/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11617809]

who is the most logically sound philosopher of all time and why is it Thomas Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.11617863]

nod a argument

[Anonymous No.11618773]

>>11617809
>Logically sound
>Theist
lmao

[Anonymous No.11618782]

>>11617809
Probaly Wittgenstein or some schmuck from the Vienna Circle.

[Anonymous No.11618788]

Spinoza

[Anonymous No.11618793]

>>11617809
I see you are familiar with Geometry and Theology. How do I turn off my brain and let demons think for me?

[Anonymous No.11618814]

>>11618773
>everything was made out of thin air by literally nothing is logical
Ok buddy

[Anonymous No.11618827]

>>11618814
I'm not Christian but the Big Bang Theory looks a lot like what a creation event would look like.

[Anonymous No.11618828]

>>11618814
>thin
>air
>literally
>nothing
>logical
Nonsensical prior to the present state of the universe. Nonexistent outside of the animal's brain.

[Anonymous No.11618842]

>>11618793
You can't. You must trust that the demons will somehow guide you to the path of wisdom and fruitful knowledge, and attempt to rationalize their obscure, confusing, unrealistic visions of heaven and God.

[Anonymous No.11618932]

>>11617809
lol he looks like he is litting a joint
he was the first ones to unify logic and faith, in their time logic was bad seen, nowadays we have the same problem but with faith

[Anonymous No.11618940]

[Anonymous No.11618943]

Parmenides

[Anonymous No.11618947]

>>11618940
explain

[Anonymous No.11619002]

>>11617809
I hadn't read his rationale on transubstantiation until a few days ago. I'm not sure I buy it but he makes a really compelling case for the whole thing

[Anonymous No.11619007]

>>11618827
> i say this one thing about the differences between two things I have no idea about

[Anonymous No.11619026]

>>11618940
with fingernails like those? it's unlikely

[Anonymous No.11619031]

>>11617809
These are the only philosophers whose systems of thought are spherical [complete, axiomatic, circularly postulational]:

- Plato
- Aristotle
- Zhuangzi
- Nietzsche
- Foucault


Everyone else is limp-wristed and scared

[Anonymous No.11619034]

>>11619007
You do know that the Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest, right?

[Anonymous No.11619134]

>>11619031

>complete
>Plato

Plato himself arguably didn't even entirely believe in his forms theory. He did a pretty good job showing it's flaws in Parmenides. Sextus Empiricus (at least indirectly) and Aristotle too contributed to this flaw-exposure.

[Anonymous No.11619142]

>>11619034
citation please

[Anonymous No.11619168]

>>11619142
It's not a controversial statement.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#History
>. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist, proposed that the inferred recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[49]

>In 1931 Lemaître went further and suggested that the evident expansion of the universe, if projected back in time, meant that the further in the past the smaller the universe was, until at some finite time in the past all the mass of the universe was concentrated into a single point, a "primeval atom" where and when the fabric of time and space came into existence.[50]

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
>Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, RAS Associate[1] (French: [ʒɔʁʒᵊ ləmɛ:tʁᵊ] (About this sound listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven

[Anonymous No.11619305]

>>11618827
That's a difference without a distinction.

[Anonymous No.11619328]

Not logical enough for Albert's robot.

[Anonymous No.11619337]

>>11617809
>He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance. Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith. If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation. The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading. I cannot, therefore, feel that he deserves to be put on a level with the best philosophers either of Greece or of modern times.

[Anonymous No.11619365]

Cease your Christcuckery
Morals are for pussies
Right and wrong is for weaklings
Power is all that matters, all else is error.

[Anonymous No.11619366]

>>11619337
Nice strawman you got there, Russell.

[Anonymous No.11619380]

>>11619366
Is he wrong?

[Anonymous No.11619421]

>>11619337
I had a convo with a Thomist fag once who exemplified this perfectly.

>"Dude, Plato's forms prove God is the absolute good (the Christian God of course)"
>"What about the Third Man problem? Or that Plato himself basically said we can never really know of the forms?"
>"That's not a problem because God exists"

that special pleading is a bitch huh

[Anonymous No.11619432]

>>11619031
>Nietzsche
>Axiomatic
Opinion discarded.
It looks like a troll but smells like an empty library.

[Anonymous No.11619444]

Someone who believes in sacralized cannibalism is certainly not 'logicial'.

[Anonymous No.11619451]

>>11618773
Debunk him them. Protip: You can't.

[Anonymous No.11619455]

>>11619451
see:
>>11619337

[Anonymous No.11619457]

>>11619455
Oh how I wish I could believe or understand what that says. I'll just resort to memes

[Anonymous No.11619474]

>>11619457
He's saying Aquinas isn't a philosopher because he knows what his conclusion will be before he sets out. How can truth be discovered with such a methodology?

