/lit/ - Literature

What is the best translation of the Summa? One which is available to buy online as new, not out of print.

This is a criticism of the argument from First Cause, which is intended to prove the existence of God. For quite some time, I considered this argument to be a valid proof for the existence of an abstract, first-cause. But upon reflection, it ultimately fails.
I will be criticizing a steelmanned form of the 3rd argument in the Quinque Viae, as it appears in Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. The first two are weaker forms, which ultimately rely on the outdated Aristotelian system of physics. Now I will examine the argument point by point.

>Every being is contingent on some state of affairs. A being that is “necessary” is a being that exists in all possible universes, and is itself contingent on the possibility of the universe it is in. Suppose that “x being contingent on y” means nothing more than that “if y is true, x exists”.

There is really no reason at all to accept this premise. Why should we take it for granted that every possibly existing “thing” satisfies this relationship? There could exist a being that is both unnecessary and uncaused, i.e., a being which does not logically follow from the possibility of the universe, nor is it dependent on some other existing state of affairs, and yet exists (this is Bertrand Russell’s objection). There’s no reason to suppose that the universe is algorithmic in this sense.

The notion of “cause” or “contingency” as an abstract, metaphysical notion appears to me to be fundamentally ill-founded. All examples given of “cause” are purely physical processes, and it is quite fallacious to state scientific truths as though they were metaphysical truths. I don’t believe this premise can be saved by making small tweaks.

>There must therefore exist either an infinite regress of contingent beings, OR a necessary first cause

This step logically follows

>>21687873
They don't need to
>"It is evident, next, that the more perfect something is in its power, and the higher it is in the scale of goodness, the more does it have an appetite for a broader common good, and the more does it seek and become involved in the doing of good for beings far removed from itself. Indeed, imperfect beings tend only to the good proper to the individual, while perfect beings tend to the good of their species. But more perfect beings tend to the good of the genus, while God, Who is most perfect in goodness, tends toward the good of being as a whole. Hence it is said by some people, and not inappropriately, that “the good, as such, is diffusive,” because the better a thing is, the more does it diffuse its goodness to remote beings. And since, “in every genus, that which is most perfect is the archetype and measure of all things belonging in the genus,” God, Who is most perfect in goodness and Who diffuses His goodness in the broadest way, must be in His diffusion the archetype for all diffusers of goodness. Now, inasmuch as a thing diffuses goodness to other beings, it comes to be their cause. As a result, it is also clear that a thing which tends to become the cause of others tends toward the divine likeness, and nonetheless it tends toward its own good." - Contra Gentiles 3.24.8

Has there ever been a bigger psued in all of history?

What is a being?
What is an essence?
What is a substance?
What is a <<separate>> substance?
What is a form?
What is a <<substantial>> form?

What would happen to me if i read entire Shorter Summa? Would i get insane christian meditation skills? Or some transcendental knowledge that would convert me into right path?
>inb4 read it and see
My version is 1000 pages long and largest format i have, you can kill people with this book its so big.

What are the best books by and on Thomas Aquinas? Also, what are the best books by later Thomists?
LARPagans and gaytheists need not reply.

Where should I start my theological study /lit/?besides the Bible of course

h-HUH? SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBSTANCE

Is he worth reading if you're not a Christian and do not wish to convert?

>>20407481
Aquinaspilled

>>20384240
Space and time are mere creatures. They are creations of God. You'd know this if you had read your Aquinas.

Are the arguments presented in the Summa really impossible to refute?
I've read scripture from several religions but have always remained an agnostic because nothing has ever made me feel compelled to believe in any man-made, organized religion.
But then I read this thread yesterday >>19937644 and saw some guy systematically dismantle every single counter-argument against Christianity.
Now, despite strongly disliking Christianity and everything it stands for, I find myself actually entertaining the possibility that it could be true.
Could I get some help here? I need some kind of wake up call.

