Online research in philosophy

Concepts of creation -- Life after Etna : Empedocles in prose and poetry -- Virtue and the good in Plato and Aristotle -- Aristotle's criteria for happiness -- Practical truth in Aristotle -- Aristotle's categories in the Latin fathers -- Essence and existence : Aquinas and Islamic philosophy -- Aquinas on the beginning of individual human life -- Thomas and thomism -- Aquinas in America -- Philosophy states only what everyone admits -- Cognitive scientism -- The Wittgenstein editions -- Knowledge, belief, and faith -- The unity of knowledge and the diversity of Beli.

The recent translation into English of Jean-Luc Marion’s essay “Saint Thomas Aquinas and Onto-Theo-Logy” provides an opportunity to re-examine the significance of Marion’s earlier criticisms of Aquinas (set forth, as is well known, in God without Being) in the light of his most current position on Aquinas. Toward this end, I discuss the role that the doctrine of analogy plays in Marion’s reassessment, and partial retraction, of the controversial indictment of Aquinas that was presented in God without Being. Marion’s claim that the Thomistic conception of God as ipsum esse should be understood by “starting from the distance of God” is highlighted in order to elucidate how, for Aquinas (at least as Marion reads him), the doctrine of analogy functions phenomenologically, as do the divine names generally, to manifest the character of God as infinite goodness and excessive givenness.

This paper examines the multiple semantic functions Aquinas attributes to the verb ‘est’, ranging from signifying the essence of God to acting as a copula of categorical propositions to expressing identity. A case will be made that all these apparently radically diverse functions are unified under Aquinas’s conception of the analogy of being, treating all predications as predications of being with or without some qualification (secundum quid or simpliciter). This understanding of the multiplicity of the semantic functions of this verb as conceived by Aquinas will enable us to have a better understanding of the meaning of his metaphysical claims and arguments. In particular, with this understanding of Aquinas’ conception of being, we will be able to see how Aquinas’s famous “intellectus essentiae” argument for the thesis of the real distinction between essence and existence in creatures can work, despite Anthony Kenny’s arguments to the contrary in his recent book Aquinas on Being.

Anthony Kenny offers a critical examination of Thomas Aquinas's influential account of being, arguing that it suffers from systematic confusion. Because of the centrality of the doctrine, this has implications for other parts of Aquinas's philosophical system. Kenny's clear and incisive study dispels the confusion and offers philosophers and theologians a guide through the labyrinth of Aquinas's ontology.

Knowles, D. The historical context of the philosophical work of St. Thomas Aquinas.--Logic and metaphysics: Geach, P. Form and existence. McCabe, H. Categories. Ross, J. F. Analogy as a rule of meaning for religious language. Geach, P. Nominalism.--Natural theology: Brown, P. St. Thomas' doctrine of necessary being. Salamucha, J. The proof ex motu for the existence of God. Brown, P. Infinite causal regression. Deck, J. N. St. Thomas Aquinas and the language of total dependence. Kenny, A. Divine foreknowledge and human freedom.--Philosophy of mind: Kenny, A. Intellect and imagination in Aquinas. McCabe, H. The immortality of the soul. Sheehan, P. Aquinas on intentionality.--Moral philosophy: Donagan, A. The scholastic theory of moral law in the modern world. Grisez, G. G. The first principle of practical reason.

The historical context of the philosophical work of St. Thomas Aquinas, by D. Knowles.--Form and existence, by P. Geach.--Categories, by H. McCabe.--Analogy as a rule of meaning for religious language, by J. F. Ross.--Nominalism, by P. Geach.--St. Thomas' doctrine of necessary being, by P. Brown.--The proof ex motu for the existence of God; logical analysis of St. Thomas' arguments, by J. Salamucha.--Infinite causal regression, by P. Brown.--St. Thomas Aquinas and the language of total dependence, by J. N. Deck.--Divine foreknowledge and human freedom, by A. Kenny.--Intellect and imagination in Aquinas, by A. Kenny.--The immortality of the soul, by H. McCabe.--Aquinas on intentionality, by P. Sheehan.--The scholastic theory of moral law in the modern world, by A. Donagan.--The first principle of practical reason, by G. G. Grisez.

Thomas Aquinas holds that the existence of God is self-evident in itself (because God’s essence is his existence) but not to us (since we do not know the divine essence). Giles of Rome agrees with the first part of Thomas’s claim, but he parts company with Aquinas by maintaining that God’s existence is self-evident to the wise. Since the wise can know that God is his existence, they cannot think of him as not existing. This paper reexamines Thomas’s teaching in the light of Giles’s criticisms. By examining closely what is involved in the claim that God’s essence is his existence, and how one’s knowledge of this claim is related to the knowledge that God exists, it argues that Thomas’s position has the resources to withstand Giles’s objections.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss Norman Kretzmann's account of Aquinas's discussion of will in God. According to Kretzmann, Aquinas's reasoning seems to leave no place for choice on God's part, since, on Aquinas's account, God is not free not to will Himself. And so this leads to the problem about God's willing things other than Himself. On this, Kretzmann finds serious problems with Thomas's position. Kretzmann argues that Aquinas should have drawn necessitarian conclusions from his account of divine will. Moreover, in light of one reading of De veritate, q. 24, a. 3, but one not accepted by the Leonine edition, Kretzmann also maintains that Aquinas practically conceded this necessitarian view of God's creative activity in that text. My purpose will be, after presenting Kretzmann's presentation and defence of Aquinas's attribution of will to God, to examine critically his claim that Thomas should have concluded that God is not free not to create, and to determine whether a stronger argument can be made in support of Aquinas's position in light of his texts.