/lit/ - Literature

How can Adi Shankara's metaphysics be reconciled with Thomism? When I read Aquinas' ways, I find them relevant, and when I read Adi Shankara, the same. I really have the impression that both have been able to pierce a part of Being from two different points of view: Aquinas via the object, Adi Shankara via the subject. But how can we reconcile the two metaphysics more broadly, without cherry-picking the arguments we like? After all, the whole Thomistic metaphysics rests on an enormous Aristotelian system (substance, accident, prime matter, form, etc.) from which one cannot remove a part without breaking the coherence of the whole, and which leads to confusing conclusions (for example that there is actually no H2O in a glass of water - see the work of Feser). The same goes for Adi Shankara's metaphysics, which is based on a large number of assumptions, as an Astika philosophy and can also leads to confusing conclusions - there is only one consciousness, the world is illusory. How can the two be reconciled? I have the impression that there is a whole metaphysics to be built. By "translating" Adi Shankara's wisdom about consciousness into a Thomist system describing the universe, its objects and motors, in order to have a complete metaphysics of the All. By uniting the metaphysics of object and subject, in order to have a complete picture. By understanding how Thomistic arguments are to be understood in a Vedantic/perennialist framework - is the first motor describing Isvhara, Brahman, something else? By reconciling apparent contradictions - the Thomistic ipsum esse being personal and volitionary, for example. And by comparing celestial ontologies: angels and devas - aeviternity... Finally, by reconciling the ontologies of the two systems. How to explain the illusion of the world by taking into account materia prima and form? Etc. How to reconcile the incessant production of Brahman with the temporality of Thomistic creation - the world having a finite beginning, God being atemporal. How Brahman could create without will (being impersonal) and without internal causes (non-duality). How can Brahman be amoral when the Thomistic God is Goodness? How can we understand the ontology of morals and of persons? In short, there is a whole field of perennialist study to combine the best of both worlds.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to reconcile the two systems simply because I like them, but because I find that both have very good, valid arguments for all the points I've just been talking about, and that there is therefore a real need for reconciliation and unification in a greater theory.

>and my plagiarism

>>17047769
>every based Englishman was a classicist or philologist who revered the Greeks
Appreciation of the Classics leads you to Catholicism

what was his philosophy?

Even buddhism is BTFO
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/dharmakirti-and-maimonides-on-divine.html
https://www.amazon.com/Mission-Tibet-Extraordinary-Eighteenth-Century-Ippolito/dp/0861716760

Even buddhism is BTFO
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/dharmakirti-and-maimonides-on-divine.html
https://www.amazon.com/Mission-Tibet-Extraordinary-Eighteenth-Century-Ippolito/dp/0861716760

>Solves Christianity
Is there any point in reading anyone after him?

What's a good book for someone who curious about learning more about Catholic life and religious practice, but not necessarily interested in converting to the faith?

>But suppose God is outside and above the Time-line. In that case, what we call "tomorrow" is visible to Him in just the same way as what we call "today". All the days are "Now" for Him. He does not remember you doing things yesterday, He simply sees you doing them: because, though you have lost yesterday, He has not. He does not "foresee" you doing things tomorrow, He simply sees you doing them: because, though tomorrow is not yet there for you, it is for Him. You never supposed that your actions at this moment were any less free because God knows what you are doing. Well, He knows your tomorrow's actions in just the same way—because He is already in tomorrow and can simply watch you. In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.

How does this solve the problem of omniscient god and free will? We are reaching levels of mental gymnastics that shouldn't be possible.

As a philosophy of mind student steeped in the contemporary literature on the issue I just want to state that this man's (and all other theists') views of consciousness and the metaphysical are worse than laughable and I would emphatically urge all anons here to avoid his drivel. You will do nothing but harm your chances of ever really understanding mental-causation and the mind-body problem.

I'm saying this because I've encountered more than a few grad students who are unironic in their belief in what this buffoon says and I'm pretty sure the contagion traces its origin back to places like here and certain twitterspheres, so this is a sort of public service announcement.

sup guys

*blocks your path*

Is there anything interesting from the Medieval period of Western philosophy to cover? Or is it virtually all theological stuff?