Thomas Aquinas Works

Don't start with the Summa, you not only won't understand it you'll think you understand things that you actually don't.

For example, Aquinas argues that the existence of God can be proved from motion. Motion means traveling through space, right? Wrong; motion means the actualization of a potentiality. Only of course now you need to know what a potentiality is, and what act is. Oh and you also have to know what essence is, and being is, and the categories are...

The "Summa" is a work of theology for beginners. Except in medieval universities you didn't start studying theology until you were a master of philosophy. So basically Aquinas expected you to already know all about secular philosophy before you even BEGAN to study the "Summa."

You have to be careful when you read Aquinas. You know how Kant will seem like he's saying something really deep when he's actually saying something really obvious? Well Aquinas will sound like he's saying something really obvious when he's actually saying something really deep.

Don't start with Aquinas directly. Start with something like "Aquinas" by Ed Feser. He's writing for people who aren't familiar with scholastic philosophy.

As far as work actually by Aquinas, the ones I would read first (AFTER reading people like Feser) would be "On the Principles of Nature" (De Principiis Naturae) and "On Being and Essence" (De Ente et Essentia), then I would suggest reading some of his commentaries on Aristotle, such as "Peri Hermeneias," which lays out a lot of the basic notions of his reasoning, and the "Physics," (don't be fooled by the name, this isn't just outdated "the earth is the center of the universe" stuff; this is philosophy of nature. In fact most modern philosophers would consider this to be metaphysics).

Most people who read him read him badly.

>Oh and you also have to know what essence is, and being is, and the categories are...

>>>implying I didn't start with the Greeks two years ago

Good for you. Maybe you should start by saying what your education is the next time you ask for advice.

Read Augustine and Boethius first.

no, jaylin

What's so special about this guy again?

Christ was second Adam, and Aquinas was second Aristotle

Not op, but i appreciate the info

Very nice post.

I like this.
Thank you.

Why isn't he very well known then?

>Aquinas
>not well known

Non-meme answer is that we stopped teaching theology in schools, but not philosophy. In short, our society values philosophy over theology today.

There never was any such thing as a good theology. In particular, the author of this post has to defend Aquinas by explaining that Aquinas is doing an advanced language game of whatever sort, when the language games have accumulated over history, and Aquinas is really not so abstruse and elevated as the poster would have us believe.

There is also the simple fact (based on science) that there is no such thing as a god.

OR.

Or, if there were, and if it were anything like how it is actually described in conventional religions, then the only meaningfully moral response to the realizalition of such a creature would be to reject it. Either way, the rejection of God is secure among right-thinking people.

He is the most famous Aristotelian to have ever lived. Very few philosophers are well known and ever fewer and well known for their merit.

Adam was a fictional person, Christ was a false prophet (and as an outside chance, a fictional person as well), Aristotle got most everything wrong ,and Aquinas was a poor thinker. You're 0/4.

Starting with Aquinas would be a massive mistake, as he absolutely requires a lot of knowledge to understand, which most don't have because they pretend philosophy started with Descartes. I've been preparing for and now reading Summa Contra Gentiles (3/4 in right now).
Start with the Greeks you'll need Metaphysics, Categories, Ethics and Politics minimum. I know many would recommend Physics too, but I think secondary literature will cover it.
While we are at secondary, History of Philosophy volumes 1 and 2 by Fredrick Copleston are highly recommended and as everyone knows, Edward Feser, his Aquinas, his blog and possibly Scholastic Metaphysics. I would also add Alsadair MacIntyre, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? as nothing will put your mindset into the medieval one like him.
After these his Aquinas' political writings for starters as they are generally the simplest, On Kingship and then I think you can start reading Summa Contra Gentiles.

What on earth are you talking about? "Advanced language games?" Is that what you think philosophy is?

And how has science shown that there is no such thing as God? Which science did that? Do you mean a physical science? What physical science even addresses the notion of God?

>There is also the simple fact (based on science) that there is no such thing as a god.

> this much bullshit on Veeky Forums

Just go back wherever you came from.

>Christ was a false prophet

Have fun in Gehenna you pagan fuck

Whilst I see it as being a bigger issue with philosophical schools like German Idealism or Marxism do you think the extensive time investments schools of philosophy require on people lead to an escalation of commitment / sunk cost fallacy?

