/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11052711]

*regurgitates Aristotle*

>Is praised as one of the greatest philosophers, Canonised by the Catholic Church, studied by theologians for centuries to come.

How did he get away with it?

[Anonymous No.11052716]

He perverted Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.11052724]

Catholics love him because he justified the Catholic world view with Aristotle - THE philosopher

[Anonymous No.11053335]

He synthesized Aristotle, Anslem, Augustine and others.

[Anonymous No.11053385]

>>11052711
He killed Catholic thought. In the same way they have a Bible verse for every occasion, they treat him as a reference encyclopedia. Taking a philosopher as dogma is one of the most unphilosopical dispositions one can have, and that's why this co-opting of philosophy is so disgusting. Aquinas isn't off the hook, in fact that's what he was aiming for, to have absolutely everything categorically "solved" and provide a verse to cite. It's a disgusting theologizing of philosophy.

also he was fat.

[Anonymous No.11053430]

>>11053385
You tell em tiger

[Anonymous No.11053480]

*regurgitates Hebrews, Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, Vedics, Atlanteans, ancient aliens, etc. etc.*

[Anonymous No.11053494]

>>11053480
>Atlanteans
Woke
>Ancient aliens
Broke

[Anonymous No.11053496]

>>11053480
Most of the OT was written at the time of the peak of Athens.

[Anonymous No.11053522]

>tfw Orthodox so I believe that apophatic theology is the way to go.

[Anonymous No.11053526]

>>11053480
real shit?

[Anonymous No.11053537]

>>11053385
>implying he was not divinely inspired through his faith to reach an objective and perfect consciousness regarding every important philosophical and theological question and point of dogma
It’s like these plebs don’t even understand what grace is.

[Anonymous No.11053546]

>>11053496
>implying the OT isn't directly copied from older civilizations
The ride never ends bub

[Anonymous No.11053548]

>>11053480
Aristotle was only really influenced by previous Greek philosophers, and he definitely does not regurgitate them. At most, his ontological theory is reverse Plato.

[Anonymous No.11053642]

>>11053548
His ontological theory is not necessarily the reverse of Plato, this is too simplistic. I think their theories can be stated thus

Plato - Out of chaos and THEN a creator comes being and order

Aristotle - Out of a creating being comes unity THEN chaos (duplicity) THEN order

It's complicated bruh. The philosophy that comes closest to Abrahamic monotheism is Aristotle, but interestingly enough, they both are reminiscent of monotheism. Interesting how when one thinks of the nature of being, it leads one to Genesis-like conclusions regarding how we came to be.

Our scientific theories could essentially be categorized under Plato's regarding the creation of being, without the creator. Far too simplistic if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.11053645]

>>11052711
Very carefully.

[Anonymous No.11053700]

>>11053642
Wouldn't that be cosmological theory?

I was referring to their conceptions of universals and particulars.

For Plato, The Form (universal) is ontologically prior to the sensible object (particular).

For Aristotle, the primary substance (particular) is ontologically prior to the secondary substance (universal), since universal predicates are predicated OF particulars and thus only have their being through particulars.

Aristotle just reverses the relation of ontological dependence.

[Anonymous No.11053720]

>uses circular argument

nothing personnel kid

[Anonymous No.11053730]

>>11053700
>Wouldn't that be cosmological theory?
It's all the same thing
>I was referring to their conceptions of universals and particulars.
So was I, since technically, I was basically referring to, you know, everything in my post. That's how ontology works. The best works on the nature of being discuss particulars and how they relate to the macro concepts of the generation and growth of primary beings.
>For Plato, The Form (universal) is ontologically prior to the sensible object (particular).
This cannot be the case, although I'd like to know what text you're getting this from. From the Timaeus, we know simply that the demiurge fashioned order out of the chaos that existed in the universe from time immemorial. By fashioning order, he created the four elements (groups, really) of reality, Earth, Fire, Air, and Water (the Euclidean Elements: a cube, triangular pyramid, eight-triangled figure, and icosahedron, in that order). These are your particulars, because it is out of these that the reality is fashioned. Forms are something else entirely, which have to deal with motions of the primary beings themselves, not necessarily their initial creation.
>For Aristotle, the primary substance (particular) is ontologically prior to the secondary substance (universal), since universal predicates are predicated OF particulars and thus only have their being through particulars.
This makes sense, and is what I said, since the 'creating being' in this case, is really just an Aristotleian 'primary being'. This also is true to Plato, to some extent, which is why stating they are the reverse is just not true completely.

[Anonymous No.11053731]

>>11052711
>claimed the soul is separable from the body
>regurgitates Aristotle

Bro, do you even De Anima?

[Anonymous No.11053754]

>>11053700
From this we can start to understand that Aristotle was actually, effectively an atheist, which makes the fact that Christians latched on to his poorly-peddled bullshit even funnier. Golly, I wish people appreciated the humor in this more often. Aristotle was a fucking idiot. And the Christians chose him!

[Anonymous No.11053761]

>>11053754
How would that make sense? A creator has to exist before meaning.

This is what Judaism, Christianity, and Islam posit.

[Anonymous No.11053773]

>>11053522
Ayy lad, neo-Platonics in the HOUSE

[Anonymous No.11053793]

>>11053754
Do you think you're smarter than Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.11053798]

>>11053730
>It's all the same thing

It's just not anon. Your attempt to so relate their cosmological theories with their ontological theories is, frankly, bizarre and spurious.

And it's certainly not clear what the Timaeus has to do with the rest of Plato's philosophy.

>>11053754
How so?

[Anonymous No.11053806]

>>11053385
>Aquinas isn't off the hook, in fact that's what he was aiming for, to have absolutely everything categorically "solved" and provide a verse to cite
Didn't Aquinas not finish the Summa for this exact reason though?

or wasn't like he had such a prolific vision, that he felt so unequipped to write about it?

[Anonymous No.11053825]

>>11053798
>And it's certainly not clear what the Timaeus has to do with the rest of Plato's philosophy.
Well that is the ONLY work by Plato that I know of which has to speak about the formation of being. If you have another, please put it forward, but it isn't a work which simply discusses forms, which is more of a spiritual/psychological concept than anything else.

The nature of being is the nature of existence. This has to do with the combination of physical existence and spiritual direction. This is understood by and through the definition of reality, movement, and thought as defined by Aristotle.

Also.

Ontology is inclusive of everything. If I wanted to say 'why does my firetruck make beeping sounds when someone steps near it', I could literally use ontology to solve this problem, by relating the principles of the motion and reaction to the very nature and essence of reality. The broadest genera which fall under this phenomenon will bring us closer to the nature of the Primary being and how it relates to this instance, much like 'cosmology' (although I was really talking about Plato's notion of nature, since gravity is also connected with these things)

Look, if you haven't read enough of the Greeks, it is okay to take a step back and read some more. For me to be able to say that Plato's works that are extant really don't have too much to say about the creation and nature of being, means that I have read quite a bit of Plato. The closest you will get regarding this topic is Timaeus, which is, as you stated, more indicative of Timaeus' thoughts, although these sorts of theories are replicated throughout Plato's other works, so what is most likely the case here as with other Platonic dialogues, it does contain some essences of Platonic truth and philosophy as well.

[Anonymous No.11053831]

>>11053806
Nah he just went "o fuck nvm lol" but by then it was too late

[Anonymous No.11053832]

>>11053806
He had a vision so overpowering that he said he couldn't write any more, and that compared to what he'd seen everything he'd written seemed like straw.

[Anonymous No.11053858]

>>11053793
I don’t think this has much to do with a person being smart, it has to do with the fact that Aristotle, not only completely misunderstood the parts of Plato’s philosophy he had access to (the materialist bent seen in the earlier post, and the fact that he made intellect his highest god because he wasn’t allowed into the higher parts of the philosophical school that taught of the higher levels, the One etc.), but he was arrogant enough (in spite of the knowledge that he clearly was prohibited from seeing Plato’s entire philosophy) to contradict and oppose Plato’s process/method of thinking wherever he could. Point me in the direction of a non-Christian that takes Aristotle’s side over Plato before the Church had as much of Plato’s work burned as they could. All real philosophers were platonists.

[Anonymous No.11053864]

>>11052711
Even Ayn Rand admired him and she was a theist/mysticist/spiritualist hating atheist

[Anonymous No.11053868]

>>11053385
What did he actually get wrong though?

[Anonymous No.11053924]

>>11053858
could've just said yes

[Anonymous No.11054525]

bro, the summa theologica is the most comprehensive collection of christian/catholic thought, laid out in point by point, argument-response

he is beyond a philosopher, he is the patron of saint of all students, teachers, academics, learning, publishers, etc.

[Anonymous No.11054714]

>>11054525
As a theologian and organizer of mainstream orthodox understanding Adi Shankara is much more impressive than Aquinas, his works demonstrate a much more sophisticated understanding of the principals underlying reality, and unlike Aquinas he didn't overeat until the point of morbid obesity but renounced possessions as a Sannyasa, living by what villagers doled out to his begging bowl.

'Ye shall know them by their fruits'

[Anonymous No.11054728]

"one of the best things about heaven is laughing at people burning in hell"

t. St. Fatass

[Anonymous No.11054802]

>>11054714
>be Aquinas
>run into Shankara one day
>'yo nigga I hear you talking shit bout mah bro Bonaventure'
>Shankara is too weak to answer
>Aquinas picks up the begging bowl and swallows all the rice in an instant
>'poo in loo mufuggah'
>Shankara starves to death, goes to hell, and gets laughed at

[Anonymous No.11054837]

>>11054802
>this is your brain on Aquinas

[Anonymous No.11054857]

>>11054714

incidentally you are speaking with an indian. if you are speaking about knowing the righteousness of people -- or knowing God -- by their fruits (which Hindu knows or cares?) then look around and see how in India, animals are raised above humans. A cow (even in many parts of Kerala) has more worth than a man. It arouses more sympathy, respect, and honor than a child of God. I've seen it.
Take all your idolist literature and look inwards to God and then after read Aquinas' work with a pure heart. Hindu metaphysics are mostly sophistry. Christ speaks plainly and clearly for every man to understand. Aquinas categorically, systematically, decisively answers the questions that man yearns to know. Adi Shankara? Nothing but a prophet of chaos.

[Anonymous No.11055515]

>>11053754
No Christian ever bought Aristotle's moderate-realism.