[Serious] Thomism: Then & Now

[Angrboda]

But this also raises the issue in circularity of reasoning. If we already need a god-concept to begin with (as part of our premises, as it were) we can expect that concept to be reflected in our conclusions.

I've had some thoughts, but been too lazy to write them up. So I'll just provide a quick and dirty intro.

Daniel Dennett suggests that the function of philosophical arguments is that they are "intuition pumps" -- they prime us for having certain intuitions which are in agreement with what the author wants us to conclude. So an argument against abortion may try to prime or trigger intuitions about the unfairness and immorality of murder with respect to the fetus. Those intuitions may or may not be appropriate to the subject and conclusion. It may not make logical sense to think of abortion as murder, but once our intuition that it is murder has been generated, that typically ends the thinking process. It's a little like propaganda in that respect. The purpose is to cause an intuitive response to a proposition rather than a rational one, where a rational one might be at odds with the intuition.

This comes into play in the five ways in that the Thomistic concepts and causal framework may be being used by Aquinas to prime or generate intuitions that are not likely to be generated by more modern concepts. Whether this is true, rational, good or bad, is an open question. If the Thomistic concepts are not rationally derived, it seems plausible that the intuitions primed by them are not rational either. Then they might be. I'd say there are a lot of open questions. And it's also worth remembering that an intuition (conclusion) may be correct, even if the means (argument) of provoking that intuition is irrational or invalid.