Anthony Kenny's criticism of aquinas' first way and the omne quod movetur ab alio movetur principle
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |