Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principle

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Moraes, Renato José de
Data de Publicação: 2022
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668888
Resumo: Anthony Kenny criticized the Five Ways, by Thomas Aquinas, in a widespread and influential book. About the First Way, among other critiques, Kenny considers that Thomas Aquinas failed to prove that “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”. As this principle is central for the argument developed by Aquinas on the “first mover, put in movement by no other”, the First Way is insufficient and grounded on a mistake. In this article, Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s works are analysed to expose that their arguments about movement are sound and persuasive. On the contrary, Kenny’s criticism is not consistent and is misled by bad interpretation of texts and concepts. Oderberg and Weisheipl agree with Aquinas and Aristotle, and their papers reinforce the conclusions of this article, favourable to the Medieval philosopher and against Kenny.
id UNICAMP-17_16c63d65e26dc9554f4cd7b62e453c78
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8668888
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principleAnthony KennyThomas AquinasFirst wayMovementAnthony Kenny criticized the Five Ways, by Thomas Aquinas, in a widespread and influential book. About the First Way, among other critiques, Kenny considers that Thomas Aquinas failed to prove that “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”. As this principle is central for the argument developed by Aquinas on the “first mover, put in movement by no other”, the First Way is insufficient and grounded on a mistake. In this article, Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s works are analysed to expose that their arguments about movement are sound and persuasive. On the contrary, Kenny’s criticism is not consistent and is misled by bad interpretation of texts and concepts. Oderberg and Weisheipl agree with Aquinas and Aristotle, and their papers reinforce the conclusions of this article, favourable to the Medieval philosopher and against Kenny.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2022-04-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668888Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 44 n. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 202-223Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 44 No. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 202-223Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 44 Núm. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 202-2232317-630Xreponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPporhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668888/28240Brazil; ContemporaryCopyright (c) 2021 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofiahttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMoraes, Renato José de 2022-04-05T17:14:18Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8668888Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscritoPUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/oaimwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2022-04-05T17:14:18Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principle
title Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principle
spellingShingle Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principle
Moraes, Renato José de
Anthony Kenny
Thomas Aquinas
First way
Movement
title_short Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principle
title_full Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principle
title_fullStr Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principle
title_full_unstemmed Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principle
title_sort Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principle
author Moraes, Renato José de
author_facet Moraes, Renato José de
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Moraes, Renato José de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Anthony Kenny
Thomas Aquinas
First way
Movement
topic Anthony Kenny
Thomas Aquinas
First way
Movement
description Anthony Kenny criticized the Five Ways, by Thomas Aquinas, in a widespread and influential book. About the First Way, among other critiques, Kenny considers that Thomas Aquinas failed to prove that “whatever is in motion is put in motion by another”. As this principle is central for the argument developed by Aquinas on the “first mover, put in movement by no other”, the First Way is insufficient and grounded on a mistake. In this article, Aristotle’s and Aquinas’s works are analysed to expose that their arguments about movement are sound and persuasive. On the contrary, Kenny’s criticism is not consistent and is misled by bad interpretation of texts and concepts. Oderberg and Weisheipl agree with Aquinas and Aristotle, and their papers reinforce the conclusions of this article, favourable to the Medieval philosopher and against Kenny.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022-04-05
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
info:eu-repo/semantics/other
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668888
url https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668888
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8668888/28240
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.coverage.none.fl_str_mv Brazil; Contemporary
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 44 n. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 202-223
Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 44 No. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 202-223
Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 44 Núm. 4 (2021): out./dez.; 202-223
2317-630X
reponame:Manuscrito (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron:UNICAMP
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron_str UNICAMP
institution UNICAMP
reponame_str Manuscrito (Online)
collection Manuscrito (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br
_version_ 1800216568088494080