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...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Collaborateurs: | |
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
Philosophy Documentation Center
2021
|
| Dans: |
Philosophy & theology
Année: 2021, Volume: 33, Numéro: 1/2, Pages: 3-25 |
| Sujets / Chaînes de mots-clés standardisés: | B
Thomas, von Aquin, Heiliger 1225-1274
/ Analogie
|
| RelBib Classification: | KAE Moyen Âge central VA Philosophie |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Résumé: | 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 |
| Référence: | Kritik von "The doctrine of univocity is true and salutary (2005)"
|
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Philosophy & theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.5840/philtheol2023221151 |