[Anonymous No.11619478]

>>11619474
I know man, I was just having fun with some self-deprecating humor. Seriously, I think Aquinas already "knew" his truth because of how strong his faith was, so to him there was no truth to discover, just to logically show

[Anonymous No.11619491]

>logically sound


>An argument is sound if and only if

>1. The argument is valid, and
>2. All of its premises are true.

The fact that it's impossible to know whether a God exists or not, makes it impossible for Aquinas to be logically sound as it is one of his premises to begin with.

[Anonymous No.11619494]

Theology is the queen of sciences, including philosophy. Saint Aquinas, as a theologian, and the chief theologian at that, was more than a philosopher. Please stop diminishing the Angelic Doctor by comparing him to mere philosophers.

[Anonymous No.11619497]

>>11619494
Theology is just the cucked version of metaphysics

[Anonymous No.11619510]

>>11619380
Yes.

>He does not, like the Platonic Socrates, set out to follow wherever the argument may lead. He is not engaged in an inquiry, the result of which it is impossible to know in advance.

This is false. Nowhere does Aquinas do what Russell claims here, and, of course, Russell doesn't provide a single example of Aquinas doing this.

>Before he begins to philosophize, he already knows the truth; it is declared in the Catholic faith.

The beliefs of Aquinas don't concern the validity of his arguments.

>If he can find apparently rational arguments for some parts of the faith, so much the better; if he cannot, he need only fall back on revelation.

This is again irrelevant to the validity of his arguments.

>The finding of arguments for a conclusion given in advance is not philosophy, but special pleading.

Again, this is not what Aquinas does.

[Anonymous No.11619522]

>>11617809
Sextus Empiricus. Radical skepticism is the only conclusion of absolute rationality.

[Anonymous No.11619526]

>>11619455
Ok, so he isn't a philosopher in your eyes, can you debunk any of his arguments? No? Ok

[Anonymous No.11619534]

>>11619451
He dubunked himself after he had his big vision, dismissed his own work and became a hermetic.

[Anonymous No.11619537]

>>11619510
>Nowhere does Aquinas do what Russell claims here... Russell doesn't provide a single example of Aquinas doing this.

Russell very well may not provide examples, but that doesn't mean he's wrong in his claim.

>The beliefs of Aquinas don't concern the validity of his arguments.

They potentially concern the motives of his arguments. If he chooses his arguments only so that they (hopefully) validate his presupossed beliefs, and not, at least mainly, because of their (alleged) validity, he's a sophist hack.

>Again, this is not what Aquinas does.

prove it

[Anonymous No.11619538]

>>11619305
Do you mean difference without a distinction?

[Anonymous No.11619545]

>>11619474
Russell's argument is confused. You know that putting your hand in a fire will get you burned before you set out to investigate why that happens.

[Anonymous No.11619550]

>>11619545
you don't know though, you can only assume.

[Anonymous No.11619567]

>>11619550
No, you know. Doubting that fire will burn your hand is not skepticism but insanity.

[Anonymous No.11619569]

>>11619545
It's a false analogy. Burning your hand is empirical, church dogma is not.

[Anonymous No.11619570]

>>11619569
That's a difference without a distinction.

[Anonymous No.11619572]

>>11619522
reading outlines of pyrrhonism atm, it honestly does seem like the only way to go. I can't be a dogma-cuck

[Anonymous No.11619574]

>>11619570
Sorry, I meant a distinction without a difference.
See Münchhausen's trilemma

[Anonymous No.11619576]

>>11619570
>difference without a distinction
You mean distinction without a difference? And no, it's not.

[Anonymous No.11619577]

>>11619567
funny thing about that is, insanity is relative, and it is skepticism :D

[Anonymous No.11619578]

>>11618814
HAHAHA what a retard

[Anonymous No.11619582]

>>11619574
>Münchhausen's trilemma
Well, let's think then in terms of axioms, which a better premise: church dogma is invariably true or, the senses are generally reliable.

[Anonymous No.11619584]

>>11619577
>>11619567
but to clarify, suspense of judgement != doubt

[Anonymous No.11619585]

>>11619537
>Russell very well may not provide examples, but that doesn't mean he's wrong in his claim.

True, but do you usually believe in claims with nothing to back them up?

>They potentially concern the motives of his arguments. If he chooses his arguments only so that they (hopefully) validate his presupossed beliefs, and not, at least mainly, because of their (alleged) validity, he's a sophist hack.

Aquinas developed, not chose, his arguments. Valid arguments for theism can be developed while valid arguments for atheism cannot, so what else could he have done?

