When did you realize that St. Thomas Aquinas has all the answers?

For you.

Dominican habits make everyone look fatter than they are.

What do I read of/on him to get an overview without getting into the whole autism-package of the summa?

For a briefer version of some of his writings, Penguin and Oxford both have good Selected Writings available. If you want the thought of Aquinas introduced to you by a other author, I recommend Josef Pieper's Guide to Aquinas or Aquinas: An Introduction to the Life and Work of the Great Medieval Thinker by F.C. Copleston.

Nothing, you eat your dumb wiki article by retards for retards because that's what you deserve.

In a fight?

The Chad Augustine would probably have better movies but Aquinas was a big guy so it's hard to say

Aquinas himself wrote the shorter summa, which is a condensed form of the summa

GK Chesterton's book on Aquinas is a masterful introduction to both

Thank you, I will have to look these up.
On the shorter summa: There doesn't seem to be too much information on this out there. Is this a recent discovery? I was only able to find an English translation.
I would prefer to read in German (my native language) but it seems there's no such thing.

>Yes hello of course it's reasonable to just jump into pic related in order to get an overview

Had a quick google alas it seems there are no German versions of Chesterton at all. Going straight into the source material in a different language will be hard

Josef Pieper's was German, so his book should be available to you. I believe its original title was Hinführung zu Thomas von Aquinas. There also might be translations of French authors like Etienne Gilson, who wrote some good stuff on Aquinas, but that's just a wild guess.

Daily reminder that Kany btfoed both the cosmological and the ontological argument

is palamas superior?

He never finished his works though.
Feels bad man

>dude let's presuppose the universe works in the same way as the motion of the contents of the universe, analogies and unfounded uniformitarianism is completely valid lmao!

Kant refuted strawmans. Read Feser.

Do you really think that a philosopher of Kant's caliber would have made such a gross error? google.it/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-idx/kant-on-the-cosmological-argument.pdf?c=phimp;idno=3521354.0014.012;format=pdf&ved=0ahUKEwis3eyNwJnXAhVFXBoKHW2oCK4QFggtMAI&usg=AOvVaw2h1id2lozdA4Swxiwjlqac read up
>Feser
Literally who

>google.it/url?sa=t&source
>Literally who

I truly value your opinion

>Do you really think that a philosopher of Kant's caliber would have made such a gross error?

Given that philosophers of equal. Caliber have disagreed with Kant, this is a weak thing to appeal to.

The link explains pretty well Kant's criticism of the cosmological argument. If you can't read that's your problem.

Show me where they disagreed with Kant on this particular matter.

This particular matter doesn't need to be where they disagree. They need to merely disagree. If philosophers of equal caliber disagree, then caliber is an insufficient quality to appeal to.

Less elaborately stated, you've committed an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy.

>I have recently discovered logical fallacies on the internet: the post

"Do you really think that a philosopher of Kant's caliber would have made such a gross error?" wasn't meant to be a logical argument. It wasn't meant to be an argument in the first place. It was a colloquial introduction to the link I posted. Why did you bring up logical fallacies?

Because you used one.

If I could STOP one person in all of history it would be Thomas Aquinas. It wouldn't even be close had not that demon-possessed lunatic drama queen Francis of Assisi lived.

Trad-cats and "traditional" Anglicans forcing Aquinas as a meme is disgusting. Who do you think is responsible for destroying Western Christianity? Besides Francis of Assisi, I mean. There's a reason why Aquinas is celebrated as a good-boy by atheists and apostates.

Thomas Aquinas, the patron of resorting to Aristotle and Medieval rabbis when you lose arguments against actual theologians. Thomas Aquinas, the patron of studying Augustine and only keeping what he got wrong. Thomas Aquinas, the damnable heretic who denies the literal presence of God in the Old Testament, claiming that what the saints saw were very convincing illusions, because he, typical of heretics, doesn't understand the essence-energies distinction.

STOP

>Who do you think is responsible for destroying Western Christianity?

Come now user, we all know the real answer.

>tfw the failure of Scholasticism......
the failure of human reason...
the failure of God..

I've studied Aquinas and Augustine. I got bored with both. Augustine seems to have reappropriated Plato, while Aquinas did the same to Aristotle. I clicked on this thread because I thought, 'wow there are quite a few posts here, there must be something of substance that I can learn from', but I was let down. Can anyone tell me some improvement that Aquinas made on Aristotle's thought (a philosophy I dislike but am familiar with, and please be specific)?

