Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-20 of 35 documents


presidential address
1. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Nicholas Rescher Respect for Tradition (And the Catholic Philosopher Today)
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The prime and paramount factor that characterizes the Catholic philosopher is a respect for the Catholic philosophical tradition. To respect a person or a tradition is to see it as a bearer of value; respect does not automatically entail agreement. The Catholic philosophical tradition is not doctrinally unified, but is defined by a mutuality of involvement in a common project: that of developing a perspective that enables reason and religion to exist in a holistic unicity that fructifies each through its interaction with the other. Catholic philosophers should respect their intellectual tradition because it is an important part of acquiring their identity as thinkers and persons. Three useful approaches to appropriating and respecting a tradition are: (1) restoration and revival; (2) preservation of issues by re-opening and re-examining its questions; and (3) revivification of its spirit.
presentation of the aquinas medal
2. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Patrick Lee Presentation of the Aquinas Medal
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
aquinas medalist's address
3. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
John Finnis Self-referential (or Performative) Inconsistency: Its Significance for Truth
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Augustine was undeniably a dogmatic thinker, but he also had an “aporetic side” which makes him more relevant to Christian philosophers today than isgenerally recognized. Augustine’s first experience of reading philosophy came from Cicero’s Hortensius, from which Augustine gained an appreciation for philosophical scepticism which he never lost. Thus, in all of his works and in all periods of his life, Augustine’s characteristic way of doing philosophy is aporetic, rather than either systematic or speculative. Paradoxically, Augustine’s faith in the truth of Holy Scripture and Church Doctrine gave him a freedom to explore theological and philosophical conundra and, if he could not resolve them, admit frankly that he could not do so. Like Socrates, Augustine was wise partly because he admitted to being puzzled about things that others took for granted. Some of the perplexities which occupied him are: (a) the nature of time; (b) whether it is possible to show someone (without using words) what walking is if one is already walking; (c) whether one is responsible for what one does in one’s dreams; (d) whether one can think about sadness or pleasure by having an image of it in one’s mind, but without experiencing any sadness or pleasure in the thought, and (e) (perhaps most famously, in the Confessions) how one can want something that he does not believe to be good.
plenary sessions
4. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Gareth Matthews The Aporetic Augustine
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Augustine was undeniably a dogmatic thinker, but he also had an “aporetic side” which makes him more relevant to Christian philosophers today than isgenerally recognized. Augustine’s first experience of reading philosophy came from Cicero’s Hortensius, from which Augustine gained an appreciation for philosophical scepticism which he never lost. Thus, in all of his works and in all periods of his life, Augustine’s characteristic way of doing philosophy is aporetic, rather than either systematic or speculative. Paradoxically, Augustine’s faith in the truth of Holy Scripture and Church Doctrine gave him a freedom to explore theological and philosophical conundra and, if he could not resolve them, admit frankly that he could not do so. Like Socrates, Augustine was wise partly because he admitted to being puzzled about things that others took for granted. Some of the perplexities which occupied him are: (a) the nature of time; (b) whether it is possible to show someone (without using words) what walking is if one is already walking; (c) whether one is responsible for what one does in one’s dreams; (d) whether one can think about sadness or pleasure by having an image of it in one’s mind, but without experiencing any sadness or pleasure in the thought, and (e) (perhaps most famously, in the Confessions) how one can want something that he does not believe to be good.
5. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
James Ross Adapting Aquinas: Analogy and Forms
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper enlarges the analogy of meaning doctrine to show that it is a general, law-like linguistic phenomenon, and not peculiar to philosophy. The theory of forms, considered as active, repeatable, intelligible structures of things (accessible as such to intelligent beings alone), is basic to ground the sciences of nature and to an account of knowledge. Aquinas’s accounts of real natures, universals, natural and angelic things, causation, abstraction, knowledge, etc. are grounded in the theory of forms. The theory of forms can be adapted to discern and even invent intelligible structures; thus we can account for real and common natures. Structures that are explanatory of the behavior of things, and are not themselves reductively explicable in terms of their own material components, are the constitutive structures of things and processes. There are real common natures of both things and processes, but ‘being common’ is the resultant of the physicalmultiplication of repeatable (because receivable) intelligible structure. Thus the commonness of a nature, like being human or being a chicken, is not antecedentto the individuals, as Plato thought, but consequent upon them.
6. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Bonnie Kent Happiness and the Willing Agent: The Ongoing Relevance of the Franciscan Tradition
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Contemporary philosophers who are concerned with the following three philosophical issues can learn much from Scotus: (1) the defense of agent-causal accounts of the will; (2) the search for common ground between ancient and Kantian ethics: and (3) the co-existence of free will and the capacity for sin in heaven.1) Free Will and Agent Causation: According to Scotus, the will moves itself to act, but does not cause itself. Human actions are done for reasons determinedby the agent; they are not reducible to events (which are themselves necessitated by prior events).2) Reconciling Ancient and Kantian Ethics: Like Kant, Scotus thinks that creatures cannot be morally responsible for their actions if happiness is their solemotivation for choosing whatever they choose; Scotus distinguishes between motivations and ends, although less sharply than Kant does. For Scotus, thedesire for happiness includes the desire for self-perfection; thus happiness for Scotus is never reducible to hedonism, nor is happiness our sole motivation.Our freedom lies in the will’s ability to love good things according to the value they have in themselves, not according to the value that they have for us.3) Is Heaven a Problem? A familiar explanation of the problem of evil is that evil is permitted because free will is required for moral goodness; without free willthere would be no moral evil, but neither would there be any moral goodness, so the world is better than it would be if God had chosen not to create freecreatures. But if free will is such a great good, then we must retain the capacity to sin in heaven, or else heavenly existence is inferior to earthly existence.And, if we do retain the capacity to sin in heaven, then heaven is not essentially devoid of evil. Scotus would respond to this problem by stating that love, notfreedom, is the greatest good. Thus, his account of heaven is consistent with what it means to love God above all, for his own sake, and without the motivationof happiness or any other benefit.
7. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Ian Ker Newman’s Standing as a Philosopher
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Newman’s English empiricist background had alienated him from neoscholastic and analytic philosophers. His theological concerns separated him fromother empiricists, while his empiricism separated him from idealist philosophers who gave serious consideration to religious ideas. It is only recently that Newman has begun to be taken seriously as a philosopher as well as a theologian. We can now see that Newman identifies epistemological problems and offers solutions that are philosophically relevant today. In the words of Basil Mitchell, Newman was original because he demanded “a much more subtle appreciation of the way reason works, not only in relation to religious truth, but also in respect to all matter of serious importance,” including the philosophy of science. For Newman realized that science and philosophy are like religious faith in that none of these branches of knowledge is ‘rational’ in the traditional Lockean sense, and thus none can appeal to a neutral, objective standard of rationality. Since he rejects foundationalism, the problem for Newman (as for Plantinga) is how to judge between differing systems of belief. Newman’s resolution, in Mitchell’s words, lay in the recognition that “a rational resolution of disputes between rival traditions does not depend on . . . a neutral standpoint.” Instead, one can always re-examine and revise one’s first principles or antecedent assumptions in light of one’s evolving understanding and appeal to tradition. All branches of knowledge, not only religious convictions, require one to refine one’s judgment in this manner.
8. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Lorenz B. Puntel How Can the Grand Metaphysical Questions of the (Christian-)Metaphysical Tradition Be Re-thought Today?
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The necessary task for philosophy is the development of a metaphysical ontology, i.e., a philosophical theory of everything. The urgency of this task is apparentin, for example, the weakness of proofs for the existence of God. When such “proofs” are not rooted in a comprehensive metaphysical ontology, the principlesapplied, as well as the “God” whose existence has supposedly been proven, are unintelligible. Thus, the explication of Being, from within an adequately articulated framework, should be the central focus of philosophy. The basic conceptual structures required for this task are the three fundamental modalities: necessity, possibility, and contingency. With these tools, we can refute the thesis that everything is contingent and nothing is necessary or absolute. The all-is-contingent thesis has as an implication the assumption of the possibility of absolute nothingness. But this concept both is itself contradictory and has an impossible consequence. Finally, the relation between the absolute dimension of being and persons like us (contingent beings) can be understood by conceiving of the absolute dimension as a personal absolute. From here, we can attempt to interpret the history of the free acts of the personal absolute by studying the history of revealed religions.
session 1
9. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Stephen Pimentel Thomas’s Elusive Proof: A Reconstruction of the “Existential Argument” for the Existence of God
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper presents a reconstruction of the “existential argument” for the existence of God that seems implicit, if somewhat elusive, in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. The reconstructed argument corresponds to no single passage of Thomas’s but gathers and synthesizes arguments used by him throughout his writings. The paper then attempts to evaluate the argument’s soundness against the background of Thomas’s metaphysical principles. There is ample motivationfor desiring such an evaluation. John Haldane has recently described the existential argument as perhaps Thomas’s “most original contribution to the search for theistic proofs.” Yet, ironically, several prominent Thomistic philosophers have denied the soundness, and indeed the very possibility, of any such existential argument, leveling criticisms based on textual issues in Thomas’s works, the limitations of apriori reasoning, and perceptions of circular reasoning. The paper will attempt to show that the criticisms formulated by these critics are unfounded.
10. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Glenn Statile The Uncertainty Principle and the Problem of God
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper considers the relationship between quantum uncertainty and the problem of God. Among the issues considered are the existence and essence ofGod, divine action, human freedom, and personal identity. In recent discussions concerning the relative merits of science and religion, thinkers like Ian Barbourand John Haught have suggested several such credible, albeit tentative, connections between the two on the basis of the epistemological limit imposed upon human knowledge by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
session 2
11. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
James M. Jacobs The Relevance of Aristotle’s Notion of Equity for the Contemporary Abortion Debate
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this paper I explore Aristotle’s idea of epikeia, or equity, in relation to the contemporary abortion debate. Equity is the rule of justice that insists we gobeyond the letter of the law in those cases in which following it would be harmful. One consequence of this is that we do not need to create exceptionless laws,since laws can admit exceptions for the sake of a higher good. I argue that this arrangement appears to be a reasonable way to move the abortion debate forward, since the common good would mandate the prohibition of most abortions, but applications of equity would protect access to abortion for those considered most in need. In the end, though, despite this reasonableness, its usefulness for reforming abortion law is limited due to the current hostility of the American legislature to natural law as a higher form of justice.
12. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
John Zeis Killing Innocents and the Doctrine of Double Effect
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Catholic moral philosophy requires an absolute prohibition against the direct killing of innocents. In this paper I consider some examples of justified actionswhich involve the killing of innocent persons and will present them as cases about which I am confident many others will share the same intuitions. I willthen try to show what conditions apply in such cases that justify those intuitions. I will argue that their justification is in accordance with a modified version of theFinnis, Grisez, Boyle interpretation of the doctrine of double effect; it defends their interpretation of what is direct versus indirect in cases of double effect, and meets the proportionality condition in a way suggested by Philippa Foot regarding the virtues of justice and charity.
session 3
13. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Lloyd Newton Duns Scotus’s Account of a Propter Quid Science of the Categories
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this paper, I examine Scotus’s claim that the categories are the subject of a propter quid science. In order to see the significance of this claim, I first trace the development of the idea that the categories are the subject of a science from Martin of Denmark, Peter of Auvergne, and Simon of Faversham. I then turn toDuns Scotus’s account of the categories as the subject of a propter quid science. Throughout the discussion, I concentrate on the fundamental problems confronting anyone who claims that there is a science of the categories: namely, how they, being ten, can have an appropriate unity. Scotus, as we will see, will answer this problem by claiming that the intellect causes a greater unity in second intentions than the corresponding unity that exists in the world. As a consequence, Scotus contends that the categories are the subject of a propter quid science, one that is radically different from the science of metaphysics.
14. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
John Peterson Are There Final Causes?
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Construing all efficient causes as beginning and ceasing with their effects invites the dilemma that a given effect or event either always occurs or neveroccurs. One escapes the dilemma by distinguishing basic and subsidiary efficient causes, according temporal priority of causes to their effects in the case of theformer. In the case of human making and doing, where the two efficient causes belong to the same subject, the two are supplemented by a final cause whichserves to link or to mediate them. This it does by drawing out or actuating the subsidiary cause which exists potentially in the basic cause. Arguing from analogy,can it be argued that, just when basic and subsidiary efficient causes belong to the same non-human subject in nature, they must likewise be supplemented byfinal causes if the potentiality of subsidiary causes in basic causes is to be drawn out and made actual? Surprising though it might seem to some, the answer tothis question is yes. To show this, I first place efficient causes in a dilemma. Next I show how one escapes the dilemma by distinguishing basic and subsidiary efficient causes, making the former temporally precede the latter. These two causes in some cases need to be linked, and this, I argue, requires a cause of another type, a final cause.
session 4
15. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Joe McCoy The Appropriation of Myth and the Sayings of the Wise in Plato’s Meno and Philebus
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this article, I discuss the incorporation of traditional ‘sayings of the wise’ and the mythical presentation of certain doctrines in the Platonic dialogues, particularly the Meno’s myth of recollection and the Philebus’s myth of the limit and the unlimited. I argue against a common view of Platonic myth, which holds that such passages are merely rhetorical devices and naive presentations of philosophical doctrines, whose aura of traditional authority ultimately forestalls and inhibits philosophical reflection. I attempt to show in the case of the Meno and the Philebus that Platonic myths serve to cultivate and sustain a kind of philosophical reflection and to illustrate the search for first principles, causes, and the origins of things. I maintain that Platonic myth represents a mode of understanding and of thought that mediates between the opinions of individuals and knowledge proper or wisdom.
16. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
William Jaworski Hylomorphism and the Mind-Body Problem
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
The dualist-materialist dichotomy can be understood in terms of an apparently inconsistent triad of claims: materialism, mental realism, and antireductionism.At one time, functionalism seemed capable of resolving the apparent inconsistency, but recent work in the philosophy of mind suggests it cannot. Functionalism’sfailure invites exploration into alternative strategies for resolution, one of which is suggested by Aristotle’s hylomorphism. The latter rejects PostulationalRealism, a semantic model for psychological discourse endorsed by regnant forms of dualism and materialism, as well as by functionalism. Several considerations indicate that Postulational Realism is an implausible model for psychological discourse at best, and therefore suggest its rejection might pave the way to resolving the dualist-materialist dichotomy in the manner of hylomorphism.
session 5
17. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Aaron Martin Reckoning with Ross: Possibles, Divine Ideas, and Virtual Practical Knowledge
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this paper, I discuss St. Thomas’s explanation of how God knows the possibles—things He could create but never does create. Thomas’s full explanationincludes a discussion of the nature of possibility, the reality of the possibles, and whether there are divine ideas of the possibles. In this paper, I critique someof James Ross’s positions as he best represents the self-proclaimed “voluntarist” school. I believe that Ross gives Thomas’s texts an incomplete reading on this issue and I seek to provide what is missing in Ross’s reading by highlighting Thomas’s notion of virtual practical knowledge. The concept of virtual practical knowledge is overlooked even by most “traditional” Thomists, and yet I have found that virtual practical knowledge is Thomas’s richest explanation of how God knows the possibles because it incorporates the principles that Thomas introduces in his general theory of divine knowledge.
18. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Brett Gaul Is the Problem of Evil a Problem for Descartes?
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In “Descartes’s Theodicy of Error,” Michael J. Latzer argues that the Fourth Meditation has “general significance for the project of theodicy” and offers “asolution to the problem of evil as complete, in its own succinct way, as Leibniz’s is on a grander scale.” I do not think that anyone has accurately understood the complex theodicy offered there, however. Commentators disagree about the argument(s) and have not carefully explained exactly what Descartes says that applies to the problem of evil. The purpose of my paper is three-fold. I (1) explain the theodicy that Descartes offers to explain philosophical error in the Fourth Meditation; (2) argue that although we are justified in understanding this theodicy as concerning the problem of evil, the advice Descartes offers for avoiding philosophical error does not apply to avoiding sin (an example of evil); and (3) argue that the theodicy may actually be no theodicy at all.
session 6
19. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
Stephen R. Grimm Value Incommensurability
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this paper I consider the challenge to rational choice posed by the problem of value incommensurability, and argue that incommensurabilists misrepresentour position as practical reasoners. In essence, I claim that reason has considerably more to work with than their arguments suggest, and that as a result it is possible for us to compare even the deepest values. To say that it is possible for us to compare values is not to say that it is always easy, however, or that thequestion of how best to characterize the common measure that allows for these comparisons isn’t open to vigorous dispute. But I argue that it is one thing to saythat the measure is obscure or that it guides us only imprecisely—and quite another to claim that it is conceptually impossible to weigh the deep values in lightof a common standard.
20. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 78
M. V. Dougherty Moral Dilemmas and Moral Luck: Reckoning with the Thomistic Ethical Tradition
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In recent years, Alasdair MacIntyre and others have observed an increasing interest on the part of contemporary ethicists regarding the question of whetherinnocent agents ever find themselves in moral dilemmas. This present-day support for the existence of moral dilemmas for innocent agents has spawned a re-reading of canonical ethical texts in the history of philosophy. The point of departure for the present paper is one particularly contentious battleground of this ongoing historical retrieval, namely, the ethical writings of Thomas Aquinas. I contend that Aquinas is not an ally of those who defend the existence of moral dilemmas for innocent agents. However, Aquinas does present what is in my view a valuable contribution to the discussion of moral dilemmas as such. I show that a close textual reading of one of Aquinas’s examples leads to some rather interesting consequences for his moral theory, and that, surprisingly, this example could be of interest to contemporary ethicists who argue for the existence of moral luck.