MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605333907 · doi:10.1353/tho.2015.0031

The Metaphysics of Gender: A Thomistic Approach

2015· article· en· W2605333907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Finley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoulMetaphysicsPhilosophyMeaning (existential)TheologySAINTNothingHumanitiesNousEpistemologyArt historyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

585 The Thomist 79 (2015): 585-614 THE METAPHYSICS OF GENDER: A THOMISTIC APPROACH JOHN FINLEY Kenrick-Glennon Seminary St. Louis, Missouri Y ARGUING THAT the spiritually subsistent soul is nothing less than the form of the body, Thomas Aquinas makes of the human being a microcosm of creation, constituting the embodied, knowing, and free boundary between the spiritual and corporeal realms.1 Yet precisely in light of this expansive view, which grants an esteemed status to the meaning of all things human, the Thomistic tradition's relative lack of inquiry into the metaphysical structures, meaning, and significance of gender is notable.2 1 See Summa contra Gentiles III, c. 68; Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis, a. 2. For systematic studies, see Anton Pegis, St. Thomas and the Problem of the Soul in the Thirteenth Century (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1976); idem, At the Origins of the Thomistic Notion of Man (New York: MacMillan, 1963). Also Sophia Vanni-Rovighi, L'Antropologia filosofica di San Tommaso d'Aquino (Milan: Societa editrice vita e pensiero, 1972); Norbert Luyten, "L'homme dans la conception de S. Thomas," in L'anthropologie de saint Thomas, ed. N. Luyten (Fribourg, 1974): 35-53; Bernardo Bazan, "The Human Soul: Form and Substance? Thomas Aquinas's Critique of Eclectic Aristotelianism," Archives d'histoire doctrinale et litteraire du moyen age 64 (1997); Eleonore Stump, Aquinas (London: Routledge, 2003); W. Norris Clarke, Person and Being (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993). 2 Thomas Aquinas and his interpreters are hardly alone in this respect, as until the twentieth century human sexuality did not constitute a significant area of inquiry in Western philosophy. Still, Prudence Allen has shown that the topic has been addressed by many more thinkers than might be supposed. Her comprehensive The Concept of Woman (vol. 1, The Aristotelian Revolution 750 B.C.-A.D. 1250 [Montreal: Eden Press, 1985]; vol. 2, The Early Humanist Reformation 1250-1500 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002]) is the best treatment of gender from the point of view of the history of philosophy. B 586 JOHN FINLEY The omission might be more understandable if gender constituted simply one branch among many stemming from the trunk of philosophical anthropology, but since human nature finds its concrete manifestation within a male or a female way of being and requires these for its continuation, inquiry into gender would be a natural extension of any account of human being as a whole. Currently, the meaning of gender and especially its connection to personal identity are in question owing to increasingly powerful technologies, cultural views of gender that argue for its social construction, and widespread debates over the status of homosexuality in civic life. My immediate reason for pursuing this topic is to see better what account Thomistic anthropology gives of maleness and femaleness , but I hope thereby to come to a deeper truth about humanness, or more precisely, to follow the Delphic injunction to "know thyself." The following analysis will offer a philosophic account of gender in its metaphysical structures, which is to say by way of limitation that it will consider neither the ethical dimension nor the question of gender identity as influenced by psychological and social factors.3 I will proceed through a dialogue with For some authors who have looked closely at Aquinas's own views, see note 4, below. I here use the term "gender" to refer to the biological, sexual structures, and capacities in virtue of which humans have been traditionally referred to as male or female. Although the field of gender studies has often invoked the "sex/gender" distinction, I do not intend my use of the term "gender" to coincide with this distinction's notion of gender as subjectively or culturally constituted personal identity, distinct from biological structure. For a view that supports the distinction, see Gayle Rubin, "The Traffic in Women: Notes on the 'Political Economy' of Sex," in Linda Nicholson, ed., The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory (New York: Routledge, 1997); also Suzanne Kessler and Wendy McKenna, Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985). Judith Butler, with much of the postmodern feminist movement, opposes the validity of the distinction, arguing that the entire...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.049
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly ReviewSame topicMedieval Philosophy and TheologyFrench-language works237,207