University Microfilms

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

University Microfilms INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 481 OS A Xerox Education Company 73-1940 BEELICK, Donald James, 1941- CONTEXT AND HUMAN ACTIONS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1972 Philosophy University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan © 1972 •Donald James Beelick ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. CONTEXT AND HUMAN ACTIONS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School -of The Ohio State University By Donald James Beelick, B.A. ****** The Ohio State University 1972 Approved by Adviser fj Department of Philosophy PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge my deeply felt indebtedness to all the people who have been instrumental in the production of this philosophical enterprise. I owe much grati­ tude to the members of my reading committee; Professor Andrew G. Oldenguist, Professor Lee Brown, and Professor William Lycan, for their excellent criticisms and comments. Any errors to be discovered in this dissertation are solely my responsibility. I am expecially indebted to my adviser, Professor Andrew G. Oldenquist, for his patient and excellent guidance in seeing this essay through to its completion. I also wish to thank Misses Cecilia Staas and Molly Bordonaro, whose fine typing work was much appreciated. Finally I am grateful to my wife, Carol, for all the en­ couragement and sacrifices which made it all possible VITA March 16, 1941 . Born - Kalamazoo, Michigan 1964 ............... B.A., Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan 1963-1967 ......... Teaching Assistant, Department of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1967-1972 ......... Instructor, Department of Philosophy, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Philosophy Studies in Epistemology. Professor Richard Severens. Studies in Ethics. Professor Andrew G. Oldenquist. Studies in Logic. Professors Stephen F. Barker and Charles Kielkopf. Studies in Metaphysics. Professor Everett J. Nelson. Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Professor Virgil G. Hinshaw, Jr. Studies in Aristotle. Professor Robert G. Turnbull. Studies in Kant and Plato. Professor Marvin Fox. Studies in Wittgenstein. Professor Morris Weitz. PREFACE This essay is a discussion of the concept of human action against the background of two major questions: the question of what a human action is, and the question of whether reason explanations are a species of causal ex­ planations . With regard to the first of these issues it is argued that although there is no one all-inclusive definition of a human action, the notion of a basic bodily act can be adequately defined. It is also argued that human acts can be divided into two major classes: bodily acts and acts which are, in one way or another, generated from other acts. With regard to the second question, it is argued that explanations in terms of reasons are a species of scientific explanations, in that wants and beliefs cause basic human actions and hence indirectly cause all human actions. Chapter One is an initial examination of some of the major difficulties and ramifications associated with the philosophy of action. 'fc t Chapter Two deals primarily with a number of various attempts on the part of philosophers at analyzing the concept iv of a human action. First, a form of naive behaviorism is considered and rejected as inadequate. Next, the voli­ tional theory is examined. And while it is argued that many, of the stock objections fail to be conclusive, the theory is practically useless since no volitional theorist has succeeded in explaining what a volition is nor is there any independent evidence for the existence of such things as volitions. Ascripticism is then examined and it is argued both that it does not succeed in explaining what a human action is and it does not, as many of its proponents claim, rule out causal explanations of human actions. Next, Paul Ziff's version of contextualism is examined, and while it is admitted that some acts are distinguished from (mere) happenings on the basis of con­ text, the distinction between bodily acts and bodily movements in not entirely a contextual one, and Ziff's emphasis on the subsequent behavior of the agent is simply too vague and limiting to be of much real help in clari­ fying the contextual elements which are involved in some actions. Finally, A. L. Melden's and A. R. Louch's efforts at further elucidating these contextual elements is exposed. There it is claimed that the feature which seems to be central to these action theorists' attempts at elucidating the notion of a human action and a reason for acting seems to be the characteristic of consciousness, which makes the final