亚里斯多德-托马斯自然哲学是否仍然与宇宙学相关?

John G. Brungardt
{"title":"亚里斯多德-托马斯自然哲学是否仍然与宇宙学相关?","authors":"John G. Brungardt","doi":"10.5840/ACPAPROC2021423114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Do advances in the natural sciences leave the followers of Aristotle and Aquinas without a cosmos? Is their natural philosophy irrelevant to modern cosmology and its Big Bang theory? The following essay answers these questions and argues that natural philosophy is perennially relevant to cosmology. It defends the idea that Aristotelian-Thomistic natural philosophy reaches a true, general definition of the universe: the unity of order of all mobile beings according to place, duration, and agent causality. The essay defends this conclusion while answering three opposing views, those of Jonathan Schaffer, Peter Simons, and Immanuel Kant. The true account is attained through reasoning about the nature of place, duration, and agent causality. Objections against these lines of argument are answered to clarify their continued relevance. Since it provides even our modern scientific cosmology with the necessarily assumed notion of the universe, Aristotelian-Thomistic natural philosophy is perennially relevant to cosmology.","PeriodicalId":82372,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is Aristotelian-Thomistic Natural Philosophy Still Relevant to Cosmology?\",\"authors\":\"John G. Brungardt\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/ACPAPROC2021423114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Do advances in the natural sciences leave the followers of Aristotle and Aquinas without a cosmos? Is their natural philosophy irrelevant to modern cosmology and its Big Bang theory? The following essay answers these questions and argues that natural philosophy is perennially relevant to cosmology. It defends the idea that Aristotelian-Thomistic natural philosophy reaches a true, general definition of the universe: the unity of order of all mobile beings according to place, duration, and agent causality. The essay defends this conclusion while answering three opposing views, those of Jonathan Schaffer, Peter Simons, and Immanuel Kant. The true account is attained through reasoning about the nature of place, duration, and agent causality. Objections against these lines of argument are answered to clarify their continued relevance. Since it provides even our modern scientific cosmology with the necessarily assumed notion of the universe, Aristotelian-Thomistic natural philosophy is perennially relevant to cosmology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82372,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/ACPAPROC2021423114\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/ACPAPROC2021423114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自然科学的进步是否使亚里士多德和阿奎那的追随者失去了宇宙?他们的自然哲学与现代宇宙学及其大爆炸理论无关吗?下面的文章回答了这些问题,并认为自然哲学与宇宙学永远相关。它捍卫的观点是,亚里士多德-托马斯自然哲学达到了宇宙的一个真实的,一般的定义:统一的秩序,所有移动的生物根据地点,持续时间,和代理因果关系。这篇文章在反驳乔纳森·谢弗、彼得·西蒙斯和伊曼努尔·康德三个相反观点的同时,为这一结论进行了辩护。真实的描述是通过对地点、持续时间和代理人因果关系的性质进行推理而获得的。对这些论点的反对意见进行了回答,以澄清它们的持续相关性。因为它甚至为我们的现代科学宇宙学提供了必然假设的宇宙概念,亚里士多德-托马斯自然哲学与宇宙学永远相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Is Aristotelian-Thomistic Natural Philosophy Still Relevant to Cosmology?
Do advances in the natural sciences leave the followers of Aristotle and Aquinas without a cosmos? Is their natural philosophy irrelevant to modern cosmology and its Big Bang theory? The following essay answers these questions and argues that natural philosophy is perennially relevant to cosmology. It defends the idea that Aristotelian-Thomistic natural philosophy reaches a true, general definition of the universe: the unity of order of all mobile beings according to place, duration, and agent causality. The essay defends this conclusion while answering three opposing views, those of Jonathan Schaffer, Peter Simons, and Immanuel Kant. The true account is attained through reasoning about the nature of place, duration, and agent causality. Objections against these lines of argument are answered to clarify their continued relevance. Since it provides even our modern scientific cosmology with the necessarily assumed notion of the universe, Aristotelian-Thomistic natural philosophy is perennially relevant to cosmology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Emotions and Moral Judgment in advance A Bonaventurean Approach to the Problem of Divine Hiddenness in advance Hildebrandian Importance as a Scale of Forms in advance Dionysius the Areopagite on Whether Philosophy Should be Used in Service of Religion in advance Reflections on Re-Presentation and Symbolon in advance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1