•  124
    Ratio, Intelligere, and Cogitare in Anselm’s Ontological Argument
    Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83 199-208. 2009.
    Throughout Anselm’s writings one can trace what seems to be a paradoxical inconsistency in his treatment of reason (ratio), understanding (intelligere) andthought (cogitare). The Monologion begins by proposing that even an unbeliever can convince himself of truths about God, “simply by reason alone,” while in theProslogion Anselm claims, to the contrary, “I believe so that I may understand.” Much of this confusion can be resolved by clarifying Anselm’s distinctions betweenreason, understanding a…Read more
  •  11
    The Metaphysical Irreversibility of Death
    Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 45 (6): 725-741. 2020.
    The popularization of the term “clinical death” for the absence of vital signs suggests the possibility of a radical change in our understanding of death. While death used to be considered something that we do not have the power to reverse, contemporary optimism suggests that we may be able to restore life to a dead organism. In this article, I examine how the term “death” is used today to clarify what kind of irreversibility we ought to assign to it. I conclude that the kind of irreversibility …Read more
  •  6
    A Functional Alternative to Radical Capacities
    American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 96 (3): 355-379. 2022.
    Among those who adopt Aristotle’s definition of the human person as a rational animal, Patrick Lee and Germain Grisez argue that whole brain death is the death of the human person. Even if a living organism remains, it is no longer a human person. They argue this because they define natural kinds by their radical capacities. A human person is therefore a being with a capacity for rational acts, and an individual having suffered whole brain death no longer has any such capacity. I present two obj…Read more
  •  4
    A Functional Alternative to Radical Capacities in advance
    American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly. forthcoming.
  •  4
    Ratio, Intelligere, and Cogitare in Anselm’s Ontological Argument
    Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83 199-208. 2009.
    Throughout Anselm’s writings one can trace what seems to be a paradoxical inconsistency in his treatment of reason (ratio), understanding (intelligere) andthought (cogitare). The Monologion begins by proposing that even an unbeliever can convince himself of truths about God, “simply by reason alone,” while in theProslogion Anselm claims, to the contrary, “I believe so that I may understand.” Much of this confusion can be resolved by clarifying Anselm’s distinctions betweenreason, understanding a…Read more