[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 41 KB, 387x544, St_Thomas_Aquinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6463157 No.6463157 [Reply] [Original]

Has anybody here actually read the Summa?

>> No.6463173

>>6463157
no

>> No.6463174

>>6463157
I have. I was really disappointed. I get that his writings influenced early Christianity, but his proofs are total bullshit.

It's like having a one sided conversation with a retard, where the tard reaches some bullshit conclusion very early on and just keeps going, and the falsehoods and errors just become more and more egregious as they stack up on top of each other.

>> No.6463183

>>6463174
>tard

>> No.6463206
File: 26 KB, 500x333, 6a00d834515e0d69e2019affa300a1970b.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6463206

>>6463174
>arguing against one of greatest christian thinkers of all time
I bet you're an athiest

>> No.6463214
File: 91 KB, 1872x203, christianity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6463214

>>6463206
>appeal to authority authority
>thinks "christian thinker" isn't an oxymoron
Kant at least had the balls to admit that reason has nothing to do with religious claims.

>> No.6463221

>>6463214
>thinks "christian thinker" isn't an oxymoron
Holy kek that is some hardcore tipping

>> No.6463230

>>6463174
Really? Because even Kant and Hume acknowledged that his proofs (which are just Aristotle's proofs with a Christian flavor) were quite compelling and beautifully crafted. Their only flaw was a presumption of existence within their structure.

IE they presume existence without proving that existence should be derived from their formation.

Plus those 5 proofs don't even take up half a page. You don't read the Summa for the proofs. You read the summa for the hilarious responses explaining why sex with a horse is worse than homosex.

>> No.6463563

>>6463174
Hasn't read Aquinas or even his wiki. Just tosses ad hominems and quickly moves to something he knows: chit-chatting with retards.

>> No.6463566

>>6463230
>You read the summa for the hilarious responses explaining why sex with a horse is worse than homosex.

You realize AIDS was started by a man having sex with a chimp, right?

>> No.6463575

>>6463566
>a man having sex with a chimp
But that's not how you spell "the US military"

>> No.6463578

>>6463575
lel ok

>> No.6463590

>>6463174
Clearly hasn't read it. If he had he wouldn't talk about the half a page which he read on Wikipedia

>> No.6463668

>>6463174
>I get that his writings influenced early Christianity, but his proofs are total bullshit.
>Proofs
>Ways
>I have

Admit it kid, you never read it.

>> No.6463679

>>6463183
>>6463206
>>6463230
>>6463563
>>6463590
>>6463668

>HOW DARE YOU DISAGREE WITH MEEEEEE
>YOU DON'T UNDERSTAAAND MEEEE
>CROSS IS IN MY SKIIIIIIIIN, THESE WOUNDS THEY WILL NOT HEAL

>> No.6464203

>>6463174

What are wrong with them exactly ?

>> No.6464228
File: 190 KB, 727x800, tommy boy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6464228

>>6463157
I can see it being the first thing I read after retirement maybe, but for now there's no point in devoting that much time and effort into one "book." You can learn most of Aquinas' theology from other sources anyway.

>>6463174
>no, I haven't read it

>ftfy

>> No.6464246

>>6463174
>early Christians
>the Summa is a medieval work

Are you sure you didn't read, like, Origen or Basil the Great? Aquinas comes like eight hundred years after the end of "early" Christianity.

>>6463230
I've always wished I could see Aquinas' answer to Hume. I'm sure he'd have one.