How is it even possible to understand all this?

you should live for it
you'll never understand it if you're pursuing a shit degree that won't give you a job or financial security and little to no portions of any kind of valuable knowledge at the same time

...

This, Aquinas himself wrote a shorter Summa, which isn't a massive theological reference work

>you'll never understand it if you're pursuing a shit degree that won't give you a job or financial security and little to no portions of any kind of valuable knowledge at the same time

What did he mean by this?

Ignorance can be cringe worthy,
Pride can be cringe worthy
but proud ignorance is the most cringeworthy

Get the fuck outta here

>not being interested in some virgin fag's analysis of a 2000 year old fantasy novel makes you ignorant

Don't waste Crabblesnitch on your religious shilling or I'll wipe that nose for you

back to your own board dumb frogposter

You seem to have made an inference unsupported by the actual text.
In reality, what was stated very direct was that this statement
is ignorant.
No reference was made to the Summa or any other particular text.
Let me make an analogy.
You:
>'All military strategy is based on frontal attacks with overwhelming force'
Me:
>'That is rather ignorant'
You
>'Me not reading a book doesn't make me ignorant'.
As you can see, your reference to the Summa is nonsensical in context.
For added humor, the fact that you haven't read a particular book does indeed prove that you are ignorant.

I've been reading Aristotle, Copleston, Augustine, Feser and MacIntyre to prepare for the Summa, but will start with Contra Gentiles and On Eternity of the World first, just after I finish the Bible.
I've read 5-600 pages of Aquinas before, but you really need to get a hold of a lot of stuff before you can get the most out of him.

I am the guy in sneakers.

Does it just say "I think you should be good" over and over?

define I
define think
define you
define should
define be
define good

>define I
That which is not not I
>define think
That which is not not think
>define you
That which is not not you
>define should
That which should not not
>define be
That which does not be not
>define good
That which is not not good

in that case yes

"OF THE POWER OF HUMAN LAW (SIX ARTICLES)
(1)Whether human law should be framed for the community?
(2)Whether human law should repress all vices?
(3)Whether human law is competent to direct all acts of virtue?
(4)Whether it binds man in conscience?
(5)Whether all men are subject to human law?
(6)Whether those who are under the law may act beside the letter of the law?"
This is the listing of topics in one of the shorter sections. The total is only about 46,000 words

ebin

dumb frogposter

great game

Sounds amazing desu.

>not reading the compendium of summa theologica aquinas wrote himself for us, mere mortals to read

What version of the complete Summa Theologica should I get family?

Nope. Religion is.

>tfw slow reader
should i even try it

see

I heard that Aquinas had an epiphany which caused him to stop working on the Summa, claiming that his new work would surpass it in every way. Then he hit a tree branch and died shortly after. Just imagine what the world missed out on.

No, he had a mystical vision of Being which made him stop writing, saying that everything he wrote thus far was straw.
Then he hit a tree and died farely young.

define I
define think
define you
define should
define be
define good

>everything he wrote thus far was straw.
thus it should be unread

>define I
For me, that which is at least not you; for you, you
>define think
the production/or bringing towards attention, of/to an awareness
>define you
for you, you, is me, for me, you is you
>define should
there is better and worse democratically, but maybe because hinging towards objectively
>define be
that which is not absolutely pure nothing (though absolutely pure nothing 'be's')
>define good
ones own existence, if it is, and if it does not conflict with the agreed to law

>the production/or bringing towards attention
>towards attention
>information*
>the production/or bringing towards attention information

bump

Sumeme Theologicless.

>Thomas Aquinas writes a summation of Christian theology up til that point in time
>anons think it's like a novel or treatise or something that you're supposed to read cover to cover in your spare time

the only reason people think aquinas is the best medieval is because one of the popes said he was his favorite philosopher

Which popepe?

>actually believing religion matters at all

it's easy, if you know God

Excuse me but it seems like you are missing out on the actual best work

>Hippo being greater than Aquinas

Meh Meh. Needs more Cognitive Constructivism & Cybersemiotics.

Go read some Josef Simon (Philosophy of the Sign), Heinz von Förster, Humberto Maturana, Julio Michael Stern, Soren Brier & Thomas Metzinger.

Plebs.

Wrong thread?

i mean... yeah

i mean a fucking hippo can definitely kill aquinas

>Actually believing that religion hasn't had a significant impact on culture or history regardless of how true it is

Remember this book comes from a time before printing was invented. Students were supposed to learn it by heart.

>could care less

Kek'd

what the best edition to get for the summa

reference /lit philosophy guide for recommendations.

Isnt he a cuckold?

kys

Yeah and med students aren't supposed to dick off then cram in one coke/Adderall induced frenzy. Do you think that even 10% of medieval students memorized the whole thing?

post the 11 or so philosophy charts if you want to be a know it all.

I checked and it didn't offer up which edition of the Summa I should get.

amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1928832431/ref=ya_aw_od_pi?ie=UTF8&psc=1

>hit a tree

Wait, what?