>prove it

For me to prove my view the two of us would have to go through every single thing Aquinas ever wrote. For you to prove your view you would have to provide only a single example in Aquinas' writing where he does this. Which way do you think we should choose?

[Anonymous No.11619600]

>>11619585
>True, but do you usually believe in claims with nothing to back them up?

I don't, which is why I don't affirm your claim that Aquinas doesn't do what Russell says either.

>...so what else could he have done?

literally what you said he didnt.

>For me to prove my view the two of us would have to go through every single thing Aquinas ever wrote. For you to prove your view you would have to provide only a single example in Aquinas' writing where he does this. Which way do you think we should choose?

What view are you alluding to? though I give you that I didn't directly say so, but again, I'm not affirming what Russell said. at the same time, his claim, regardless of his lack of proof, isn't necessarily wrong. THATS my view. yours is the affirmation that he is isn't doing such things. if you would like to prove it, I'm happy to be here for it. But until then your claims are but dogmatic (as it would seem).

[Anonymous No.11619610]

>>11619142
If you left click in chrome you can reverse image search. Quicker than typing all that out

[Anonymous No.11619611]

>>11619585
>>11619600
and when I say "literally what you said he didn't", I mean "something(s) contrary to what you said he did"

[Anonymous No.11619616]

>>11619365
The concept of power is structurally undergirded by many rights and wrongs. Through dialectics it has eventually been made and harnessed by ppl

[Anonymous No.11619636]

>>11619611
>and when I say "literally what you said he didn't", I mean "something(s) contrary to what you said he did"

What I understand you to mean is that Aquinas might have developed invalid arguments. Is this what you're saying?

[Anonymous No.11619649]

>>11619636
in this instance, what I'm saying is that he could've used arguments mainly, or wholly, because they back up his presuppositions about Christianity, not because they are themselves valid.

[Anonymous No.11619664]

>>11619649
But the arguments he used are the only valid arguments that there are. The only other option would have been to use no arguments at all.

[Anonymous No.11619667]

>>11619664
prove it

[Anonymous No.11619671]

>>11619026
holy shit i've never noticed
ew

[Anonymous No.11619683]

>>11617809
While I doubt his works are completely unassailable, I am yet to see anyone actually refute them, usually it's just a lot of fedora tipping and plugging of ears.

[Anonymous No.11619687]

>>11619683
Pretty sure it'd require an even larger fedora to read his works just for the purpose of refuting him.

[Anonymous No.11619694]

I think his arguments could be improved if they were updated. For instance, First Cause argument in light our knowledge of the Big Bang and the argument for contingency in light of a more modern ontology.

[Anonymous No.11619702]

>>11619694
Do it anon

[Anonymous No.11619717]

>>11619694
>our knowledge of the Big Bang
We have zero knowledge about the Big Bang, it's just a theory, an extremely shaky theory at that. We only default to it because it's the least shaky we have.

t.theoretical physicist

[Anonymous No.11619727]

>>11619717
>We have zero knowledge about the Big Bang

Depends on what you mean by "about". We obviously don't know what caused it, but we know that it happened, and what happened a very short time afterwards.

[Anonymous No.11619735]

>>11619727
>but we know that it happened
No we absolutely do not, it's a theory, and a shaky one at that, just less shaky than the others. How the fuck do we even come close to knowing how the universe started when we can't even reconcile quantum physics with the rest?

[Anonymous No.11619746]

>>11619735
It's shaky if you think that going back in time by viewing current empirical data is shaky.

We know that here was an inflationary period, and we know that there was a period where anti-matter and matter annihilated, but some matter was left behind for unknown reasons, and we know that this matter eventually fused into hydrogen and lithium and subsequently cooled to the point it could support star formation.

This is literally elementary astronomy. Knowing the cause of all this is of course impossible. But that doesn't mean we have "zero knowledge".

[Anonymous No.11619765]

>>11619667
How would you like me to prove it?

[Anonymous No.11619777]

>>11617809

[Anonymous No.11619892]

If Aquinas is so good why is he rejected by the Orthos and Prots and ignored by most modern Catholics

[Anonymous No.11619920]

>>11617809
>masturbation is a worse sexual sin than masturbation
Autism.

[Anonymous No.11619926]

>>11619892
Because they never read his works.

[Anonymous No.11619928]

>>11619920
than rape*

[Anonymous No.11619933]

>>11619683
Fedora's aren't usually well read in nothing but the most inferior pop-sci, the abstraction and concentration philosophy needs are outside their infantile concrete thinking. This is exemplified in their love for Richard "I don't know what epistemic means" Dawkins.

[Anonymous No.11620037]

>>11618932
>he was the first ones to unify logic and faith
Averroes and Maimonides predate him by a century

[Anonymous No.11620050]

>>11620037
This, also if we are not just limiting ourselves to people who did that only in the west, Adi Shankara precedes by him ~500 years.

