/lit/ - Literature

>taking the ontological argument seriously when Aquinas BTFO'd it

Reminder that when Descartes repurposed the ontological argument for his "Cogito ergo sum" thing, his colleagues were EMBARRASSED for him. They couldn't believe he'd make use of an argument that Aquinas had so thoroughly discredited.

Because, with rare exceptions, secondary sources will not give the full picture of what the primary source is trying to say. It's better to just get your stuff straight from the horse's mouth.

One of the major exceptions to this is when the secondary source is, itself, written by a profound genius. Think of the commentaries on Scripture by the great Doctors of the Church, like Aquinas and Duns Scotus. Or think of Nietzsche commentating on Schopenhauer. When it's a genius commenting on another genius, THEN the secondary source is worthwhile. But most of the time, the secondary source is not written by a writer who is equivalent to the writer of the primary source.

Honestly, to me it seems like a point in their favor, or at least in HIS favor. I've gradually come to think of academic philosophy as being essentially worthless. It has to fit within the confines of modern Western academia, so how really challenging and life-transforming can it be?

I know that some of the greatest philosophers ever to live, like Aquinas and Kant, were college professors. But it just seems, these days, like academia is a really negative place in which to do real philosophy. It seems like the modern school environment hinders the honest exploration of ideas, rather than supports it.

>>15570053
I believe Saint Thomas Aquinas has some commentaries on Paul's epistles. Actually, since Paul's epistles are in the actual Bible there's a ton of commentary on them, including lots of commentary from saints and Doctors of the Church.

It's unorthodox, but start with the De Malo. It's totally finished, unlike the Summa, and it introduces you to Catholic Scholastic moral theology. I have heard atheist professors remark that Catholicism has the most sophisticated system of moral reasoning in the entire world, and Thomas' work in the De Malo is a big reason why. Thomas understands keenly just what evil is and what it is not.

One thing that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is that Aquinas isn't using the Five Proofs to strictly prove the Christian God's existence. The Five Proofs exist to prove that there's A God, period--that there's a divine power that generated and maintains the universe.

That's what the Five Proofs are meant to get you to accept. Once you HAVE accepted that, then Aquinas moves you on into other arguments that are more strictly designed to prove that the divine force that created and maintains the universe is, in fact, the Christian God. The Five Proofs are like the first levels of a video game, there are other levels after them before you reach your goal.

can the God of Aquinas be reconciled with science?

can I get a guide on how to read Thomas Aquinas and where to start?

Aquinas teaches us that man is neither a fully corporal being (like the animals) nor a fully spiritual being (like the angels), but is, rather, a mix of the spiritual and the corporeal. So, therefore, even when we go up into Heaven, that is not our ultimate fate. Our ultimate fate is that, at the Second Coming, we will be reunited with our bodies in their perfected forms. This is why Catholics confess that they believe in the "resurrection of the body." And it's why hatred of the corporeal is a case of misplaced zeal.

Did Thomas Aquinas ever write a specific book regarding reason and faith?

>>13346019
Where do I start with Thomas Aquinas? what book?