Luther pilfered a corpse.

You're fucking precious. Who is your favorite philosopher?

No.

>Literally denying divine simplicity.

The only heretic here is you.

>I've studied Aquinas and Augustine

Read Gregory the Theologian and Maximos the Confessor

Aquinas' main improvement on Aristotle's thought is tackling the question of why there is something rather than nothing. To Aristotle (and the other Greeks) the main metaphysical question is "why are things the way they are?" whereas Aquinas takes the Aristotelian framework and asks "Why is there anything at all?" He expands upon the idea of the Unmoved Mover. God is not anymore simply the one who set things in motion. In a universe where all beings are contingent on another cause to explain why they exist, he is the one Necessary Being that can explain why anything exists. He has no potency as Aristotle conceives of, God is pure act, because potency implies something unfulfilled, something lacking. Not being contingent, but necessarily existening, being lure act, his essence and his being are one and the same. God is the one being to which when the question "What is it?" is asked, the answer is "He is."

Touching on the subject of contingent being, and the need for a being that necessarily exists of its own nature, while Aquinas out of faith does not believe the universe to have existed infinitely back in time, he's actually willing to accept that it's possible, and argues against St. Bonaventure on this point. The First Cause, God, isn't necessarily First in a temporal sense, but in an ontological one. All else is contingent on something else for its existence, God is not.

You very clearly haven't studied either Aquinas or Aristotle if you don't understand what Aquinas added.

If you're implying that Luther borrowed from Aquinas, barely. Their theologies diverge radically, and if you read any of Luther's writings you'll see his entire mode of thought is different. It is not the calm dispassionate scholastic commentary of Aquinas by any means. Besides, we all know Luther (and many other Protestants) took more from St. Augustine.

I was implying that Luther didn't destroy western Christianity, because it was already dead. I should have said he desecrated, delimbed, or dismembered the corpse.

I got a 3.9 in a masters of theological study with my thesis being on Greek philosophy (on the Plato side of things). And I have read the two neatly packaged paragraphs above about his 'contributions' but do you guys really think that is something? Don't you sort of think, looking back on it, he was too lost in his own world of speculation to realize that what he spent so much time focusing on was really of no consequence and could just as easily be true as untrue? I mean the 'pure act' and potency things are sort of silly. I think he might have just misinterpreted the importance that Plato places on action that is described in a cosmological manner but is really intended to be used for understanding the self. God being the thing that offers explanation for everything: how is that different from Plato's one of which all thing take part and the concept that Plato says is the solution to the problem with knowledge that doesn't have a proper account? It is through the idea of the good that all things are connected and all things are known, like in the sun analogy. And with regard to why is there something instead of nothing, Plato takes that on with pretty much the same reasoning. Maybe Aristotle didn't touch it, but Plato hit those notes. I'm sorry I don't have sources on hand, so my response is pretty much invalid, but I just wanted to see what people thought all the Aquinas fuss was about

...

>dissing St. Francis

Vile.

>St.

Francis, patron of repentance as performance art.

Don't believe me it really doesn't matter. My thesis compared symbolism in Mark to symbolism used by the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria. If you thought Aquinas was interesting, Philo would blow your mind.

You don't understand basic Aristotilean/Platonic concepts. You are spouting carrier tier autism now. Please go away.

see orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/francis_sarov.aspx he was not a saint.

>I mean the 'pure act' and potency things are sort of silly.

It's not silly at all. To imply potency within God would be blasphemy. It's stating that God is in some way lacking, that he could somehow be something more.

As for how Aquinas' description of God as the first cause, the necessary being, it's different from Plato because the whole idea of Platonic realism has the things of this world literally partaking in the being of the perfect forms, or in this case, God. That's straying awfully close to pantheism, a path that some Platonists took. It is one thing to depend on God for your being, it is another to partake in it.

>'s not silly at all. To imply potency within God would be blasphemy. It's stating that God is in some way lacking, that he could somehow be something more.

Not that user but I think you are missing the point of him criticizing it at a more foundational level. Its putting the cart before the horse - if its an incorrect category or understanding its not something God can lack.

For instance adarxaig must exist and to deny this would be blasphemy as to do so would mean that God is in some way lacking, that he could somehow be something more - God with adarxaig.