[Anonymous No.11620098]

>>11617809

[Anonymous No.11620107]

I'm curious as to whether there is any (well, there must be by now) literature on addressing Aquinas' arguments directly. Does Hegel, for instance, do it? As far as I know he remarked that the cosmological and ontological arguments are discredited even in his day. So I wonder where the arguments are.

Given how people like Edward Feser are still advocating some return to Thomism, there's no way it's just been ignored.

[Anonymous No.11620124]

let me just say this
>Russell

[Anonymous No.11620789]

>>11620107
didn't kant explain why the ontological argument fails? also hume didn't address it directly but he gave arguments for the impossibility of even talking about these topics coherently

[Anonymous No.11620806]

>>11620789
He tried, but not in a way that really applies well outside of metaphysical/epistemological postulates he'd make and Aquinas would vehemently deny. (Or deny as closely to vehenently as Aquinas would get, anyways)

[Anonymous No.11620824]

>>11619765
If there are legitimate ways of proof regarding this topic, I would prefer no way over another. merely do it. if you cannot then we're done here

[Anonymous No.11620855]

>>11620824
You're done here. If you make a presumption, then ask another to prove it either true or false by either contradicting their own assumptions or doing your own job, how the hell is anyone to take you seriously?
>duh russel said aquinas is stupid
>muh russell said it so it must be true without him giving examples
>hur dur im not going to give examples either
>bumdumhurg you do it fag lol

[Anonymous No.11620875]

>>11620824
All I can do is direct you to read the works of theist and atheist philosophers. After doing that you will know.

[Anonymous No.11620899]

>>11620855
I'm not sure you've actually read my replies.

>muh russell said it so it must be true without him giving examples

I said before that I'm not affirming his claim, merely that the idea (as it would seem) is on the table.

>hur dur im not going to give examples either

because I'm not affirming anything, so there is no need

>bumdumhurg you do it fag lol

they were the one making the assertion that Aquinas didn't do those things, not me, so obviously the burden of proof is on them if anyone. asking for proof, I would say, is a reasonable response.

[Anonymous No.11620904]

>>11617809
That would be Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.11620920]

>>11620875
every theist and atheist philosopher? only some? which ones? Does Plato prove just as much as Nietzsche that Aquinas legitimately used the arguments chiefly, if not entirely, because of their validity?

[Anonymous No.11620936]

>>11620920
Start with the Greeks and move on to the Scholastics. Then you can read the Moderns.

[Anonymous No.11620969]

>>11620899
>I said before that I'm not affirming his claim
Are you seriously for real?

[Anonymous No.11620973]

>>11620899
>Someone says Aquinas had special pleading
>asked for example of it
>burden of proof on him to demonstrate that Aquinas never did
Look, you can't just raise a completely unsupported criticism of an argument and place the burden of proof for denying it on the other person. Just saying "russell was a p-zombie so his arguments have no merit, prove me wrong" does not refute his arguments without some sort of evidence Russell didn't have a mind.

[Anonymous No.11620983]

>>11620936
you didn't really answer my questions though. but in addition, how will reading theist and atheist philosophers prove Aquinas used his claims for valid reasons? couldn't one very well read as you recommend, and still be at a suspense of judgement regarding whether or not Aquinas used his arguments for valid reasons? if not, why?

[Anonymous No.11621005]

>>11620973
I didn't raise an unsupported criticism. someone had posted the quote of Russel, then another person said he didn't do those things, to which I said if that is the case prove it.

[Anonymous No.11621025]

>>11621005
Russell did, though, so raising his point doesn't counter Aquinas at all without some form of evidence for Russell's argument outside of appealing to authority.

[Anonymous No.11621048]

>>11621025
what do you mean by "raising his point"? I'm saying that as it stands it seems like his claim could potentially be right (even if he gives no evidence for it). I'm not saying his point counters it; I'm not saying he's right. He very well could be wrong. Again, someone claimed that he Russell was wrong though, which does in fact give them the burden of proof.

[Anonymous No.11621133]

>>11621048
That's just it, you're putting some credence behind a completely unsupported claim and demanding proof of its falsity from someone dismissing it. It's rather ironically similar to Russell's teapot.

And just completion...
You could look at https://www.jstor.org/stable/3751924 or check Feser's blog for anything about Russell to find pretty strong condemnation of Russell's rather weak point.

[Anonymous No.11621231]

>>11621133
>That's just it, you're putting some credence behind a completely unsupported claim and demanding proof of its falsity from someone dismissing it.
I put as much credence for it being true as I do for it being false. and yes, someone says "x is false" with no proof, I will ask for proof.