resolution of the problem dependent on a satisfactory solution to the mind-body problem. It is also argued that although Melden and Louch are of the opinion that our everyday concepts of persons and human actions involve certain evaluative elements which consequently rule out the possibility of giving purely scientific accounts of them, their arguments are not sufficient to demonstrate this. In Chapter Three I deal with the supposed contrast between rational explanations and scientific explanations and the two major arguments used to show that reasons cannot be causes. The supposed contrast between rational explanations and scientific explanations is examined against the background of the debate between William Dray and Carl Hempel concerning the evaluative or empirical status of "principles of action" and it is claimed that such principles cannot be considered to be purely analytic since we sometimes abandon the hypothesis that the agent in question is rational. The appearance of analyticity attaches to Dray's "principles of action" only because of a certain epistemological interdependence of belief and goal ascription. Next, with regard to the two major arguments which have been presented to show that reasons canno.t be causes: the so-called "logical connection argument, and the argument that reasons cannot be causes because they are known in a radically different way than causes, I argue first that the supposed logical connection between reasons and actions is more grammatical than logi­ cal. Philosophers who have supposed that there is a logical connection between reasons and actions have merely confused the intentional object of a reason with some actual objects or acts. Concerning the second argument, it is argued that the notion of knowledge without ob­ servation is simply too vague and obtuse to establish that reasons are not causes, and even if reasons are known in a different way than causes, this is not suf­ ficient to show that reasons are not, in reality, causes. Finally, it is claimed that some philosophers have failed to see that the defining characteristic of all actions is not simply that they are bodily movements in certain cir­ cumstances, because they have failed to see that there are at least two distinct senses in which actions are contrasted with bodily movements. In Chapter Four, I argue that some philosophers have been committed to a number of incompatible theses con­ cerning human actions and how they may be correctly de­ scribed. The incompatible theses in question are these: (1) a set of act descriptions, e.g., "John flipped the switch," "John turned on the light," "John illuminated the room," etc., all describe one identical action; (2) a reason may succeed in explaining an action under one vii description but fail to explain it under some other description; (3) reason explanations are a species of causal explanations. Given this inconsistency X argue further that the first thesis is false and must be re­ jected. The rejection of this thesis consequently requires the formulation of more precise techniques for individuating actions, and the time-honored type-token distinction is suggested as a viable way of doing this. And finally, it is argued that this type-token distinction has the advantage of allowing us to explicate more fully the structural relationships between various acts con­ tained in our everyday use of the "by" and "in" locutions.
Recommended publications
  • Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Motion & the Kalām Cosmological
    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2020 Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument Derwin Sánchez Jr. University of Central Florida Part of the Philosophy Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Sánchez, Derwin Jr., "Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument" (2020). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 858. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/858 RETHINKING CAUSALITY: THOMAS AQUINAS’ ARGUMENT FROM MOTION & THE KALĀM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT by DERWIN SANCHEZ, JR. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Philosophy in the College of Arts and Humanities and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2020 Thesis Chair: Dr. Cyrus Zargar i ABSTRACT Ever since they were formulated in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God have been frequently debated. During this process there have been several misconceptions of what Aquinas actually meant, especially when discussing his cosmological arguments. While previous researchers have managed to tease out why Aquinas accepts some infinite regresses and rejects others, I attempt to add on to this by demonstrating the centrality of his metaphysics in his argument from motion.
