How do I get into Aquinas? Any study guides (not only for him, but for any classical philosophers as well)

You should also figure Aristotle out before you really dig into Aquinas.

Is there a good epub of Aquinas complete works somewhere? I have only Metaphysics left before my preparation for him is complete and I'll devote the next year mostly to him and other thomists.

In the Latin.

corpusthomisticum.org/wintroen.html

In English.

dhspriory.org/thomas/

Thanks. Latin doesn't mean much yet, but maybe I'll study it one day.

Bumping so it doesn't go 404 before I come home to dl.

OP here. Thank you very much.

One more recommendation, God, Philosophy Universities by Alasdair MacIntyre to provide insight into Catholic intellectual tradition in general and put Aquinas in a better understood context.

Thanks bro, I'll look it up.

Hey, definitely, definitely get this book:

amazon.com/gp/product/0895550814

It is essential for Aquinas studies. It's basically a summary of every single answer in the Summa, which makes reading the actual Summa a lot easier.

I think if you have this book and a good scholastic dictionary (or Catholic dictionary that defines scholastic terms, like amazon.com/Catholic-Dictionary-Abridged-Updated-Modern/dp/0307886344) you'd be all set.

Chesterton's bio could be a fun entry point.

Oh, I got A Tour of The Summa a few weeks ago! It's amazing indeed. Thanks!

actually do this, Aquinas isn't like Aristotle--no hard exegitical work is needed to make sense of what he's saying. The Summa is written really exceptionally clearly; the method it exemplifies is one of his greatest contributions to philosophy. Just dive in.

*exegetical

Is it okay if I start with the summa then? No previous work by Aquinas that I should read?

>Is it okay if I start with the summa then?
No.
>No previous work by Aquinas that I should read?
Summa Comtra Gentiles if you want.

yes, I just said that

Mmm...

Unless you rule over Aristotle and understand the basic mindset completely different to the liberal one you will get lost a lot.
Kant seriously fucked up his reading of Aquinas and don't assume you'll out of the blue read him better than Kant.

One could argue Kant fucked up his reading of Aquinas because he came to Aquinas having already read Aristotle and so, wrongly, tried to read Aquinas in light of his own interpretation of Aristotle.
Aquinas is a teacher; if you're a clean slate, and use him as a means for jumping into Aristotle and Averroes and whatever, you might get more out of his writing than you otherwise would have

No, I think his misreading is directly linked to not having the mindset of a medieval Christian. Hence, introductory literature tries to explain how Aquinas thinks so you can see what he wrote in the way he intended it, not as a liberal materialist.

Right, so your idea is that Summa Contra Gentiles, since it was written for non-Christians, would be a better intro to his way of thinking--makes sense.

It wasn't written for non Christians, it was written against non Christians. A missionary who needed to argue with Muslims, Jews and heretics was the target audience.
And my idea was that it's the best into Aquinas after introductory texts discussed earlier.

I see, thanks for clearing it up

bump
i like this thread

it's run its course, the question was answered

Kreeft's Summa of the Summa is good, tries to replicate how you would read the book in a class with a professor

>Kreeft
>Philosophy 101 by Socrates
>Socrates Meets Marx
>Socrates Meets Machiavelli

Yeah he writes introductory apologetics for wide audiences.

Just go to Edward Fraser who is his biggest fan.

Feser

what do i read in order to best defend the christian faith

Tits or gtfo

Catechism > Bible > Chesterton/C.S. Lewis/others >Christian classical authors (Aquinas, Augustine etc)

If you're a protestant, just skip the first step.

It's an absolutely massive subject and you'll need to be much more specific. In which area do you want to defend it?

This is the only correct answer.

w-which ever the most important ones are

idk maybe the it's place in the modern world or "why do you believe in god if he's not real lmao" kind of things

Just remember Pascal's wager and you'll be fine.
Just remember, no one was ever argued into christianity, leastways no one I can think of.

how do i defend my beliefs from atheists on the internet tho

You don't.

how do i defend myself irl

Accept chaos.

Depends on what you do. I'm a law student so my primary interest is ethics and politics, so metaphysics, history and theology are something I can't fully focus on.
So it's arguing with retards? The best thing to do is ignore them and avoid throwing pearls before pigs, but The Last Superstition is kind of the go to basic epistemology against fedoras.
The wager is fallacious and can only be understood as his personal fight with disbelief.
I know of plenty who became Christians through argumentation, Edith Stein, Gene Wolfe and Alasdair MacIntyre come into mind immediately. Aquinas and Chesterton do their job good enough.

You don't study law in the US, do you?

No. Very, very far from the US, in fact all philosophy here is absent from law. Ex socialist shithole.

Latin America/eastern europe?

Europe. Not very far east.

what I plan on doing:
>read the greeks while reading KJVBible (Have read Mythology > Theogony > Iliad > Odissey > article on Presocratics and Sophists. Starting Plato today and currently on first book of Samuel on the Bible)
>read all of those books in the 'Theology' section of pic related, closing it with Aquinas and Augustine
rate

Shit routine honestly.
This chart is not very good as far as systematic reading goes.