>It's rather ironically similar to Russell's teapot.
even more ironic that it's not similar in the way (I assume) you imply it to be

[Anonymous No.11621239]

>>11617809
Jordan ”Bucko” Peterstein

[Anonymous No.11621296]

>>11621231
Teapot opposite earth/Russell's counterargument against Aquinas
No evidence/no actual examples of special pleading
Dismissed as wrong.
And you're placing burden of proof on the teapot not existing. At furthest from true, they're extremely similar. Yes, there's the ability to look for a teapot in Aquinas' corpus, but that's a lot to ask to disprove an unsupported refutation. Though yes, dismissal without specific evidence would be better phrased as "Russell's argument is unevidenced tripe" than "x is false".

[Anonymous No.11621345]

>>11621296
>dismissed as wrong
that's the point. it wasn't merely said that "Russell's argument is unevidenced trip", it was also "Russell's argument is false". that calls for evidence

[Anonymous No.11621355]

>>11621345
Fair enough then, if a weak distinction. I posted some evidence of that anyways, it's not even a long article, and a place you could find more.

[Anonymous No.11621383]

>>11621355
I don't mean this in a passive-aggressive way, but I think "x is unevidenced trip" and "x is false" are quite distinct. the former is in no way saying x is false (at least in that statement), while the latter is saying exactly that. in any case, I'll take a look at the article, thanks.

[Anonymous No.11621406]

>ctrl+f "analytic"
>0 hits
You're all utterly hopeless.

[Anonymous No.11621443]

>>11621406
Wouldn't an analytic conclude the same?

[Anonymous No.11621681]

>>11619142
lol

you really didn't know that huh?
most scientists thought that the universe was eternal (in direct opposition to theists). Lemaitre proposed a beginning of the universe and he turned out to be right.

[Anonymous No.11621696]

>>11619474
>How can truth be discovered with such a methodology?

Consider it as a type of conjecture:
>This looks (is) true, let's see if it is

[Anonymous No.11621702]

>>11619491
It is possible; do you not read Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.11621705]

Philipp Mainländer tbqh

Philosophy of Redemption is written in such a clear voice

[Anonymous No.11621721]

>>11621696
>This looks (is) true, let's see if it is
why would one consider it as such when that might not be what Aquinas is doing, and at best that he's simply acting like that is his methodology?

[Anonymous No.11621728]

>>11618940
literally the opposite of logically sound

[Anonymous No.11621745]

>>11619545
>I can't make an effective argument, so I'll just use a false equivalency!

[Anonymous No.11621883]

>>11621681
>he turned out to be right.
Nonsense. The Big Bang is a load of horseshit.
Cosmology is a joke.

[Anonymous No.11621912]

>>11621745
Can't tell if this post is serious or ironic.

[Anonymous No.11622235]

>>11620098
>mfw no one noticed this

[Anonymous No.11622355]

>>11620098
>>11622235
They're both commenting on Aristotle, you fucking brainlets.

[Anonymous No.11622423]

>>11617809
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.11622471]

>>11620098 #
>>11622235 #
Because it's not worth taking seriously. Most mathematicians working with euclidean postulates define basic geometric theorems very similarly, too.

[Anonymous No.11623318]

>>11617809
Summa Theologica was actually a great read.


>Come at me /lit/.

[Anonymous No.11623429]

>>11619031
lol oh sweetie no

[Anonymous No.11623473]

>>11620824
atheists are such petulant children lmao
no wonder their fertility rates are below 1

[Anonymous No.11623490]

>>11622355
Haha

These brainlets think that for some reason talking about similar topics in Metaphysics is plagiarism. Fucking retards, most Metaphysics is simply going over previously propounded statements.

[Anonymous No.11623497]

>>11618773
yeah, I’m a Christian, you got a problem with that? I used to be a sinner like you but 2 years ago I found GOD. In my teens I would laugh at creationists; I would always tell my grandma that I didn’t want to go to mass; I was agnostic but not like r/Atheism. But when I GREW UP and became a man, I realised I needed to put childish things away (1 Corinthians 13:11). Why is that? Because I realized that we need Christianity to SAVE THE WEST. After I voted Trump in the 2016 election I decided to go to church again. I knew that I would find a QT pure Christian GF who I could lose my virginity to (I haven’t lost it yet because I’m saving myself for marriage, like God intended). I haven’t found her yet, but like Job I will pray and have faith in God. Then I saw Jordan Peterson talking about Christianity and I was hooked! (I don’t like him anymore though, he’s a fake Christian). I watched all his videos on the bible and realised how God reveals himself in many ways. I was on /pol/ (came from r/The_Donald during the election but I hate redditors now) Christian General and I saw /lit/ chart which had The Bible and I KNEW I found my people. Every day I see THE WEST falling because we gave up our FAITH. Well, the new Christian intellectuals are coming; We are the sons of the Crusaders and we shall not recoil before the sons of Voltaire! (Candide was shit, so is Nietzsche (haven’t read either of them)). /lit/ introduced me to Kierkegaard and I became a KNIGHT OF FAITH, so now I know that I just gotta believe and that’s TRUE bravery. I read DANTE and DOSTOEVSKY and I saw the beauty of God and true art. I’m a proud Catholic (Protestants are heretics) but I hate Pope Francis, he’s a heretic and isn’t MY Pope. /lit/ is a Christian board, and I know that if I just keep recommending the Bible, telling people to go to church, and making threads about how great God is, I will finally be able to sincerely believe in God and distract myself from the gnawing feeling that I’m a fraud. Faith ain’t easy.

