MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312770311 · doi:10.57106/scientia.v7i1.87

Aquinas in the Conceptual Border

2018· article· en· W4312770311 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Earl Allyson Valdez

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia - The International Journal on the Liberal Arts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphysicsPhilosophyAtheismPhilosophical theologyTheologyEpistemologyPhilosophy of religionNatural theology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have shown that philosophy and theology, two disciplines separated and distinguished from each other for more than five hundred years, are closer in reality than how philosophers and theologians of today understand them. This is even more evident in those who reflect on the socalled “death of metaphysics” and the “end of philosophy” that Martin Heidegger proclaims. This, however, cannot escape the question of dealing with St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophical and theological enterprise, whose intellectual spirit is characterized by delving both into philosophical and theological questions. This work tries to place St. Thomas Aquinas within this framework, ultimately showing that he exemplifies a lively interaction and interpenetration between these two disciplines. To show this, the paper goes through a brief survey of the historical distinction which finds its roots in St. Thomas himself. Afterwards, it provides a new understanding of the relationship between philosophy and theology primarily found in Jean-Luc Marion. Through this, one sees that in fact, St. Thomas does philosophy and theology ruly, that while speaking of a distinction between these two disciplines, his whole intellectual project can be seen as both hilosophical and theological, in which one cannot be spoken of without the other. References Abulad, Romualdo E. “Atheism as a Prophetic Voice in the Era of Paradigm Shift.”Diwa 38, no. 2, 2013: 77–90. Caputo, John D. Philosophy and Theology. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006. de Lubac S.J., Henri. “On Christian Philosophy.” Translated by Sharon Mollerusand Susan Clements. Communio 19, 1992: 478–506. ______________. The Mystery of the Supernatural. Translated by Rosemary Sheed.London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1967. de Torre, Joseph M. “Thomism and Postmodernism.” In Postmodernism and ChristianPhilosophy, edited by Roman T. Ciapalo, 248–57. Washington, D.C.:Catholic University of America Press, 1997. Eco, Umberto. “In Praise of Thomas Aquinas.” The Wilson Quarterly 10, no. 4, 1986: 78–87. Elders, Leo L. “Faith and Reason: Synthesis in St. Thomas Aquinas.” Nova et Vetera8, no. 3, 2010: 527–52. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., Reginald. The One God: A Commentary on the First Partof St. Thomas’ Theological Summ. Translated by Bede Rose. London: B.Herder Book Co., 1944. Jones, Brian. “‘That There Were True Things To Say:’ The Scandal of Philosophyand Demonstrating God’s Existence in Thomistic Natural Theology.” TheNew Blackfriars 95, no. 1038, 2013: 412–29. Kant, Immanuel. The Conflict of the Faculties. Translated by Mary J. Gregor. NewYork: Abaris Books, Inc., 1979. Kerr O.P, Fergus. “The Varieties of Interpreting Aquinas.” In Contemplating Aquinas,edited by Fergus Kerr O.P., 27–40. London: SCM Press, 2003. Marion, Jean-Luc. “‘Christian Philosophy’: Hermeneutic or Heuristic?” In The Visibleand the Revealed, edited by John D. Caputo, translated by ChristinaGschwandtner, 66–79. New York: Fordham University Press, 2008. ___________________. “Evidence and Bedazzlement.” In Prolegomena to Charity, translatedby Stephen E. Lewis, 53–70. New York: Fordham University Press, 2002. ___________________. On Descartes’ Metaphysical Prism : The Constitution and the Limitsof Onto-Theo-Logy in Cartesian Thought. Translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. ___________________. “On the Foundation of the Distinction between Theology andPhilosophy.” Edited by Philippe Capelle-Dumont. Translated by JohnCarlo P. Uy and Eduardo Jose C. Calasanz. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas andCulture XIII, no. 1–3, 2009: 15–46. ___________________. “The ‘End of Metaphysics’ as a Possibility.” In Religion After Metaphysics,edited by Mark A. Wrathall, translated by Daryl Lee, 166–89.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ___________________. “The Event, The Phenomenon, and The Revealed.” In Transcendencein Philosophy and Religion, edited by James E. Faulconer, translatedby Beata Starwaska, 87–105. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,2003. ___________________. “Thomas Aquinas and Onto-Theology.” In The Essential Writings,edited by Kevin Hart, 288–311. New York: Fordham University Press, 2004. Marshall, Bruce D. “Quod Scit Una Uetula: Aquinas on the Nature of Theology.” InThe Theology of Thomas Aquinas, edited by Rik Van Nieuwenhove andJoseph Wawrykow, 1–35. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. McCool, Gerald A. Nineteenth-Century Scholasticism: The Search for a UnitaryMethod. New York: Fordham University Press, 1989. Neuner S.J., Josef, and Jacques Dupuis S.J., eds. The Christian Faith in the DoctrinalDocuments of the Catholic Church. 6th ed. Bangalore: Theological Publicationsin India, 1996. Pope John Paul II. “Fides et Ratio.” The Holy See, 1998. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html. Pope Leo XIII. “Aeterni Patris.” Logos 12, no. 1, 2009: 169–92. St. Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle. Translated byJohn P. Rowan. Vol. 1. Chicago: Regnery, 1961. _______________________. On Being and Essence. Translated by Armand Maurer. Toronto:The Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 1949. _______________________. Summa Theologica. Vol. 1. New York: Benziger Brothers Inc.,1948. Suarez, Francisco. “Metaphysical Disputations.” In Descartes’ Mediations: BackgroundSource Materials, edited by Roger Ariew, John Cottingham, andTom Sorell, 29–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. te Velde, Rudi A. “Understanding the Scientia of Faith: Reason and Faith in Aquinas’sSumma Theologiae.” In Contemplating Aquinas, edited by FergusKerr O.P, 55–74. London: SCM Press, 2005. Turner, Denys. Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2004. White, Thomas Joseph. “Engaging the Thomistic Tradition and ContemporaryCulture Simultaneously: A Response to Burrell, Healy, and Schindler.”Nova et Vetera 10, no. 2, 2012: 605–23.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.035
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientia - The International Journal on the Liberal ArtsSame topicMedieval Philosophy and TheologyFrench-language works237,207