hen and Hamlyn, but certainly never even begins to offer any coherent concept of his own. Neither does he effectively weave the selected elements of the other three thinkers into anything resembling a meaningful whole.
His conclusion about Aquinas is absolutely false: "The way out of the contradiction . . . is to allow that sensation is a physical process having physical products; and . . . this is a move St. Thomas seems at times to have favored" (239). Nothing could be further from the truth. Everything Aquinas wrote was meant to shed light on what he saw as the spiritual, or immaterial, or nonphysical nature of reality. His analysis of sense-perception is an attempt to show the physical world (including the things of the world, the body and its senses) in as spiritual a context as possible. Aquinas is not an objective or unbiased scientist looking for the truth whatever it might be. He is a very biased Christian trying to provide a rational support for his faith in God, and to deny this by saying he "allows that sensation is a physical process having physical products" is to deny his work of its spiritual hear
...