[Anonymous No.11623536]

>>11623473
you might be reading that petulant part into the comment. in any case, it's not an atheist-exclusive sort of comment. you can be a theist and be of the same mindset.

[Anonymous No.11624035]

>>11619031
What axioms are used by Plato, Aristotle, and Nietzsche? Also, wouldn't an axiomatic theory remove the need to be circularly postulational?

[Anonymous No.11624054]

>>11617809
The Summa Theologica is a great work that should be rever-
>I can write no more. I have seen things that make my writings like straw
Huh. I guess I'll just stick to someone who takes their own work seriously.

[Anonymous No.11624063]

>>11617809
Aquinas was a hack

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL2BUjd2wkY

[Anonymous No.11624069]

>>11624054
>God's face is literally more magnificent and infinitely more revealing than anything I could ever conceive of

[Anonymous No.11624070]

>>11624054
What did he see?

[Anonymous No.11624071]

>>11619337
Nice life's work you've got there Bertrand. It would be a shame if I proved it was worthless and revealed you to be the hack you are, you dirty materialist.

[Anonymous No.11624077]

>>11624069
Yes, he learned that his philosophizing was literally worthless because God is so great.
>>11624070
proof that all his work was worthless. his revelation brought his work to a complete halt.

[Anonymous No.11624084]

>>11624077
I feel bad for him

[Anonymous No.11624105]

>muh five ways

And how do you test this?

[Anonymous No.11624119]

>>11624105
good bait, keep it up kid you're doing great work.

[Anonymous No.11624128]

>>11624105
Five ways are metaphysical. They're not convincing to people who don't already believe though.

[Anonymous No.11624142]

>>11624071
Sorry bub, but you're late as usual

[Anonymous No.11624146]

>>11624071
Godel is probably my favourite Christian intellectual. If a guy of that genius can have faith, why the fuck can't I ?

[Anonymous No.11624154]

>>11624054

I actually found a complete used edition in a bookstore the other day, and so I sat down with it for a bit, spent a good half hour paging, getting the basic structure of the text, existence of god, man's role in the world, what does the hellfire actually feel like, and so on. As I paged through it for a few minutes, I became increasingly confident that Aquinas actually is full of shit (like Spinoza who I'm reading now, though Spinoza is at least taking interesting turns toward modernity with the euclidian motion of bodies stuff as far as I've got), and for conventional, correct fedora reasons.

I am better than Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.11624162]

>>11623473
>>11623536

I'm happy that you both use that word, because it's part of a philosophy that I have personally arrived at. In a specific sence, /petulance/ is actually good, because a certain petulance means a more accurate understanding of the world, which is superior to god.

[Anonymous No.11624167]

>>11624128

That is because they are false.

[Anonymous No.11624196]

>>11624071
greatest mathematician of the 20th century

[Anonymous No.11624198]

>>11618773
spbp

[Anonymous No.11624658]

>>11624063
Stop shilling your youtube account on /lit/

[Anonymous No.11624713]

>>11619585
>For me to prove my view the two of us would have to go through every single thing Aquinas ever wrote.

So have you read every single thing Aquinas ever wrote? How do you know he does not do this?

[Anonymous No.11624714]

>>11623318
That image is about as correct as saying that China is the "oldest continuous civilisation", which is to say, not correct at all.

[Anonymous No.11624873]

>>11617809
what's going on with his left hand in that painting exactly

[Anonymous No.11625103]

>>11624063
>Oh no guys! These geniuses took down Aquinas's theorems.
xD xD

[Anonymous No.11625201]

>>11624142
>BTFO your theory of descriptions

[Anonymous No.11625237]

>>11619457

>Dicking people determines the validity of an argument

[Anonymous No.11625508]

>>11624154
I... hope? that's bait.
>>11624713
How do we know literally any philosopher's work isn't riddled with fallacies? It's generally good to presume that they're not wrong if you can't find any mistakes. You want to know if he does have any cases of special pleading, check his arguments, bring them up if they're present. His own works are exactly the evidence he didn't- or did, if you find a section where he does.

