/lit/ - Literature

>>14721207
Ye, may want to start with Aquinas' Compendium of Theology to see if you want to proceed with the Summa

>>14721207
You see all those books there? All of them are refuted by a single image.

>>14721256
>dude, like, you can't, like, really like, KNOW, anything, man, like what if you just THINK you know it
this isn't fucking axiomatic logic you dork
even in math, where things are proven to a degree of certainty beyond basically every other discipline, you have to take things like induction on faith. and yes, it really is faith, because you can't prove it inside of the system you're working with - you have to assume it as an axiom, or else you literally can't get any fucking work done and any form of meaningful action becomes impossible

>>14721256
that images confirms Hume is a smoothbrain

>>14721207
Yes. Get the Benziger Bros. edition of 1947, though. And do not purchase any Summa that does not carry an imprimatur.

>>14721320
Not an argument

>>14721256
i hate his long piggy face and i hate his brainlet "proof" of god

>>14721207
What are you looking for in reading those/that book(s) ? Wisdom ?

>>14721207
if you are a major Aristotle fan yeah. Uses rationality as a tool to G O D.

>>14721429
Hume's proof of god? Sounds like you should hate your lack of education.

>>14721482
They are not wisdom books. They are reference books. Specifically correct answers to theological questions, from which you can support your own arguments or make new arguments.

>>14721491
Interesting... Thanks for that

>>14721491
yes. moderate trad caths go to the catechism when they're unsure about something or want direction. hardcore ones break out the thomas to hammer shit out.

>>14721207
Get the Shorter Summa

>>14721207
Retroactively refuted by guenon(pbuh)

>>14722577
Nope, Guénon was favourable to scholasticism.

>>14721207
What's the best German edition and should I learn German for reading Aquinas and any philosophy later?

>>14722652
>should I learn German for reading Aquinas

>>14721387
nothing is

>>14721207
Is that the full Summa Theologica? Jesus. And to think I was considering reading it.

>>14721387
You assume that you know what argument is

BuT HOw cOUlD yOu KnOw?

What edition should I buy

>>14721207
What exactly was he writing about that caused him to make the book that fucking thick? I assume there's a huge amount of frivolous shit in there.

>>14724461

semen retention

>>14721348
>He needs a book to tell him how to enjoy crackers
topkek

>>14723039
It's missing several volumes: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, etc.

I can't begin to imagine reading so many books by one author on one subject.

>>14721256
This powerpoint slide does a disservice to Hume, Aquinas, and Philosophical discourse. It's not like Hume formulated the problem of induction, had a wank to it, patted himself on the back, dabbed at Aquinas and called it a day. It was meant as a starting point for further thought. It's the problem of induction, not the solution to cause and effect.

ON

>>14726210
TRADITION

>>14721256
>induction is bad
No. If you think induction is inferior to deduction you are pants-on-head retarded, and most likely a redditor who thinks xkcd is funny, and who thinks he is much smarter than he is. Fuck you.

>>14725738
I agree completely. The problem is that these people stop with Aristotle and Aquinas and don't bother reading any further, so we have to educate them using three sentences.
>>14726279
Induction isn't bad, retard. Aquinas is taking causality as deductive, while in fact it's inductive.

>>14726296
>its actually inductive
Got em! God doesnt exist! BTFO amirite xD

>>14726301
I'm not saying God doesn't exist. Please don't be retarded. I'm saying Aquinas' system is heavily outdated. Regardless of God's existent, every subsequent philosopher has shat on Aquinas even if they were Christians themselves.

>>14726312
You think I dont know about Duns Scotus and the like? Aquinas had flaws but to throw him out because he used le boogeyman induction is fucking stupid.

>>14726330
>Duns Scotus and the like
Not only that, but more so the modern philosophers. Aquinas is applying causality, a concept that is used only to make sense of experience, to prove something that lies outside of the domain of experience, namely God's existence. There is nothing valuable in his work anymore.

>>14721207
There's an abridge prose translation by Timothy McDermott that I've read. It's probably the best way to "read the Summa" straight through, although a lot of answers to specific questions are removed since McDermott was trying to convey Aquinas's general thought rather than his answers to every question. This work has the church's imprimatur by the way.

Summa Contra Gentiles is probably a better work in general to read cover to cover. The Five Ways are more developed in it, for instance.

The complete Summa Theologiae is a reference work as others have pointed out. Reading the whole thing in its original format is kind of like reading an encyclopedia. If you're really interested in answers to particular questions within the Catholic framework, you're probably best off consulting the catechism. If you want to know where those answers came from, ST might be a good place to look.

>>14726210
THE

Man, if Aquinas had a fuckton of children, he probably would have increased Europe's IQ by the 200's desu.