I meant to say edition of the COMPLETE Summa. I thought it was clear to any non-pleb though.

Ad hominem? Terrible choice fedora boy

Why didn't you say so?

In that case -- here you go: asherbooks.com/item/_aquinas_thomas__tchao_sin_hio_yao_china_early_20th_century_7_of_30_volumes_.html?c=9EE06DC76F16

Lol best BTFO I've seen in a while.

English please for the rest of us?

>Talking about a greatest work of philosophy that doesn't actually deal with the reality you live in.

Come on guys, challenge yourselves to face reality, not this delusional fan fiction.

Can you refute any of Aquinas' assertions? His logic is rock solid.

kek

In terms of the revealed religious content of the Summa, I can understand OP's frustration.

However, I have always found Aquinas to be very clear and distinct, simply by virtue of the Summa's "point a, point b, point c; counterpoint a, counterpoint b, counterpoint c" structure. I really like that.

e.g.:

"Objection 1. It would seem that charity is not friendship. For nothing is so appropriate to friendship as to dwell with one's friend, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 5). Now charity is of man towards God and the angels, "whose dwelling [Douay: 'conversation'] is not with men" (Daniel 2:11). Therefore charity is not friendship.

. . .

I answer that, According to the Philosopher (Ethic. viii, 2,3) not every love has the character of friendship, but that love which is together with benevolence, when, to wit, we love someone so as to wish good to him. If, however, we do not wish good to what we love, but wish its good for ourselves, (thus we are said to love wine, or a horse, or the like), it is love not of friendship, but of a kind of concupiscence. For it would be absurd to speak of having friendship for wine or for a horse.

Yet neither does well-wishing suffice for friendship, for a certain mutual love is requisite, since friendship is between friend and friend: and this well-wishing is founded on some kind of communication.

Accordingly, since there is a communication between man and God, inasmuch as He communicates His happiness to us, some kind of friendship must needs be based on this same communication, of which it is written (1 Corinthians 1:9): "God is faithful: by Whom you are called unto the fellowship of His Son." The love which is based on this communication, is charity: wherefore it is evident that charity is the friendship of man for God.

Reply to Objection 1. Man's life is twofold. There is his outward life in respect of his sensitive and corporeal nature: and with regard to this life there is no communication or fellowship between us and God or the angels. The other is man's spiritual life in respect of his mind, and with regard to this life there is fellowship between us and both God and the angels, imperfectly indeed in this present state of life, wherefore it is written (Philippians 3:20): "Our conversation is in heaven." But this "conversation" will be perfected in heaven, when "His servants shall serve Him, and they shall see His face" (Apocalypse 22:3-4). Therefore charity is imperfect here, but will be perfected in heaven."

>His logic is rock solid.
Only if you hold to Aristotelian causation and Aristotle's notion of actuality and potentiality which are kind of dubious.

Its in the same way that you cant disprove Christianity using only the information contained within the bible.

The scholastics finish Avicenas work an take Aristotle to his end point but at the end of the day its just Aristotle not even philsophy, theology or even Christian or specifically Catholic theology.

it's fucking christianity, what's so difficult to understand?

He was running too fast and hit a tree and died.

>mfw God killed him before he could reveal the terrible truth

This is just Scholastic methodology. All Scholastic theologians wrote like this, including Protestant ones.

He was riding a horse and he hit his head on a low branch.

I fucking love horses and wish them all the good in the world, and they love me too. There: Aquinas AND Aristotle BTFO'd.

In this case you'd think God would at least give him a more dignified death than one can find in your average Looney Tunes episode. One wonders if the branch was found to be bent in the shape of Tommy's tonsured noggin or if a five inch pink, bald bump arose in seconds in the middle of said tonsure.

What do you mean a cartoony death? Horse accidents are the medieval equivalent of a car crash. That stuff happened all the time and this idea that god will give you a noble death if you do good deeds in your life is juvenile.

He also didn't die on the spot. He died in his bed from injuries.

So someone want to recommend versions of the complete Summa in English?

We all are, user. We all are.

No.

Yes.

>picture confounds the noun and the verb

What's the problem.

'I could care less' denotes that you don't care very much at all, being able to actually care less is surprising. 'I could care' denotes you can care with the plausibility of caring very much. 'I am at the maximum upper limit of my caring insofar I could care less', is the expression you're thinking about. People use it around me all the time.

theaquinasinstitute.org/books/

Are you fucking retarded son?

I could care less what you think.

>Horse accidents
Banging your head on a tree branch is not a "horse accident", m8. It doesn't get more cartoonish than that, unless a falling anvil was involved. Sounds to me like God was 'aving a giggle.

They're using it wrong. It's "I couldn't care less". I could care less means fucking nothing.

>not just reading a summa of the summa

Fucking kids these days have no idea about proper language usage, they don't even understand the words that leave their mouth.