-this is a tangent and im not trying to imply that you fit this bill -

Solid
My usual interaction with someone trying to read Aquinas is
>"He just plays word games that have no meaning [speaker then unintentionally reveals he lacks the education to start reading Aquinas]"

Because most people are poorly educated.
Ask 20 English major about George Bernard Shaw, they all know who he is.
Ask about GK Chesterton they'll stare at you blankly.
Chesterton was a popular and influential as Wells and Shaw, but since Wells and Shaw were Socialist they are promoted. But the Catholic Chesterton is ignored.

>There is also the simple fact (based on science) that there is no such thing as a god.
You have to be at least 18 to post on Veeky Forums....

>Aristotle got most everything wrong
Oh, yeah.
Spring Break - all the high schoolers are home, bored.

Is that the standard response to people not liking philosophers?

Ive seen people do that a lot with the German Idealists.

Although I dont know enough to know whether there is legitimate reification going on just a missunderstanding.

To go a little afield; philosophy and theology are very, very precise in their language because they are trying to communicate extremely dense concepts in an efficient manner. Ever listen to two electricians or plumbers or other professionals talk to each other about their field of expertise and the jargon is almost impenetrable? Philosophy and Theology are the same way.
Because of social conditioning if a person reads a popular science book (which is no more than a form of entertainment) and they encouter a paragraph they do not understand their emotional response is,
>"Wow! I don't understand this; the author must be very, very smart!"
Yet when that same person reads something like, oh, Summa contra Gentiles their response is,
>"I don't understand this; the author must be playing word games."
In both instances the reaction is emotional, not intellectual, and reflect the biases and limitations of the reader.

my nigga, have a (you)

When do you think philosophy fell into the same camp as theology?

I can understand the political and social reasons for culture shifting away from theology but not philosophy aside from the explosion of natural philosophy to the point of it schisiming in peoples eyes.

How do you go about separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to this, for there are genuine works and ideas that are based on word games and reification ?

>When do you think philosophy fell into the same camp as theology?
Separating them makes no sense, in some ways.
"Theology" is a rather Christian-specific concept (with roots in Jewish and Greek ideas, of course) and is ultimately the application of reason to religion. If I apply reason to work it is not 'separate from' philosophy, it is a subcategory.
Or, shorter, thinking of theology as 'separate from' philosophy is akin to thinking of epistemology as 'separate from' philosophy.

My wording was bad there, I was talking about how all philosophy in general (including theology) has fallen into relative disdain bar natural philosophy.

A combination of factors that all boil down to 'public education sucks'.
-It is easy to teach someone basic math by rote.
It is impossible to teach someone to reason using rote.
Put a bunch of harried teachers into a time limited situation where they must teach 20+ children of varied intelligence something and they'll go for what can be done by rote.
-Large businesses like employing people who can read a spreadsheet and increase profits.
Large businesses do not like employing people that can deduce that their latest initiative in inherently immoral.
Large businesses create scholarships and endowments for math, engineering,e tc. while refusing to hire people who grasp morality and reason.
etc.

Ed Fesser's such an insufferable cunt tho

And his writing style is clunky as shit

>Put a bunch of harried teachers into a time limited situation where they must teach 20+ children of varied intelligence something and they'll go for what can be done by rote.

Never thought about that before - also has surprisingly parallels with how Christianity at least in the 20th Century was taught.

Seems like those problems will always be an issue so long as capatalism is dominant or any insecure power.

Aristotle did get almost everything wrong

thanks

I would say this,
>"...those problems will always be an issue so long as parents look to the Democratic State to perform the most essential duties of parenthood"

is a separate board, junior

>look to the Democratic State to perform the most essential duties of parenthood

I would see it more as most higher authorities, indeed Catholic education in my country which existed until the state started to dominate was heavily based off of rote learning and at best using reason within very narrow confines.

I also think that it has a lot to do with education often being done within ridged confines by people who lack the ability or desire to teach reason and deal with the consequences of that.

Same with parenting.

Wow, you sure showed me.

When the Church began adopting the State's education norms they adopted the attitude/vice versa.

But it seemed before that education was extremely limited to a small and generally wealthier minority.

Has a mass education system been able to work without devolving into rote learning

>makes brief, unsupported statement dismissing a towering figure in the field
>repeats the brief, unsupported statement with no elaboration
>wonders why he is dismissed out of hand
You aren't being taken seriously because you are not presenting yourself as being serious.

