Is Aquinas's Doctrine of Analogy "Really" Unintelligible?

Thomas Williams maintains that the doctrine of analogy is unintelligible. In this paper, I scrutinize and reject Williams's argument for that claim insofar as it applies to Thomas Aquinas's particular version of the doctrine. After laying out Williams's critique, I present an account...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Hinton, Timothy 1964- (Author)
Contributors: Williams, Thomas 1967- (Bibliographic antecedent)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Journals Online & Print:
Drawer...
Fernleihe:Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste
Published: Philosophy Documentation Center 2021
In: Philosophy & theology
Year: 2021, Volume: 33, Issue: 1/2, Pages: 3-25
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains:B Thomas Aquinas 1225-1274 / Analogy
RelBib Classification:KAE Church history 900-1300; high Middle Ages
VA Philosophy
Online Access: Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig)
Description
Summary:Thomas Williams maintains that the doctrine of analogy is unintelligible. In this paper, I scrutinize and reject Williams's argument for that claim insofar as it applies to Thomas Aquinas's particular version of the doctrine. After laying out Williams's critique, I present an account of Aquinas's conception of analogy. I identify three components of it: a semantic part, a metaphysical part, and a distinctive conception of inference. I briefly explain how all three of these components play a role in Aquinas's philosophical theology. On the basis of these ideas, I proceed to demonstrate how Williams's argument against analogy, understood as a set of reasons for rejecting Aquinas's version of it, fails completely. I end by pointing out how hard it appears for anyone who rejects the doctrine of analogy to keep faith with the idea of creation ex nihilo.
ISSN:2153-828X
Reference:Kritik von "The doctrine of univocity is true and salutary (2005)"
Contains:Enthalten in: Philosophy & theology
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.5840/philtheol2023221151