/QTDDTOT/ - Questions That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread

Motherfucker get out of here with that weak-ass art bullshit.

Aristotle wasn't a huge influence on Augustine, who was mostly a Platonist. Aquinas of course was hugely influenced by Aristotle. If you want to see how, then just read Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle.
dhspriory.org/thomas/
(for some reason only the "Latin & English" versions have both the Aristotle and the Aquinas).

The texts most directly relevant to Thomistic theology are the "Physics" and "Metaphysics." You should know that if you try to read Aristotle without any help from someone who knows him you'll likely end up horribly misunderstanding him. There are so many little things he says that, for a variety of reasons, sound to our modern ears like they mean one thing but really mean something else.

A lot of what he writes is written with an assumption that the reader has studied the Organon. The "Ethics" though is one of the easier ones to read on its own.

words and phrases like "perhaps", "i think" , or "what if" really helps. also, ask for their own input in conversations.

Do you feel like other people only exist insofar as they relate to you? Do you constantly fantasize about scenarios that will never happen where you save the president/tell off your boss/punch out that guy in the coffee shop? Whenever you accomplish something or get a compliment do you secretly feel like you're faking it, and that the people around you will eventually figure you out?

He had little influence on Augustine and every Catholic until the middle ages.
He was essentially rediscovered for the tradition, Platonism was dominating philosophy and aristotelian philosophy was a revolution in a way.
The works are Categories, A priori and A posterior analytics, Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics.
I would also recommend two volumes of Copleston's History of Philosophy which deal with the antiquity and the middle ages in detail and are really great.

A question to fellow Swedes: which is the best History of Philosophy in swedish(I do not mind a translated work)?

Princeton complete works (based on Oxford version) doesn't have a commentary, shall I read those wacky Penguins or do you have other suggestions?

Well you could read some more contemporary works about Aristotelian philosophy. Of course the problem is there's quite a bit of that. That link I provided has Aquinas's commentaries on Aristotle, the only problem is Aquinas isn't really any more accessible to a beginner than Aristotle is.

You said you were interested in Aristotle's influence on St. Thomas, why not study St. Thomas? He wrote plenty about non-theological philosophy, and he's (in my opinion, for whatever that's worth) one of the more accurate and insightful followers of Aristotle. If you just studied St. Thomas you would understand Aristotle as well as if you studied any Aristotelian scholar writing on Aristotle.

The standard recommendation for studying St. Thomas is "Aquinas" by Ed Feser. He writes specifically for modern people who aren't familiar with Aquinas's philosophy.

Actually, Feser has some recommendations of books for beginners on his blog:
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2009/07/scholastics-bookshelf-part-i.html

I think the two that would be most useful to you would be:

"An Introduction to Philosophy: The Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition"
-Daniel J. Sullivan

"The Elements of Philosophy: A Compendium for Philosophers and Theologians."
-William A. Wallace

I haven't read those two books myself, but you'd be hard pressed to find a more reliable authority on the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophical tradition than Feser, so I promise you his recommendations carry more weight than those of anyone on Veeky Forums.

>There are so many little things he says that, for a variety of reasons, sound to our modern ears like they mean one thing but really mean something else.

Could you please name just one of those things? I'm not disputing what you've said, I haven't even read him yet. I've heard this assertion before and I'm just very curious as to what could be a tiny thing--something simple, I assume--that might be terribly misunderstood by the novice reader.

Just about everyone has the mindset of a naturalist in many ways and the word which Aquinas uses you would understand as naturalistic, but it's in fact tied to the worldview of the middle ages.
For example, his 5 ways to an inexperienced reader will seem to be a cosmological argument and will miss the whole part where he understands that that would only prove a deist God and not a theistic one.
This is of course from personal experience.

Such as using different, but not TOTALLY different, definitions of words. So "motion" for instance actually means something more like "change." Except more properly it means "the actualization of some potentiality."

But more than that, it's the way he examines concepts, and takes different things for granted. So he'll be talking about something, like "relation" for instance, and you'll have some assumption of what that implies; some assumption that *you don't even realize you have,* that he doesn't have. There is 2000 years of philosophers talking between us and him and they influence you even if you've never read a word of them.

How do I know I'm ready for Ulysses boys? What other joyce should I read first?

Join me in taking the long route: Odyssey, Dubliners, Portrait, Ulysses.

Interesting. Currently in my amazon cart rests the Iliad and Dubliners. So were pretty close. I don't think I should skip the Iliad and read Odyssey but I'll look into Portrait.

I'm currently reading the Viking Critical Library version of Portrait and strongly recommend it--the explanatory notes are pretty crucial for random turn of the century Irish terms. They also have an edition of Dubliners which I wish I had read and honestly might buy and read before tackling the Big U

crazy coincidence. I got the VCL version of Dubliners.

So I'm reading Gravity's Rainbow, and the only real roadblock I'm hitting is trying to work out the relationship between Margherita/Thanatz/Bianca and Leni/Pokler/Ilse. Are they the same people? Different? Have I missed something? Am I horribly misreading this part of the book? Is it supposed to be ambiguous?

Thanks for this. My friend is really into Aquinas late me and I've been meaning to get some kind of primer.

Do you have any opinions on Bonaventura?

They're not actually the same person, it's... "a metaphor"? desu I don't know much and could explain even less but don't overthink it for now.

Which translation of the Odyssey

best translation of The Republic? Also what are some good books on Frederick The Great, the Seven Years War, or just Prussia in general?

different guy, bumping this question.

I am a big fan of Alexander Pope's.

lattimore. i mean does he not look like a guy who knows his greek?

At what point should I read Crime and punishment?

Right now? It's not a difficult read. If you want to be tryhard I guess you could read D's major previous works and/or read up on Russian nihilism first, but it's hardly necessary.

So I got another disconnect in my story

Currently MC has insane skills (approaching batman level, but I can adjust them a bit) and is hunted by everyone in the know given he has got super secret stuff in his head.
...
After a few years he ends up fighting a peer that he never really liked. (from there my other parts all connect)

The problem I have is how to have him on the run with such high stakes and abilities, without triggering a war and front page publicity.
If I nerf his powers it is hard to think he can stay on the run from such a powerful futuristic government. Yet if I grant him some of his powers earlier, then the fights should escalate to absurd or he should just ghost off the grid completely. The cheap answer is have the first on the run fight with that peer character and cut the whole on the run part, but other parts need time to pass for things to get in place for the bigger stuff later as there is more than one line to the story.