Talk:Jacopo Zabarella

Untitled

I came across this article and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the writing, given this is Wikipedia. Sadly, but hardly surprisingly, it turns out to be plagiarised from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article of that name.

So I have deleted it. Examples of verbatim or near-verbatim:

sciences are concerned with the eternal world of nature and thus are contemplative disciplines, whereas arts are concerned with the contingent world of human beings and thus are non-contemplative, productive activities.

According to Zabarella, each discipline can be distinguished from others both with respect to the object considered (res considerata) and with respect to the way of considering (modus considerandi). Natural philosophy deals with corporeal beings that have an inner principle of movement and differs both from metaphysics, which contemplates being as being, and from mathematics, which deals with abstracted beings. As a result, natural philosophy is autonomous and independent of both the other contemplative sciences.

According to this method, the philosopher should first infer from the effect the existence of the cause. He uses either induction or resolution, also called demonstratio quia or demonstartion from the fact.

In a second step, in the so-called demonstratio propter quid or composition, the philosopher should infer from the cause to the effect. The effect is now known through its cause, and hence in a scientific manner.

Zabarella's clear and systematic interpretation of Aristotle's logic and natural philosophy was used as a basis for numerous Aristotelian textbooks printed in Germany. Also in the British Isles the Scholastic revival of the early seventeenth century owed much to Zabarella's writings. Even some modern scholars of Aristotle have still consulted his commentaries with profit.

Not all of it was plagarised. However, to quote Dr Johnson "This essay is both good and original. Unfortunately the parts that are original are not good, and the parts that are good are not original. Dbuckner 12:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)