This is clearly faulty

That article straight up lies in several cases. St. Francis was canonized for far more than being a stigmatist. Christ's wounds only appeared on his body in the last two years of his life, he was a well known figure before that. Pope Gregory IX had personally known St. Francis, and was acquainted with his own personal example of holiness. In fact, the article's entire focus on stigmata is unwarranted. St. Francis of Assissi is revered for far more things than being a stigmatist. The author is just focusing on it so much because it's an alien phenomenon to a Byzantine audience, and thus easy to distract them with away from the actual essence of why St. Francis is considered holy. This is mostly polemic, and very little substance.

I enjoyed reading about his philosophy of mind. Particularly, I like how he emphasized that, although humans are material, there must be an ontological (non reducible) component to our awareness. Through this humans can possess higher knowledge that transcends subordination of physical forces. In this respect it presents an infinitely more plausible argument for the mind-body problem than dualism, panpsychism, and idealism without being absurdly reductionist as most materialistic philosophies are.

Basically, Aquinas understands that the mind is greater than the sum of its parts.

Aquinas is a dualist, he's just not a Cartesian.

Plato didn't address potency because it isn't actually an issue. That is what I was saying his 'new' content was inconsequential. God is the way God is. God is perfect. If one knows these things what is the reason to fiddle around with these inconsequential word games. If blasphemy is not a concern of course.

And the partaking thing is strange. Whenever it is beneficial for the anti-Platonist it is argued that the world of ideas is separate from the material world (which would imply that things of the world are dependent on the idea of the good but don't partake of the ideas) and then at other times (I think this is what you are saying) the two worlds are interwoven to the extent that things of the world partake of ideas. In Parminedes they wrestle with these issues and don't come to a conclusion. Both extremes are listed as well as the most reasonable refutation of each case, but Plato avoids the possibility of having others improve upon his concepts because he shows the faulty nature of both sides and accepts that the answer is somewhere in between, while Aquinas just pushes for the same argument it seems that Parmenides makes in the dialogue with regard to the relationship between ideas and things of the world and of God and the world. Therefore he is subject to the same criticism that is offered against this view in other dialogues. The way I see it, Aquinas just took a pre-existing side in the argument and used different words to describe it so he can justify calling it 'new'

>If by reason and wisdom a person has come to understand that what exists was brought out of non-being into being by God, if he intelligently directs the soul’s imagination to the infinite differences and variety of things as they exist by nature and turns his questing eye with understanding towards the intelligible model (logos) according to which things have been made, would he now know that the one Logos is many logoi? This is evident in the incomparable differences among created things. For each is unmistakably unique in itself and its identity remains distinct in relation to other things. He will also know that the many logoi are the one Logos to whom all things are related and who exists in himself without confusion, the essential and individually distinctive God, the Logos of God the Father. He is the beginning and cause of all things in whom all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities–all things were created from him and through him and for him (Col. 1:15-17, Rom. 11:36). Because he held together in himself the logoi before they came to be, by his gracious will he created things visible and invisible out of non-being. By his word and his wisdom he made all things (Wisdom 9:1-2) and is making all things, universals as well as particulars, at the proper time.

>For we believe that a logos of angels preceded their creation, a logos preceded the creation of each of the beings and powers that fill the upper world, a logos preceded the creation of human beings, a logos preceded the creation of everything that proceeded from God, and so on. It is not necessary to mention them all. The Logos whose excellence is incomparable, ineffable and inconceivable in himself is exalted beyond all creation and even beyond the idea of difference and distinction. This same Logos, whose goodness is revealed and multiplied in all the things that have their origin in him, with the degree of beauty appropriate to each being, recapitulates all things in himself (Eph. 1:10). Through this Logos there came to be both being and continuing to be, for from him the things that were made came to be in a certain way and for a certain reason, and by continuing to be and moving, they participate in God. For all things, in that they came to be from God, participate proportionally in God. For all things, whether by intellect, by reason, by sense-perception, by vital motion, or by some habitual fitness, as the great inspired Dionysius the Areopagite thought. Consequently, each of the intellectual and rational beings, whether angels or human beings, through the very Logos according to which each were created, who is in God and is "with God" (John 1:1), is "called and indeed is" a “portion of God,” through the Logos that preexisted in God as I already argued.

>Plato didn't address potency because it isn't actually an issue.

Start here.