>But it seemed before that education was extremely limited to a small and generally wealthier minority.
Depends on what you mean.
>Has a mass education system been able to work without devolving into rote learning
Not yet

Fuck off anal autistic

>Depends on what you mean.
I was referring to monastic education and the old universities of Europe like Bologna or Paris.

Cool, bud.

Why haven't you put scientism in your response?

I don't think so because all schools will have issues that are addressed by other schools meaning you have to engage them at least somewhat.
I don't think it's possible to simply go into a single school so deep you never engage anything else, unless you absolutely want a self made echo chamber.
And as far as Aquinas and Thomism in general go, I find it extremely rewarding.

But Chesterton today is far more popular and influential than Shaw and Wells exactly because he's a Catholic.

HIs diary desu

>I don't think it's possible to simply go into a single school so deep you never engage anything else, unless you absolutely want a self made echo chamber.

I see it as being more of an issue in the sense that it becomes an effective echo chamber when one devotes the overwhelming bulk of their efforts on studying quality works of one school whilst only sparing or cursory efforts in others - particulary those which contradict it.

Eg the Christians whose only reasearch into athiesm is Hitchens and Dawkins

Or the Marxist whose only foray into to non Marxists systems are Rand and Mizes

There are extremely few works that criticise Aquinas and Scholasticism on philosophical grounds by other philosophers.

Faggot

The criticism doesn't have to be direct (the very fact that one system claims something and hypothetically makes more sense/cannot be reconciled with another is a response in itself imo) and there's plenty of critique of scholasticism in Kant, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume.
And sure, some people do only look for the worst of their opponents, but that's something I try to avoid and what most worthwhile philosophers do anyway.

>The criticism doesn't have to be direct
The issue is when its not direct its harder to come across and can be overshadowed by more direct but lacking works as it the case in Atheism

>And sure, some people do only look for the worst of their opponents

From my experiance for what it is worth it seems to be the majority of people who do so.

>Spinoza + Hume
What were these fellows criticism of it?

Scholastic philosophy is (almost) entirely based on Aristotle. You need a thorough understanding of his philosophy in order to understand Aquinas.

Stop doing this greentext shit

Hume wrote a book on miracles which was mainly directed at the Catholic doctrine and with that Aquinas on the suspension of laws of nature.
I have a second hand knowledge on this, from a conversation with a friend and notes in the edition of Contra Gentiles which I have so I don't remember it very well atm sadly.
Going through philosophy mostly chronologically so I haven't reached these two to have a firm grasp.

>There are extremely few works that criticise Aquinas and Scholasticism on philosophical grounds by other philosophers.

Good lord. Echo chambers are repulsive, but so is your poorly hidden dilettantism.

Those weren't mass education - very limited and targeted.

Scientism is obviously false, so I don't think it warrants mentioning.

lurk moar, newfag

i would love to see the journal-published scientific articles about the absence of god you're alluding to

even an abstract

make my day nerd

Notice how you're the only one in this thread typing like that? That's because it's retarded.

This.

I'm currently reading Aristotle just to understand Aquinas

See this guy?
He doesn't understand the basics of Veeky Forums.
he gets the canned response.
If you weren't knew, you'd recognize the response.

It's the same as quoting, what the fuck are
>you
doing here

kek

>It's the same as quoting
No it isn't
>what the fuck are
Your mom
>doing here
Nothing. See how stupid this is?

Has anyone read Eleonore Stump's Aquinas? I'm planning on reading through Aquinas' works once I get through all of Plato and Aristotle, and I'm not sure if I should read Stump before or after Aquinas himself.

From the Veeky Forums FAQ as well as the General Rules
'To quote
>"place a pointer (>) in front of the text"
So, yes, it is quoting.
This is Veeky Forums.
Read the rules.

>Has anyone read Eleonore Stump's Aquinas?
It is quite good.
I suggest reading it after.

I was taught more about aquinas in school than any philosopher, so i would disagree with that

I'm talking about quoting multiple instances of individual lines in the post you're responding to, I'm not complaining about quoting in itself. I'll even give you another example of the shit I'm talking about:

>From the Veeky Forums FAQ
I don't care what the FAQ says
>as the General Rules
>'To quote
The rules are irrelevant here
>So, yes, it is quoting.
I know what quoting is.
>This is Veeky Forums.
I'm aware

Do you understand what I'm talking about now? Instead of just responding to your post I do that autistic greentexting shit where I quote individual lines and respond to them individually. It's stupid. To reiterate because I'm sure you're going to have trouble comprehending me, I'm not complaining about people quoting others.