How do fat great minds even exist? It seems a near universally among the great held opinion to disdain and fully disvalue indulgence in bread, that those sensory pleasures are every sort of ignoble, fit only for the weak, the dumb, the foolish, not for any man with ideals or pursuit, sinful, earthly in the worst possible way, illusory, and so on. And yet there are some rare exceptions such as most paradoxically Aquinas, who is described as fat. How did Aquinas sin against all his teachings? Then out of the top of my head there are: Von Neumann, Chesterton, Churchill, Hume, Franklin, Roosevelt, Einstein(barely, not really), and many more, including those who weren't fat but weren't near as lean as a holly man should be, and among those in great quantity men in their older age. Of course in this category of great men the gluttonous are nonetheless infinitely outnumbered by those who practiced temperance and had no attachment to gastronomic pleasures, eating exclusively to survive and for fuel, and of those I shall make no attempt to list examples, as that disposition is a rule of character in all the greatest and most virtuous men, to whom no greater and more virtuous will you find; and yet there are exceptions, as St. Thomas, and all so many others, greater and lesser, and especially men in their older age. How do you reconcile this?
Are they just not so goodly, all too human?
I'm currently thin(/"normal" - though this may change soon -) but like all the vile dirty sinful very thin sed youthful de masses in the past with indulgence and illusion have struggled and do with temptation still struggle. Now I'm doing ascetic fasting. What do you think?

>>19627302
The Dominicans have big daddy Thomas, better than any literature ever written about the Jesuits, and better than any literature or philosophy the Jesuits will ever write themselves.

Will he make me a Christian?

>>19391776
The things that we love tell us what we are.

Keep the Catholic questions and threads in here.

>The Vatican website
https://www.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html

>The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
https://www.usccb.org/

>Catechism of the Catholic Church
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

>Catholic Encylopedia
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia

>Catholic Resources
https://www.catholic-resources.org/

>Catholic News Service
https://www.catholicnews.com/

>National Catholic Reporter
https://www.ncronline.org/

>The Jesuit Review
https://www.americamagazine.org/

I'm interested in what this guy had to say, both because I find Christian theology fascinating in its own right, but also because I want to have the most enriching experience possible with The Divine Comedy. At the same time, the sheer size and erudition of the Summa is daunting. What's the best intro to his thought? Are there any good abridged editions of the Summa?

>author makes a statement
>writes 50 anecdotes to support that statement
>for over 200 pages
I want my time back. This shit could be been 10 pages.

>Marginalizes faith in a religion based on faith
>Says logic trumps faith and that no one can be more than "fairly certain" that God exists
>Imposes Aristotelian ideas about God that are incompatible with the previous 1,200 years of Patristic teaching on the church
>"Disproves" the "errors" of the Greeks by relying on documents which his own church has openly admitted are forgeries
Behold: The Greatest Catholic "Saint"

>>17747428
>St. Thomas Aquinas[..] was born into Italian nobility in 1225, and had the reasonable life of a Benedictine monk ahead of him, until he decided to join the Dominican order instead. His family were horrified. The Dominicans, unlike the more upmarket Benedictines, were a mendicant or begging order, and survived by preaching in the vulgar vernacular and begging for alms.

>Aquinas's parents, hoping he might come to his senses, conspired to have him kidnapped and imprisoned for more than a year in the family castle. Aquinas got on with writing logical treatises, until his brothers tried to make him see the error of his ways by helpfully inserting a prostitute into his cell. Aquinas, in a perhaps unprecendented display of monkish restraint, did not succumb to her worldly charms, but rather, wielding a burning stick, chased her from the castle. That night two angels were said to have appeared to him in a dream, strengthening his resolve to remain celibate.

>Aquinas's family, realized then that he was a lost cause, allowed him to escape, and Aquinas trotted off to Napes, Rome, Paris and, finally, Cologne, where he took up a professorial position and was ordained to the priesthood.