    [Show full text]
  • IS SEMANTICS POSSIBLE? Author(S): Hilary Putnam Source: Metaphilosophy , July 1970, Vol
    IS SEMANTICS POSSIBLE? Author(s): Hilary Putnam Source: Metaphilosophy , July 1970, Vol. 1, No. 3 (July 1970), pp. 187-201 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24434824 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Metaphilosophy This content downloaded from 99.137.65.114 on Tue, 12 Jan 2021 15:10:03 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms M ETA PHILOSOPHY Vol. 1, No. 3, July 1970 IS SEMANTICS POSSIBLE?" Hilary Putnam In the last decade enormous progress seems to have been made in the syntactic theory of natural languages, largely as a result of the work of linguists influenced by Noam Chomsky and Zellig Harris. Comparable progress seems not to have been made in the semantic theory of natural languages, and perhaps it is time to ask why this should be the case. Why is the theory of meaning so hard? The meaning of common nouns. To get some idea of the difficulties, let us look at some of the problems that come up in connection with general names. General names are of many kinds.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae of Alvin Plantinga
    CURRICULUM VITAE OF ALVIN PLANTINGA A. Education Calvin College A.B. 1954 University of Michigan M.A. 1955 Yale University Ph.D. 1958 B. Academic Honors and Awards Fellowships Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1968-69 Guggenheim Fellow, June 1 - December 31, 1971, April 4 - August 31, 1972 Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1975 - Fellow, Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship, 1979-1980 Visiting Fellow, Balliol College, Oxford 1975-76 National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships, 1975-76, 1987, 1995-6 Fellowship, American Council of Learned Societies, 1980-81 Fellow, Frisian Academy, 1999 Gifford Lecturer, 1987, 2005 Honorary Degrees Glasgow University, l982 Calvin College (Distinguished Alumni Award), 1986 North Park College, 1994 Free University of Amsterdam, 1995 Brigham Young University, 1996 University of the West in Timisoara (Timisoara, Romania), 1998 Valparaiso University, 1999 2 Offices Vice-President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1980-81 President, American Philosophical Association, Central Division, 1981-82 President, Society of Christian Philosophers, l983-86 Summer Institutes and Seminars Staff Member, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Metaphysics, 1968 Staff member and director, Council for Philosophical Studies Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion, 1973 Director, National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Seminar, 1974, 1975, 1978 Staff member and co-director (with William P. Alston) NEH Summer Institute in Philosophy of Religion (Bellingham, Washington) 1986 Instructor, Pew Younger Scholars Seminar, 1995, 1999 Co-director summer seminar on nature in belief, Calvin College, July, 2004 Other E. Harris Harbison Award for Distinguished Teaching (Danforth Foundation), 1968 Member, Council for Philosophical Studies, 1968-74 William Evans Visiting Fellow University of Otago (New Zealand) 1991 Mentor, Collegium, Fairfield University 1993 The James A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regress Argument for Moral Skepticism
    Sara Ash Writing Sample The Regress Argument for Moral Skepticism Introduction An important epistemological question about morality is whether we can be justified in believing any moral claim. Justification of moral beliefs is an important aspect of morality, because without reasons for believing moral claims, morality becomes unacceptably arbitrary. In this paper, I will present and explain the regress argument for moral justification skepticism. Afterward, I will present objections to some of the premises in the argument and accompanying responses to those objections. I conclude at the end of this paper that the regress argument, while valid, is probably not sound and therefore does not successfully undermine moral justification. The Infinite Regress Argument The infinite regress argument is an argument for general skepticism, but Walter Sinnott- Armstrong has adapted the argument to morality and suggests that “If the problems raised by these arguments cannot be solved at least in morality, then we cannot be justified in believing any moral claims” (9). This argument contains a series of conditionals whose consequents comprise disjunctions. By applying the rules of disjunctive syllogism and modus tollens, the argument is intended to show that none of the ways in which a person can be justified in believing a moral claim works. Sinnott-Armstrong’s clear and concise formulation of the infinite regress argument taken from his paper “Moral Skepticism and Justification” in the anthology Moral Knowledge?: New Readings in Moral Epistemology