[Anonymous No.11625545]

>>11624873
He's holding a book and and inkwell. I'm not sure i understand the question?

[Anonymous No.11625611]

>>11625508
>It's generally good to presume that they're not wrong if you can't find any mistakes.
why?

>You want to know if he does have any cases of special pleading, check his arguments, bring them up if they're present. His own works are exactly the evidence he didn't- or did, if you find a section where he does.
whether it's evident in the text or not, Aquinas could still very well be doing what Russell says; following an argument he already knows the conclusion to.

[Anonymous No.11625627]

>>11625545
try putting your hand into that same pose

[Anonymous No.11625657]

>>11624162
[big tips]

[Anonymous No.11625756]

>>11623497
>I will finally be able to sincerely believe in God and distract myself from the gnawing feeling that I’m a fraud.

[Anonymous No.11625780]

>>11617809
>believe in god
>logical

[Anonymous No.11625827]

>>11623497
kek
being this retarded

[Anonymous No.11625843]

>>11625780
Yep. It’s called Metaphysics, pleb

[Anonymous No.11625860]

>>11617809
Nietzsche btfo him in Genealogy of Morals

[Anonymous No.11625864]

>>11625860
"For what is the bliss of that paradise? Perhaps we might have guessed that already, but it is better for it to be expressly described for us by an authority we cannot underestimate in such matters, Thomas Aquinas, the great teacher and saint: "In the kingdom of heaven" he says as gently as a lamb, "the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss.”

[Anonymous No.11626329]

>>11625201
Russell did away with you, and he was the one with a theory of descriptions. You're three steps behind

Who are you quoting?

[Anonymous No.11627453]

>>11617809
Leibniz is logic and reason incarnate.
Bolzano is number two.
Aquinas number three.

Reading the thread, brainlet "trial of intent totally disproves people I don't like" Russel need not apply.

[Anonymous No.11627494]

>>11618773
I don't follow

[Anonymous No.11627529]

>>11619567
>Doubting that fire will burn your hand is not skepticism but insanity.
>All I know is that I know nothing

[Anonymous No.11627642]

>>11617809
I never understood if he was wearing a hat or if that is his tonsure.

[Anonymous No.11627667]

>>11620098
These proofs are about as old as Homer dumbass

[Anonymous No.11627679]

>>11627642
That's his hair. Dominican habit has a hood and not a hat, and the hood is visibly down in this painting.
>mfw same hairline
>this was an absolute Chad style in the 13th century
Born in the wrong generation.

[Anonymous No.11628380]

>>11625508

It really isn't. I was actually quite happy once I actually started reading the thing for just a little bit, to know that I don't have to be afraid of him as some sort of intellectual giant who has transcendent knowledge that I don't understand. No, he really is just an old cultist who is a sentimental meme among catholics, and I don't have to be afraid of him, at all. I may actually buy and read the thing, the better to reject God.

[Anonymous No.11628441]

>>11624146
You can ask an adult to tell you about times when very bright people like you very badly wanted to justify positions they knew to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.11629385]

>>11628380
In that case...
>spends 30 minutes flipping around
>meh, looks like bullshit
Not at all an argument. Doesn't even remotely engage his philosophy. You need more to analyze a philosopher than skimming around for a bit and going on feel. You can ignore his thought entirely, sure, but "an old cultist who is a sentimental meme" is unjustified on the study of him you admit to.
>transcendental knowledge I don't understand
The fuck were you expecting? Even Hegel is comprehensible, people write so their works are read.
You can also access his translated works online, don't buy the summa just for that unless you're absolutely purist about paper.

[Anonymous No.11630040]

>>11625843
just because they have a name for it doesn't mean there's an answer to the question

[Anonymous No.11630133]

>>11617809
Spinoza

[Anonymous No.11630152]

Its Al Ghazali, to this day nobody has refuted him

[Anonymous No.11631260]

>>11618943
this tbqh

[Anonymous No.11631487]

>>11619168
>Everything we know in existence was formed because one atom exploded.
You don't have to be a Bible thumping theist to know that's the most half-assed, retarded attempt at explaining the origins of the universe ever devised by scientists.

[Anonymous No.11631561]

>>11619365
>power
Shut up, property

[Anonymous No.11631724]

>>11619421

The third man problem is as moronic as Diogenes stories.

[Anonymous No.11631777]

>>11619667
A guy who hasn't read Aquinas asking to be spoonfed....
Pathetic

[Anonymous No.11631831]

>>11620098

This is awful. To infer God, or anything else for that matter, by randomly ascertaining the Empirical as linear, instead of cyclical or fractal, is almost Atheist in its dim naive realism. Indeed, Catholicism and Atheism are one and the same.

