The Aristotelian Proof Revisited: A Reflection
McNabb and DeVito have recently argued that Graham Oppy’s objections to the First Way are found wanting. In response, McNabb and DeVito restructured the First Way on behalf of St Thomas. More recently, Joseph Schmid and Daniel Linford argue that the restructured argument given by McNabb and DeVito i...
| Published in: | New blackfriars |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge University Press
2024
|
| In: |
New blackfriars
Year: 2024, Volume: 105, Issue: 2, Pages: 144-152 |
| Further subjects: | B
unmoved mover
B the First Way B Feser B pure act B Oppy B Aristotle |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | McNabb and DeVito have recently argued that Graham Oppy’s objections to the First Way are found wanting. In response, McNabb and DeVito restructured the First Way on behalf of St Thomas. More recently, Joseph Schmid and Daniel Linford argue that the restructured argument given by McNabb and DeVito is problematic, claiming that it is either valid but unmotivated or it is plainly invalid. In this paper, I argue that McNabb and DeVito’s schematic glossing of the First Way is both valid and motivated. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1741-2005 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: New blackfriars
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/nbf.2023.7 |