    [Show full text]
  • The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History
    The Oberlin Colloquium in Philosophy: Program History 1960 FIRST COLLOQUIUM Wilfrid Sellars, "On Looking at Something and Seeing it" Ronald Hepburn, "God and Ambiguity" Comments: Dennis O'Brien Kurt Baier, "Itching and Scratching" Comments: David Falk/Bruce Aune Annette Baier, "Motives" Comments: Jerome Schneewind 1961 SECOND COLLOQUIUM W.D. Falk, "Hegel, Hare and the Existential Malady" Richard Cartwright, "Propositions" Comments: Ruth Barcan Marcus D.A.T. Casking, "Avowals" Comments: Martin Lean Zeno Vendler, "Consequences, Effects and Results" Comments: William Dray/Sylvan Bromberger PUBLISHED: Analytical Philosophy, First Series, R.J. Butler (ed.), Oxford, Blackwell's, 1962. 1962 THIRD COLLOQUIUM C.J. Warnock, "Truth" Arthur Prior, "Some Exercises in Epistemic Logic" Newton Garver, "Criteria" Comments: Carl Ginet/Paul Ziff Hector-Neri Castenada, "The Private Language Argument" Comments: Vere Chappell/James Thomson John Searle, "Meaning and Speech Acts" Comments: Paul Benacerraf/Zeno Vendler PUBLISHED: Knowledge and Experience, C.D. Rollins (ed.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964. 1963 FOURTH COLLOQUIUM Michael Scriven, "Insanity" Frederick Will, "The Preferability of Probable Beliefs" Norman Malcolm, "Criteria" Comments: Peter Geach/George Pitcher Terrence Penelhum, "Pleasure and Falsity" Comments: William Kennick/Arnold Isenberg 1964 FIFTH COLLOQUIUM Stephen Korner, "Some Remarks on Deductivism" J.J.C. Smart, "Nonsense" Joel Feinberg, "Causing Voluntary Actions" Comments: Keith Donnellan/Keith Lehrer Nicholas Rescher, "Evaluative Metaphysics" Comments: Lewis W. Beck/Thomas E. Patton Herbert Hochberg, "Qualities" Comments: Richard Severens/J.M. Shorter PUBLISHED: Metaphysics and Explanation, W.H. Capitan and D.D. Merrill (eds.), University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. 1965 SIXTH COLLOQUIUM Patrick Nowell-Smith, "Acts and Locutions" George Nakhnikian, "St. Anselm's Four Ontological Arguments" Hilary Putnam, "Psychological Predicates" Comments: Bruce Aune/U.T.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Thomas Aquinas Rejects Infinite, Essentially Ordered, Causal Series
    There Must Be A First: Why Thomas Aquinas Rejects Infinite, Essentially Ordered, Causal Series Abstract Several of Thomas Aquinas’s proofs for the existence of God rely on the claim that causal series cannot proceed in infinitum. I argue that Aquinas has good reason to hold this claim given his conception of causation. Because he holds that effects are ontologically dependent on their causes he holds that the relevant causal series are wholly derivative: the later members of such series serve as causes only insofar as they have been caused by and are effects of earlier members. Because the intermediate causes in such series possess causal powers only by deriving them from all the preceding causes, they need a first and non-derivative cause to serve as the source of their causal powers. Keywords Thomas Aquinas; Five Ways; Causal Series; Infinite; Causal Regress; Causation; Ontological Dependence; God; Proofs This is an Author's Original/Accepted Manuscript of an article whose final and definitive form, the Version of Record, has been published in the British Journal for the History of Philosophy, September 5, 2013, copyright Taylor & Francis, available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2013.816934 A. Introduction Thomas Aquinas claims that certain sorts of causal series cannot proceed in infinitum. This claim is central to the first three of the famous five ways for demonstrating the existence of God that he presents in his Summa Theologiae (ST). Many interpreters have attacked both the claim and the considerations which Aquinas offers in support of it. Some interpreters, such as Bertrand Russell and John Hick, read Aquinas either as negligently dismissing the possibility of infinite series without a first member or as assuming a rejection of the infinite, based on certain (supposedly dubious) arguments that Aquinas puts forward elsewhere.1 Other interpreters, including distinguished scholars 1 Bertrand Russell writes that the Five Ways “depend on the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term.
    [Show full text]
  • Proper Names and Their Role in Social Ontology
    Proper Names and Their Role in Social Ontology Marek Nagy Palacký University, Olomouc Abstract: The article deals with an applicability of John Searle’s theory of social ontology to linguistic category of proper names . We suggest that in the context of Searle’s theory we can consider proper names to be a kind of social institution . By several examples from anthropolinguistic research and from the field of theoretical onomastics we try to show that proper names meet conditions specified by John Searle, in particu- lar that – through different communities all over the world – they are “holders” of various types of deontic power . At the end of our article we shortly weigh the possibility that proper names can be regard as status indicators (in terms of Searle’s theory) too . Keywords: baptism, deontic power, onomastics, proper names, social ontology . Blake, John? Nothing here. Alright, try my legal name. You should use your full name. I like that name, Robin. Dark Knight Rises To speak about problems of proper names in the context of philo- sophical views of John Searle makes sense for various reasons . Primar- ily, professor Searle has dealt with the category of proper names re- peatedly: In fact, he started his career with the text Proper Names (see Searle 1958) and the conception presented here brought him directly in “textbooks” of this important philosophical debate; proper names as rather strange and interesting individuals are aptly shown also in Sear- le’s Speech Acts (see Searle 1969; the evidence of strangeness could be the mentioned and everlasting discussion on their reference behavior, Organon F 19 (2012), 137-147 © 2012 The Author.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association
    January 2011 Volume 84, Issue 3 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association apa THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION Central Division Program University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 www.apaonline.org The American Philosophical Association Central Division One Hundred Eighth Annual Meeting Minneapolis Hilton Hotel Minneapolis, Minnesota March 30 - April 2, 2011 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (ISSN 0065-972X) is published five times each year and is distributed to members of the APA as a benefit of membership and to libraries, departments, and institutions for $75 per year. It is published by The American Philosophical Association, 31 Amstel Ave., University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Periodicals Postage Paid at Newark, DE and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Proceedings and Addresses, The American Philosophical Association, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Editor: David E. Schrader Phone: (302) 831-1112 Publications Coordinator: Erin Shepherd Fax: (302) 831-8690 Associate Editor: Robin Smith Web: www.apaonline.org Meeting Coordinator: Linda Smallbrook Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association, the major publication of The American Philosophical Association, is published five times each academic year in the months of September, November, January, February, and May. Each annual volume contains the programs for the meetings of the three Divisions; the membership list; Presidential Addresses; news of the Association, its Divisions and Committees, and announcements of interest to philosophers. Other items of interest to the community of philosophers may be included by decision of the Editor or the APA Board of Officers.
    [Show full text]
  • Routledge Chapter
    Can Foundationalism Solve the Regress Problem? Declan Smithies Forthcoming in Current Controversies in Epistemology. Edited by Ram Neta. Routledge, 2014. 1. Introduction Foundationalism is a thesis about the structure of epistemic justification – that is, the distinctive kind of justification that we have for our beliefs. To a first approximation, foundationalism is the thesis that some of our beliefs are foundationally justified, while all other justified beliefs are justified in a derivative way by their relations to foundationally justified beliefs. In metaphorical terms, our belief system has the structure of a building in which the whole edifice is supported by its foundations. To make the thesis more precise, we can draw a distinction between inferentially and non-inferentially justified beliefs.1 A belief is inferentially justified if and only if it is justified in a way that depends upon the justification of other beliefs, whereas a belief is non-inferentially justified if and only if it is justified in a way that does not depend upon the justification of any other beliefs. Foundationalism can now be defined more precisely as the thesis that some beliefs are non-inferentially justified, while all other justified beliefs are inferentially justified in a way that depends on their relations to non-inferentially justified beliefs.2 Foundationalism can be understood as a thesis about the structure of justified belief in either propositional or doxastic senses of the term. A belief is 1 justified in the propositional sense if and only if the believer has justification to hold the belief, whereas a belief is justified in the doxastic sense if and only if the believer holds the belief in a way that is justified.
