in the Christian tradition in their dichotomist view of soul and body as two separate substances. But he combined their anthropology with Plato’s and his Christian followers’ view that the human soul itself should be divided into three functions (a trichotomy) of intellect, will and emotion. The fourth section concludes with an evaluation of some weak as well as positive points in Los’s contribution to philosophical education at Potchefstroom during the early days of the previous century. Key words: Los, S. (1875-1944); Philosophy; Potchefstroom; Postma, F. (1879-1950); twentieth century (beginning) Sleutelwoorde: Filosofie; Los, S. (1875-1944); Potchefstroom; Postma, F. (1879-1950; twintigste eeu (begin)

<p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves /> <w:TrackFormatting /> <w:PunctuationKerning /> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:DoNotPromoteQF /> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>AR-SA</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables /> <w:SnapToGridInCell /> <w:WrapTextWithPunct /> <w:UseAsianBreakRules /> <w:DontGrowAutofit /> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark /> <w:DontVertAlignCellWithSp /> <w:DontBreakConstrainedForcedTables /> <w:DontVertAlignInTxbx /> <w:Word11KerningPairs /> <w:CachedColBalance /> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math" /> <m:brkBin m:val="before" /> <m:brkBinSub m:val=" " /> <m:smallFrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispDef /> <m:lMargin m:val="0" /> <m:rMargin m:val="0" /> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup" /> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440" /> <m:intLim m:val="subSup" /> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr" /> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true" DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99" LatentStyleCount="267"> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="footer" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="10" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Body Text" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography" /> <w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading" /> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><! /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:Arial; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} --> <!--[endif]--><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: &quot;GoudyOlSt BT&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;">Self-actualization is one of the main ideas in the Aristotle’s ethic philosophy. According to Aristotle, man’s happiness depend on how much he could actualize his potencies through positive acts. There are two ways to actualize these potencies; theoretic and praxis. Theoretic actualization is human self-actualization through spiritual way, it means man’s actualization as <em>zoon logon echon</em> (the creature who has spirit). Praxis actualization is human potential expansion that is realized through participation in the social life, it means man’s actualization as <em>zoon politicon</em> (the social creature).</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: &quot;GoudyOlSt BT&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;">The happy human is the human who has actualized his self-potencies both in theoretic and praxis. In Islamic term, that concept can be compared with the acknowledgment: “the perfect human (<em>al-insan al-kamil</em>) is the human who has been successful in his relation with God (vertical relation or <em>habl min Allah</em>) and his relation with other human or other creature (horizontal relation or <em>habl min an-nas</em>)<span> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><strong><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: &quot;GoudyOlSt BT&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;">Keyword: </span></strong><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: &quot;GoudyOlSt BT&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;">theoretic, praxis, and ethic.</span></p>