/lit/ - Literature

>Therefore when men were not yet able to recognize the causes of things, they wondered about
all things as if they were chance occurrences; just as they wondered about changes in the
course of the sun, which are two in number, namely, the solstices, that of winter and that of
summer. For at the summer solstice the sun begins to decline toward the south, after
previously declining toward the north. But at the winter solstice the opposite occurs.
>Therefore, since philosophical investigation began with wonder, it must end in or arrive at
the contrary of this, and this is to advance to the worthier view, as the common proverb
agrees, which states that one must always advance to the better.

Is Thomas Aquinas the Dark Souls of athiests trying to disprove God?

>>8343755
Where in my post did I dismiss the reality of that other evidence? And, for the record, I don't. I'm perfectly willing to accept the milk-drinking statues of the Hindus and the non-eating monks of the Buddhists. It's all real, and it fits into God's plan somehow.

Again, if you don't want to believe, you won't, so I'm not sure how much good this does. But for me, the reality of the supernatural and the divine doesn't invalidate the reality of the empirical and the mundane. Aquinas, after all, devoted questions in the Summa to both witchcraft and ethics. You have to consider the supernatural and the natural, the mystical and the rational, all together, and I happen to think that Catholic Christianity does that better than any other sect. That may be my own biases showing through, but there's no helping that.

>>8134456
Not invented, but perfected, which is really Aquinas in a nutshell. A lot of what he did wasn't strictly original, but he understood everything, he put everything together. He took all the pieces and assembled the puzzle.

I am in awe of Aquinas. He is probably one of the ten smartest people in all of history, from all over the world. He understood everything, and I think if you gave him something new he'd be able to understand that too. He really is a genius.

Are you telling me that "De Malo" is not a dank-ass name?

How would Aquinas respond to Hume?

>>6809421
I think he can be answered in a Thomistic framework.

Still trying to formulate how, though. I'll poll the board: how would Aquinas respond to Hume?

Reminder that Kant is wrong and Aquinas is right.