I'm guessing this is Aquinas? But he is just explaining the Platonic logos concept? In what ways does this description differ from Plato's (apart from senselessly artful manner in which it is displayed here, when this is said in fifteen words by Plato)?

It isn't an issue if one believes the goal of philosophy is the goal that Plato described: the mystical union with God. The garbage that Aristotle wastes his time on has caused a major waste in human potential for the last 2000 years. That is some potential we actually should concern ourselves with. Aristotle had daddy issues with Plato as the father figure that rejected him for his analytical bullshit. His mass of writing is really just the byproduct of lifelong psychological complexes. I'm never reading him again.

Are you going to give an actual defense of Platonic realism, or continue on misunderstanding Aristotle/Aquinas?

No, St Maximos. He's developing a larger point here, but I quoted this section because it runs counter to Aquinas. It's from Ambiguum 7. It's not philosophy, it's Divine theology, putting Platonic ideas in their proper context.

I was just trying to figure out why people think Aquinas was special. I don't really feel the need to defend anything. I don't think anyone was challenging any point Plato made, so I don't know really know what I'd say. I spent two years surrounded by priests that tried to explain why aquinas' philosophy was new or different but it still looks the same as what came before. I'm sort of Christian but I've never read a Christian philosopher that I think has presented something new or interesting. It's probably just a me problem, otherwise, it could be the case that christians latch onto whatever important christians say and champion it as valuable truth. But I guess I'll never know which one it is. Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I really appreciate it. Honestly

Part of what makes Aquinas significant is the specific philosophical and theological background of his era. Aristotle had just been reintroduced to the West. There were different reactions. Some wanted to completely accept everything Aristotle said. Others wanted to reject him, and some wanted even to go so far as to utterly reject philosophy as a permissible endeavor for Christians. Into this came Aquinas, who managed to mostly settle the matter. Aristotle was acceptable, but did not need to be accepted wholesale. Philosophy was an acceptable, even a worthy endeavor, but it had its limitations. Theology was a "science" (in the medieval sense of the word, not the modern one) in which reason could be used. God's existence can be proven by reason, but it is not a self evident truth. A lot of this may seem really obvious now, but in the middle ages they were heavily divisive issues, ones which St. Thomas managed to mostly settle, at least within the sphere of Catholic philosophy and theology. Though there have been those who disagreed with him, much of what Aquinas said remains the prevailing view for Catholic circles. He's one of those figures who can seem unimpressive because his influence is so big that we kind of take what he said for granted, unknowingly repeating his teachings because they've become so widely accepted. In the time that he lived in, he brought about the resolution of some of the most pressing philosophical and theological issues of his time. Centuries have passed, and new challenges have arisen, but his influence persists in Christian thought.

That is wonderful, thank you so much

When I actually bothered to read him. Really brilliant man. Accomplished more by his interaction with Aristotle than all the Muslims over 5 centuries of possessing the Greek philosophers.

Kant never read or engaged with Aquinas at all.

maybe okay but the guy in that pic is actually fat

Yes, Kant indeed has made that mistake and has wrote openly that he never read him. His calibre is completely irrelevant to this.

Hylomorphist, not a dualist.

Luther tried to save Christianity from Thomist bs and tried to go back to a pure Augustinian understanding.

Good post

Yes he explains the 2 modes for god essence and energies

Also Aqunis makes a bad theological mistake with qu3stion 12 on the vision of god. God essence is to him what can be known with god and energies impossible to know. Palamas wins out saying its the opposite which is more mystical and rational

What the fuck are you trying to say

We can know gods energies not gods essence

Aquinas doesn't say that we know God's essence.

