Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:12:33.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aquinas, the a priori/a posteriori distinction, and the Kantian dependency thesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2013

JACOB ARCHAMBAULT
JACOB ARCHAMBAULT*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Fordham University, Bronx, New York, USA e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article re-examines the applicability of Kant's dependency thesis to Aquinas’ cosmological proofs for the existence of God. The first part of the article provides a summary of Kant's dependency thesis, followed by a review of a defence of Aquinas by J. William Forgie. The second part of the article explains some of the logical apparatus upon which Aquinas’ argument hinges – specifically his understanding of the a priori/a posteriori distinction. I conclude by calling attention to certain distinct metaphysical assumptions within Kant's and Aquinas’ respective logical apparatus that would have to be addressed prior to the more specific question of whether Kant's critique of the cosmological argument is applicable to Aquinas.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 175 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brown, Patterson (1964) ‘St. Thomas’ doctrine of necessary being’, The Philosophical Review, 73, 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolph (1950) ‘Empiricism, semantics, and ontology’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4, 20–40.Google Scholar
Forgie, J. William (1995) ‘The cosmological and ontological arguments: how Saint Thomas solved the Kantian problem’, Religious Studies, 31, 89–100.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. (1961) ‘Aquinas’, in G. E. M. Anscombe and P. T. Geach, Three Philosophers (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press), 65–125.Google Scholar
Gödel, Kurt (1995) ‘Some basic theorems on the foundations of mathematics and their implications’, in Feferman, S. et al. (eds) Collected Works Volume 3: Unpublished Essays and Lectures (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 304–323.Google Scholar
Kenny, Anthony (1969) The Five Ways: Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Proofs of God's Existence (London: Routledge & K. Paul).Google Scholar
Klima, Gyula (2002) ‘Aquinas's theory of the copula and the analogy of being’, Logical Analysis and the History of Philosophy, 5, 159–176.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1975) ‘Aquinas on Anselm’, in Orlebeke, Clifton J. and Smedes, Lewis B. (eds) God and the Good: Essays in Honor of Henry Stob (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans), 122–39.Google Scholar
Rowe, William L. (1975) The Cosmological Argument (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand (1945) A History of Western Philosophy (New York: Simon and Schuster).Google Scholar
Vallicella, William (2000) ‘Does the cosmological argument depend on the ontological?’, Faith and Philosophy, 17, 441–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar