为什么阿奎那的性别形而上学是基本正确的:对约翰·芬利的回应。

The Linacre Quarterly Pub Date : 2020-05-01 Epub Date: 2019-11-25 DOI:10.1177/0024363919884795
William Newton
{"title":"为什么阿奎那的性别形而上学是基本正确的:对约翰·芬利的回应。","authors":"William Newton","doi":"10.1177/0024363919884795","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In an important article, John Finley suggests a correction to Aquinas's understanding of gender distinction. Disagreeing with Aquinas, Finley proposes that gender distinction (male and female) stems from the soul rather than from the body. In this essay, I will show that this is not a tenable position because it does not fit with either what we know about the physical development of sex differences or the unity of man and woman as a single human species. I will defend Aquinas's fundamental insights into the root of gender distinction without defending his biological understanding of the process itself. I will argue that there is a single generic generative power in the soul that is determined by the matter to which the soul is united, to be expressed as either male or female. This paradigm, I believe, copes better than the one offered by Finley with phenomena such as intersexed persons and sex reassignment surgery. While I do not accept the idea of a feminine or masculine soul, the paradigm offered here does lead to the notion of the soul being feminized or masculinized on account of the matter that it informs.</p>","PeriodicalId":505854,"journal":{"name":"The Linacre Quarterly","volume":"87 2","pages":"198-205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0024363919884795","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Aquinas's Metaphysics of Gender Is Fundamentally Correct: A Response to John Finley.\",\"authors\":\"William Newton\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0024363919884795\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In an important article, John Finley suggests a correction to Aquinas's understanding of gender distinction. Disagreeing with Aquinas, Finley proposes that gender distinction (male and female) stems from the soul rather than from the body. In this essay, I will show that this is not a tenable position because it does not fit with either what we know about the physical development of sex differences or the unity of man and woman as a single human species. I will defend Aquinas's fundamental insights into the root of gender distinction without defending his biological understanding of the process itself. I will argue that there is a single generic generative power in the soul that is determined by the matter to which the soul is united, to be expressed as either male or female. This paradigm, I believe, copes better than the one offered by Finley with phenomena such as intersexed persons and sex reassignment surgery. While I do not accept the idea of a feminine or masculine soul, the paradigm offered here does lead to the notion of the soul being feminized or masculinized on account of the matter that it informs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":505854,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Linacre Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"87 2\",\"pages\":\"198-205\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0024363919884795\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Linacre Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0024363919884795\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/11/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Linacre Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0024363919884795","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/11/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在一篇重要的文章中,约翰·芬利对阿奎那对性别区分的理解提出了一个修正。芬利不同意阿奎那的观点,他提出性别区分(男性和女性)源于灵魂而不是身体。在这篇文章中,我将表明这是一个站不住脚的立场,因为它既不符合我们所知道的性别差异的身体发育,也不符合男人和女人作为一个单一人类物种的统一性。我将捍卫阿奎那对性别差异根源的基本见解,但不捍卫他对这一过程本身的生物学理解。我认为灵魂中有一种单一的通用的生殖能力,它是由灵魂与之结合的物质决定的,可以表现为男性或女性。我相信,这个范例比芬利提出的范例更适用于阴阳人和变性手术等现象。虽然我不接受女性化或男性化灵魂的观点,但这里提供的范式确实导致了灵魂被女性化或男性化的概念,这取决于它所传达的内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why Aquinas's Metaphysics of Gender Is Fundamentally Correct: A Response to John Finley.

In an important article, John Finley suggests a correction to Aquinas's understanding of gender distinction. Disagreeing with Aquinas, Finley proposes that gender distinction (male and female) stems from the soul rather than from the body. In this essay, I will show that this is not a tenable position because it does not fit with either what we know about the physical development of sex differences or the unity of man and woman as a single human species. I will defend Aquinas's fundamental insights into the root of gender distinction without defending his biological understanding of the process itself. I will argue that there is a single generic generative power in the soul that is determined by the matter to which the soul is united, to be expressed as either male or female. This paradigm, I believe, copes better than the one offered by Finley with phenomena such as intersexed persons and sex reassignment surgery. While I do not accept the idea of a feminine or masculine soul, the paradigm offered here does lead to the notion of the soul being feminized or masculinized on account of the matter that it informs.

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
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信