" Je rozumné věřit v Boha?" Epistemologie, metafyzika a metody v díle Bernarda Lonergana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to demonstrate interrelatedness between various concepts of God and metaphysical assumptions from which they have been derived. This will be done with special attention paid to philosophical work of Bernard Lonergan. On Lonergan's case I will show his solution of problematic presuppositions of scholastic understanding of God. In introduction I will summarize reasons that made me to choose this topic, goals of the thesis and methods I will use. First chapter will be dedicated to brief introduction of selected proofs of God's existence and their metaphysical premises on which they rest. Enlightenment critique of metaphysics will be described and its consequences for metaphysical proofs demonstrated. Second chapter will introduce context and goals of works of modern Canadian Jesuit theologian Bernard Joseph Francis Lonergan and his concepts of judgement and selfXaffirmation. Third chapter will be concerned with description of Lonergan's metaphysics and finally with some criticism of Lonergan's approach from perspective of postXmodern, hermeneutic, and linguistic philosophies. In conclusion I will confront Lonergan's results with older philosophies mentioned. Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".