/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10638529]

It's clear that Aquinas' ideas are garbage as either god does not exist or even if he does (or they do), they're perfect assholes who are undeserving of our veneration. Further, it's also clear that Aristotle was absolutely wrong about the physical sciences, though he may have had some historically interesting insights on ethics and other squishier things.

So given the above, why do people insist that these two are such "philosphical heavyweights" apart from the fact that both of them "wrote a lot of stuff a long time ago"? Sounds to me (and I think rightly unless someone can step up) like a garbage valuation-process of old ideas.

Give me a simple, easily explained summary (heh) of one single good or true interesting philosophical notion that either of Aquinas or Aristotle had in their own works.

[Anonymous No.10638541]

pennis and also dicke and balls

[Anonymous No.10638544]

>>10638529
Aristotele invented logic.

[Anonymous No.10638627]

^ and Aquinas extensively referenced Aristotle. You can disagree with his premises or conclusions, but his thoughts are laid out analytically in the Summa, and it's pretty impressive to read through.

[Anonymous No.10638664]

>>10638529
You could address Aquinas' refutation of the problem of evil before you make the assertion that it fails...

[Anonymous No.10638695]

Kek, you don't understand Aristotle and Aquinas' notions of causality, do you?

[Anonymous No.10638727]

>>10638529
I hope, OP, that you're joking; that this is bait, and nothing more. If you are serious, and really believe what you said to be true, I can't help you too much, since you clearly have not read nearly enough to understand the scholastics.

[Anonymous No.10638741]

>>10638529
>why do people say Aristotle was a good philosopher if he got things wrong in physics?

[Anonymous No.10638744]

>How is the thinker who laid out the theoglogy of Catholicism relevant to our understanding of Western Thought?