Question 12 says otherwise

"For as the ultimate beatitude of man consists in the use of his
highest function, which is the operation of his intellect; if we
suppose that the created intellect could never see God, it would
either never attain to beatitude, or its beatitude would consist in
something else beside God; which is opposed to faith. For the
ultimate perfection of the rational creature is to be found in that
which is the principle of its being; since a thing is perfect so far as it
attains to its principle. Further the same opinion is also against
reason. For there resides in every man a natural desire to know the
cause of any effect which he sees; and thence arises wonder in men.
But if the intellect of the rational creature could not reach so far as to
the first cause of things, the natural desire would remain void.
Hence it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the
essence of God."
"I answer that, God cannot be seen in His essence by a mere human
being, except he be separated from this mortal life. The reason is
because, as was said above (Article 4), the mode of knowledge
follows the mode of the nature of the knower. But our soul, as long
as we live in this life, has its being in corporeal matter; hence
naturally it knows only what has a form in matter, or what can be
known by such a form. Now it is evident that the Divine essence
cannot be known through the nature of material things. For it was
shown above (Articles 2,9) that the knowledge of God by means of
any created similitude is not the vision of His essence. Hence it is
impossible for the soul of man in this life to see the essence of God.
This can be seen in the fact that the more our soul is abstracted from
corporeal things, the more it is capable of receiving abstract
intelligible things. Hence in dreams and alienations of the bodily
senses divine revelations and foresight of future events are
perceived the more clearly. It is not possible, therefore, that the soul
in this mortal life should be raised up to the supreme of intelligible
objects, i.e. to the divine essence. "
Yes, the saints in Heaven can know God's essence. We in our lives now can not.
Can you read?

Then Aquinas and palamas and are right together. I stand corrected.

the tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao

Calvin was worse

But less influential.

TRUE.

>My thesis compared symbolism in Mark to symbolism used by the Jewish Platonist Philo of Alexandria.

Gee, that's never been done before...

>muh natural theology
>deriving ought from an is
>having answers
???

There's no difference between is and ought for Aqunas. All rationality is essentially practical and moral in nature, meaning every rational person is necessarily moral as well.

Oh great, even worse. He makes the same mistake as Plato/Socrates and thinks that reason = morality. Here I thought he actually contributed something instead of just borrowed from Plato.

Why is that a mistake?

Also it's different than Plato because with him it is participating in the form of the good, but with Aquinas it has a teleological concept of morality where the good is determined by what is the final or temporal end or ends of a particular essence.

That only sounds like Aristotelian teleology with Platonic metaphysics.
Read Twillight of the Idols. Nietzsche specifically attacks this idea in the first section. Or read Notes from Underground and think about the idea that reason=morality and how absolutely insane that sounds. Reasonable people often don't want to be moral. Unless, of course, your definition of "reason" includes morality for no reason beyond that's what it is, which is what is implied, which is tautological.

I've read TOTI and more Nietzsche, nothing about him or Dostoevsky in any way represents a substantial criticism of Aquinas and Aristote. It is a collection of assertions, where the recognition of them as valid depends on your preconceived notions. Notes don't deal with this at all and to be frank, using it as an example showcases your total ignorance of thomist ethics. There's a number of propositions here, that are all parts of a larger system which we for this particular topic need not get into, but the reasoning is as follows:
The object of reason is being.
Anything that has a being also has an essence, because it is not just existing, it is existing as something.
From the essence we can deduce the roles of various entities, for example the object of an eye is to see, of heart to pump blood, of man to contemplate the transcendental and live the good life and so on.
As reason grasps these things and all beings move to bring about their good, it is concluded that the rational man acts in accordance with these principles. The rational man is not related to intelligence, and Dostoevsky only showcases stupidity in Notes, as is easily concluded from the premises.
Men act wrongly because they do not recognise the ends and principles, and if they do and ignore them they also reject rational agency, because all beings act to bring around their good.
This is showcased well in the first half of Whose Justice Which Rationality by Alsadair MacIntyre, which I would recommend as the best work on this topic.

I know nothing of thomist ethics and I have no desire to learn anything that is based on natural theology because it's frankly retarded (I'm in seminary fyi). The equation reason = morality is more presumptuous than anything Nietzsche sets forth. The idea that "things" have "purposes" is once such assumption that cannot be proved, only believed as part of an ontology. That is the criticism I am leveling.
Nietzsche doesn't use the traditional dialectics of argumentation because he believes them to be uncouth and decadent. The method of rabble.
The idea that men act wrongly because they do not "know" something or are under some illusion is beaten to death by Plato. It is specifically one of the topics in Meno. Regardless, the idea has no merit to me, as it has so many illogical consequences it makes my head spin.

>I'm in seminary
Yeah, right.
>Only believed as part of an ontology
Like everything else?

In any case there's no reason to engage with you after this, you have no desire to learn or to challenge your ideas, so I guess stick to cheap rethoric.

palamas and thomas aquinas arent polar opposites you fucking filthy slav

youtu.be/lLo05mafdlw

youtu.be/cfTz7vBCYfY

why did we allow slavshits in the theological sphere?

John Paul II. was a slav. Cardinal Stepinac as well. Plenty of other saints too.