English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Much of the metaphysical nerve lies in the effort, sometimes arduous, to stay on the quoad se level (what is “in itself”) without being overshadowed by the seductive immediacy of the quoad nos level (what is “for us”, rooted in our own perspective), even when, as in the case of knowledge, the thematic object is very close to us. In fact, the reality of knowledge cannot be properly addressed in its selfhood as long us we exclusively consider it from an indisputable primacy in the line of receptivity, since, in such a case, we can only understand the proprium of knowledge as mere “computer” mechanism, only committed to the task of interconnecting and unraveling a series of impressions or data of consciousness which always appear in it as “traces”, presumably coming from a noumenal “outside” that rests unknown by principle. For this very reason, from the Thomistic perspective, the study of human knowledge cannot be carried out without paying attention to the integral and fundamental metaphysical constitution of the human person, as an act of being humanly essentialized and singularized by a materia signata, whose ultimate foundation rests on the ontological participation by which God, subsisting Being and Understanding, gives the being to creatures.

La «doble respectividad» gnoseológica a la luz de la ontología del conocimiento tomista.