Aquinas, Geach, and the Inner Acts of the Will

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Michał Głowala
{"title":"Aquinas, Geach, and the Inner Acts of the Will","authors":"Michał Głowala","doi":"10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the paper I discuss Geach’s rejection of volitions (inner acts of the will) both in the exegesis of Aquinas and in systematic action theory – a rejection followed by some analytical commentators of Aquinas (like Davies and Kenny). I claim that Geach’s interpretation of Aquinas’s action theory in terms of tendencies (treating the will as a special kind of tendency) enables – pace Geach – a sound defense of volitionism both in the exegesis of Aquinas and in the action theory. In other words, I offer arguments in favour of volitions (inner acts of the will) starting from some insights to be found in Geach, and I response to some standard objections against volitionism. Moreover, I try to sketch a framework (based on an ontology of tendencies suggested by Geach) suitable to discuss some other volitionist claims. I proceed in four steps: first I introduce the definition of a volition or inner act of the will that may be ascribed to various camps in the volitionism debate; then I discuss three main arguments of Geach against volitionism – the argument from trying, the argument from voluntary omissions, and the argument from natural theology. I pay special attention to the issue of the timing of volitions.","PeriodicalId":36725,"journal":{"name":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17990/rpf/2023_79_1_0375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the paper I discuss Geach’s rejection of volitions (inner acts of the will) both in the exegesis of Aquinas and in systematic action theory – a rejection followed by some analytical commentators of Aquinas (like Davies and Kenny). I claim that Geach’s interpretation of Aquinas’s action theory in terms of tendencies (treating the will as a special kind of tendency) enables – pace Geach – a sound defense of volitionism both in the exegesis of Aquinas and in the action theory. In other words, I offer arguments in favour of volitions (inner acts of the will) starting from some insights to be found in Geach, and I response to some standard objections against volitionism. Moreover, I try to sketch a framework (based on an ontology of tendencies suggested by Geach) suitable to discuss some other volitionist claims. I proceed in four steps: first I introduce the definition of a volition or inner act of the will that may be ascribed to various camps in the volitionism debate; then I discuss three main arguments of Geach against volitionism – the argument from trying, the argument from voluntary omissions, and the argument from natural theology. I pay special attention to the issue of the timing of volitions.
阿奎那,吉奇,和意志的内在行为
在本文中,我讨论了吉奇在对阿奎那的注释和系统行动理论中对意志(意志的内在行为)的拒绝——阿奎那的一些分析评论家(如戴维斯和肯尼)紧随其后。我认为,吉奇对阿奎那行为理论的解释是从倾向的角度出发的(将意志视为一种特殊的倾向),这使得——按照吉奇的说法——在对阿奎那的注释和行为理论中,意志论都得到了有力的辩护。换句话说,我提供了支持意志(意志的内在行为)的论据,这些论据是从Geach中发现的一些见解开始的,我回应了一些反对意志论的标准异议。此外,我试图勾勒出一个框架(基于Geach提出的倾向本体论),适合于讨论其他意志论者的主张。我分四个步骤进行:首先,我介绍意志或意志的内在行为的定义,这可以归因于意志论辩论中的各种阵营;然后我讨论了吉奇反对意志论的三个主要论点——来自尝试的论点,来自自愿遗漏的论点,以及来自自然神学的论点。我特别注意意志的时机问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia
Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信