Scielo RSS <![CDATA[Phronimon]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/rss.php?pid=1561-401820140002&lang=en vol. 15 num. 2 lang. en <![CDATA[SciELO Logo]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/img/en/fbpelogp.gif http://www.scielo.org.za <![CDATA[<b>The phronesis of conservation criminology phraseology: A genealogical and dialectical narrative</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1561-40182014000200001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en During the last decade natural resource crime and criminality have received growing attention from criminological scholars. There remains, however, a spirited subterranean and unresolved debate regarding the most appropriate nomenclature/diction to portray this form of crime and its study. Varying views exist among criminological scholars regarding the most appropriate terminology to describe the study of crime in the natural resource arena which has, over the years, produced somewhat of a semantical farrago. It appears therefore that the time is ripe to interrogate this issue more methodically in an attempt to lobby criminological scholars and conservation protagonists alike to galvanise behind one cognate indicator that passes onomastical muster. An apposite truism attributed to Socrates, which can be related to the issue at hand, was in fact: "Η αρχή της σοφίας είναι ο καθορισμός των όρων", literally translated as "The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms", encapsulating the intrinsic thrust of this narrative. In order to probe this linguistic issue and ruminate on its constituents, it was deemed prudent to seek guidance from the wisdom of certain ancient Hellenic philosophers, the prominent Spinozian, Gilles Deleuze, the Cartesian and father of modern Western philosophy, René Descartes, as well as customary English language conventions. In the form of a four-pronged alliance these resources were marshalled to underscore and unravel the present-day diachronic dichotomies and, to a certain extent, resolve the ossifying impasse. An attempt is made to dispel the factoids and ersatz definitions/terminology permeating the criminological discourse in relation to the study of natural resource crime and criminality, to wit, green, environmental and ecological criminology. Moreover, a case is made for the recognition and entrenchment of an unambiguous sub-field of study, namely conservation criminology. <![CDATA[<b>The philosophical conception of Mariology and the notion of Theotokos in the teachings of Saint Ambrose</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1561-40182014000200002&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Saint Ambrose (339-397 BCE) was bishop of the Italian city of Milan and was a leading writer in the Western Christian Church during the 4th century. He was an outspoken believer in the notion of Christian female virginity and succeeded in communicating prominent conceptions of God and of the Christian quest for a virtuous life. Central to Ambrose's teachings is the virginity of Mary and her role as the Theotokos (God bearer/Mother of God). This article discusses the Mariology of Ambrose of Milan, which greatly influenced the thinking of contemporary Popes including Damasus, Siricius and Leo the Great. In uncovering the Mariology of Ambrose, the researcher used various sources and went back to the official Marian pronouncements of Ambrose and also accentuated Scripture within the overall context of both Catholic and Orthodox Church teachings. A historical text-critical analysis was used and understood in terms the historic and socio-cultural context in which Ambrose lived. Biblical hermeneutics was applied to assist in the analysis of the relation between Biblical statements on Mary, Ambrosian writings and the early Church fathers, so as to arrive at a philosophical conception of Mariology and the notion of Theotokos in the teachings of Saint Ambrose. <![CDATA[<b>Sophokles' <i>Philoktetes </i>and the ascent to political friendship</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1561-40182014000200003&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en Sophokles' Philoktetes was produced in 409 BC. The dominant theme that reveals itself in the play's imagery is Philoktetes' incurable illness, his nosos.¹ This paper aims to shed light on the relationship between the play's nosos theme and the political and moral unravelling that was leading Athens to an impasse. From this vantage point, Philoktetes may be viewed as a tragedy about stasis, to be understood in its ancient meaning of a "disease",² where the polis' functions become arrested and its naturally cooperating elements turn against each other with hatred.³ The catharsis of the play, which occurs with Herakles' epiphany, may then be interpreted as Sophokles' positing of homonoia or political friendship as the path for his polis' salvation. Homonoia is a new concept4 that will later find its philosophical elaboration in the works of Plato and Aristotle, but Sophokles has already described its core elements: it is a friendship that is forged from grand values of great consequence, and its consummation is an athlos that calls for sacred dedication and exertion so that the passions and actions of citizens may be brought into accord with these values. <![CDATA[<b>Heraclitus' usage of όστις</b><b> in fragments DK B 5 and B 27</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1561-40182014000200004&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en In their basic senses the difference between όστις and ός is straightforward, corresponding to that between whichsoever/whosoever and which/who. But in usage it is often much subtler and at times negligible, both because όστις can like ός be used for a definite referent and because in certain constructions ός can like όστις denote an indefinite one. There are five certain uses of όστις in Heraclitus' surviving fragments, and it is notable that in each case translators do not render the term in its basic, indefinite sense but in a sense akin to ός. While in most cases this is clearly right, I question it with regard to B 5 and B 27, and explore what these fragments may have to say to us beyond prevailing interpretations if όστις is read as a true indefinite pronoun. In the case of B 27 this may, I argue, force us to revise our understanding quite radically. The paper also examines Heraclitus' use of other terms with a similarly indefinite reference (ός with άν, όκόσος, όκοΐος, όσος), for the purpose of establishing whether he would have used one of these in B 5 and B 27 instead of όστις if he intended indefinite objects there. I argue against this, since the connotations of these terms would be inapposite in these fragments in comparison with the root sense of όστις. <![CDATA[<b>The sensible and the reasonable: Plato and Rawls</b>]]> http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1561-40182014000200005&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en In their basic senses the difference between όστις and ός is straightforward, corresponding to that between whichsoever/whosoever and which/who. But in usage it is often much subtler and at times negligible, both because όστις can like ός be used for a definite referent and because in certain constructions ός can like όστις denote an indefinite one. There are five certain uses of όστις in Heraclitus' surviving fragments, and it is notable that in each case translators do not render the term in its basic, indefinite sense but in a sense akin to ός. While in most cases this is clearly right, I question it with regard to B 5 and B 27, and explore what these fragments may have to say to us beyond prevailing interpretations if όστις is read as a true indefinite pronoun. In the case of B 27 this may, I argue, force us to revise our understanding quite radically. The paper also examines Heraclitus' use of other terms with a similarly indefinite reference (ός with άν, όκόσος, όκοΐος, όσος), for the purpose of establishing whether he would have used one of these in B 5 and B 27 instead of όστις if he intended indefinite objects there. I argue against this, since the connotations of these terms would be inapposite in these fragments in comparison with the root sense of όστις.