Feser and Copleston are recommended before Aquinas reads.
Also never heard of this one.

>spiritual materialism

no

Noice. I've been meaning to get into the Summa. I'll check this guy out first.

Which works of Augustine should I start with? I already finished Confessions and was getting ready to move onto City of God. Is this the right order?

>>It's the same as quoting
>No it isn't
then
>I'm talking about quoting multiple instances of individual lines in the post you're responding to
So you're either a liar or a terrible writer.
well, maybe both
>the post you're responding to
I didn't write
I just pointed out you're an ignoramus

>I don't care what the FAQ says
>The rules are irrelevant here
Let me translate that
>"I WAS wrong but I am going to deflect because my ego is so fragile I can't accept error"
>To reiterate because I'm sure you're going to have trouble comprehending me, I'm not complaining about people quoting others.
You really need to learn the rules of comma usage, kid.
Oh.
That's right
>The rules are irrelevant here

Yes

What do you think is meant by "I'll give you another example?"

Cool

>not recognizing his worth as a philosopher
Step up, militant atheist -kun

I think it is just more in the vein of trying to avoid the fact that this
is factually wrong and proves your either
1) As dumb as a bag of hammers
2) As unencumbered by knowledge as a gopher
3) Some combination of 1 &2

Your atrocious grammar is really pulling to towards a vanilla 2

Damn I think I broke your brain. I don't know what "pulling to towards a vanilla 2" is supposed to mean. Actually I don't know what most of what you said is supposed to mean. What is "factually wrong" about that post?

It's a real book.

I think you're right; I would however point out that theology is unique in that it uses revealed truths as a starting point for its reasoning, unlike other branches of philosophy. Of course there is still a lot you can do in theology without referencing revelation (e.g. the cosmological arguments).

Now I don't mean it to be the DEFINITION of theology that it's based on revealed truths. I agree with Aquinas who defines theology as the science whose subject matter is God. Now, how does that fit in with other fields of philosophy, like metaphysics )the study of being) or (Aristotelian) physics (the study of motion)? I'm not really sure. God is after all the principle of reality, so I don't think you can really fit theology under the umbrella of any other field of philosophy.

Feser is writing to a very specific crowd, namely either analytical philosophers or people who simply don't know philosophy. You need a certain amount of sarcasm and confidence-bordering-on-arrogance in your position to get through to someone who has already dismissed your position.

You should read "Liberal Education and Mass Democracy" by Leo Strauss (it's not that long).

"Liberal education is the counter-poison to mass culture, to the corroding effects of mass culture, to its inherent tendency to produce nothing but "specialists without spirit or vision and voluptuaries without heart." Liberal education is the ladder by which we try to ascend from mass democracy to democracy as originally meant. Liberal education is the necessary endeavor to found an aristocracy within democratic mass society. Liberal education reminds those members of a mass democracy who have ears to hear, of human greatness.

"In order to understand the necessity just mentioned, one must return to the original meaning of liberal education. Originally a liberal man was a man who behaved in a manner becoming a free man as distinguished from a slave. "Liberality" referred then to slavery and presupposed it. A slave is a human being who lives for another human being, his master: he has in a sense no life of his own: he has no time for himself. The master on the other hand has all his time for himself, i.e.. for the pursuits becoming him: politics and philosophy. Yet there are very many free men who are almost like slaves since they have very little time for themselves, because they have to work for their livelihood and to rest so that they can work the next day. Those free men without leisure are the poor, the majority of citizens."

ditext.com/strauss/lib2.html

In it Strauss basically says, "Democracy presupposes mass liberal education. Is this possible?" And though he doesn't say so explicitly, the answer, due to reasons he explains, is more or less "No." While the majority of the population is required to live an unleisured life (which is how it is now and how it's been throughout ALL of history) that majority will never be able to gain a true liberal education.

>I was taught more about aquinas in school than any philosopher, so i would disagree with that

Agreed. I went to UCLA which is not a Catholic school by any stretch of the imagination, and I still studied Aquinas more than anyone else. Granted that was because I sought out classes on medieval philosophy, but the fact that they were available in a secular university shows his importance.