    [Show full text]
  • The Regress Problem
    Chapter 1 The Regress Problem Abstract The attempt to justify our beliefs leads to the regress problem. We briefly recount the problem’s history and recall the two traditional solutions, foun- dationalism and coherentism, before turning to infinitism. According to in- finitists, the regress problem is not a genuine difficulty, since infinite chains of reasons are not as troublesome as they may seem. A comparison with causal chains suggests that a proper assessment of infinitistic ideas requires that the concept of justification be made clear. 1.1 Reasons for Reasons: Agrippa’s Trilemma We believe many things: that the earth is a spheroid, that Queen Victoria reigned for more that sixty years, that Stockholm is the capital of Finland, that the Russians were the first to land on the moon. Some of these beliefs are true, others are false. A belief might be true by accident. Suppose I have a phobia which makes me believe that there is a poisonous snake under my bed. After many visits to a psychiatrist and intensive therapy I gradually try to convince myself that this belief stems from traumatic and suppressed childhood experiences. One fine day I finally reach the point where I, nerv- ous and trembling, force myself to get into bed before first looking under it. Unbeknownst to me or the psychiatrist, however, a venomous snake has escaped from the zoo and has ensconced itself under my bed. My belief in the proposition ‘There is a poisonous snake under my bed’ is true, but it is accidentally true. I do not have a good reason for this belief, since I am © The Author(s) 2017 1 D.
    [Show full text]
  • Infinite Causal Regress and the Secunda Via in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas Edward N
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Liberty University Digital Commons Liberty University DigitalCommons@Liberty University Faculty Publications and Presentations School of Religion 2-2004 Infinite Causal Regress and the Secunda Via in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas Edward N. Martin Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs Recommended Citation Martin, Edward N., "Infinite Causal Regress and the Secunda Via in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas" (2004). Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 66. http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/sor_fac_pubs/66 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Religion at DigitalCommons@Liberty University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Liberty University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Infinite Causal Regress and the Secunda Via in the Thought of Thomas Aquinas Edward N. Martin, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy and Theology Liberty University Thomas Aquinas often wielded the idea of an infinite regress in his theological and philosophical treatises. In the famous Five Ways, the notion of the impossibility of a regress of events or operations plays a key role in each of the first three proofs for God's existence. In a similar fashion, Aquinas incorporates this idea in his Summa Contra Gentiles in the section on the existence of God. [1] In this later work, it becomes eminently clear that Aquinas derives the idea of the impossibility of an infinite regress 'among movers and things moved' directly from the work of Aristotle.
    [Show full text]
  • THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS Thispage Intentionally !Efi Blank THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS
    ROY A. SORENSEN THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS Thispage intentionally !efi blank THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS ROY A. SORENSEN OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS New York Oxford Oxford University Press Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris Săo Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in Berlin lbadan Copyright © 1992 by Roy A. Sorensen First published in 1992 by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Av enue, New York, New York 10016 First Issued as an Oxford University Press paperback, 1998 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press, !ne. AU rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sorensen, Roy A. Thought expriments Roy A. Sorensen p. cm. Includes bibliographica1 references and index. ISBN 0-19-507422-X ISBN 0-19-512913-X (pbk.) 1 Thought and thinking. 2. Logic 3. Philosophy and science 1. Title B105.T54S67 1992 !01-dc20 9136760 1357 986 42 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper For Julia, a woman of fine distinctions Thispage intentionally !efi blank ACKNOWLEDG MENTS This book has indebted me to many people. The first group consists of the individuals who attended colloquia given at the Graduate Center of the City University of New Yo rk, Columbia University, Dartmouth College, Rutgers University, the State University of New Yo rk at Stony Brook, Virginia Tech, and the 1990 lnter-University Conference for Philosophy of Science in Du­ brovnik.
    [Show full text]