[Anonymous No.11631858]

>>11630040
Who is ‘they’?

Millennia of pure logical thought?

[Anonymous No.11631864]

>>11631831
It’s not like they are denying science though.

Metaphysics is tangentially actually related to physics, which gives it legitimacy because of its applicability to the material world.

If you’re not basing your faith on Metaphysics, then what are you logically basing it on?

[Anonymous No.11631923]

>>11625864
>be me
>30 year old boomer
>in heaven
>watch normie sinners getting burned by demons
*CRACK* yup, better than Doom *sips*

[Anonymous No.11631929]

>>11631864

Catholicism: where imagination is even duller than reality.

[Anonymous No.11632126]

>>11631724
p r o v e i t

[Anonymous No.11632129]

>>11631929
How is the contemplation of metaphysics dull? Do you seriously believe that the people who believe in God On 4chan are as dull as your local common churchgoers? Just look at the vast logical reasoning that goes behind your average 4channers faith. They have thought about this question quite a bit

[Anonymous No.11632136]

>>11617809
Marcus Aurelius is the most sound philosopher because his philosophy literally boils down to: Stop whining, and work harder

[Anonymous No.11632158]

>>11631777
having read Aquinas or not is arbitrary in asking for proof in that anon's claims. plenty of people have read Aquinas and not came to the conclusion that "the arguments he used are the only valid ones there are." plus, you're assuming they haven't read Aquinas, which you know not.

[Anonymous No.11632190]

>>11632136
1. it's not even his philosophy. you have to go back to the source. 2. you can't (or shouldn't rather) call a philosophy sound if what holds it together is unjustified. such as the Stoic's concept of nature (which we arguably don't even have a complete understand of) and that their virtue ethics were the "natural" progression humans should take. I don't strawman their concept of nature like Knee-cha, but I still don't think, at least my understanding of it, holds up. also their concept of God isn't the best argued for imo.

t. an anon partial to Stoicism

[Anonymous No.11632196]

>>11632158
>>11631777
unless you would be happy to prove you know they haven't read Aquinas

[Anonymous No.11632222]

>>11618773
God is noumena, friend. It may not be perceptible, as it is likely a Spinozan entity, but to believe that existence, which is fundamentally acausal, is independent of an acausal force which science cannot itself reason with using empirical methods, is tantamount to madness.

[Anonymous No.11632468]

>>11619365
Oh? To what end?

[Anonymous No.11633474]

>>11618814
A catholic priest proposed the big bang

[Anonymous No.11635202]

>>11626329
>implying Russel's theory of descriptions was worth anything compared to based Meinong's
Seriously. Did Russell do anything useful? Muh teapot maybe?

[Anonymous No.11635215]

>>11632222
>Noumena
If the categories only apply to phenomena, and existence is a category, then how can we know Noumena exist.

[Anonymous No.11635556]

>>11623497
Christianity has literally become the most memeworthy religion, and I'm not even an atheist.

[Anonymous No.11635587]

>>11635215
This counterargument is so bad that it's good and maybe even functional.

[Anonymous No.11635725]

>>11617809

his texts are far too dense for my brainlet mind to digest

fuck that shit lol

[Anonymous No.11636809]

>>11635725
t. Thomist cuck

[Anonymous No.11637087]

>>11623497
>tfw I used to be exactly like this but I read Candide and Nietzsche since then
FeelsGoodMan

[Anonymous No.11637639]

>>11631831
>by randomly ascertaining the Empirical as linear, instead of cyclical or fractal, is almost Atheist in its dim naive realism.
There is no perpetual motion. All cyclical views of the world have been permanently btfo by the rise of entropy. Not that it was a serious idea even before that.
When Buddha was saying this it was already of bad taste, but when Nietzsche affirmed the eternal return it was downright retarded.

[Anonymous No.11637656]

>>11635215
>existence is a category
Aristotle and all his followers explicitly say that being (which he uses to mean existence in the way you use it) is not a category.

[Anonymous No.11637659]

>>11637639
>All cyclical views of the world have been permanently btfo by the rise of entropy.
The rise of entropy is not a real law, it's just probability. A sudden, universal scale decrease in entropy is exceedingly unlikely but not impossible. Or at least that's a theory I read.

[Anonymous No.11637747]

>>11635587
thank you
>>11637656
talk to Kant

[Anonymous No.11637757]

>>11631831
>he fell for the cyclical meme
>HE FELL FOR THE FRACTAL MEME
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11637766]

>>11637659
This is a statistical mechanics interpretation, which doesn't invalidate the law. Boltzmann has shown thermostatistics to be ergodic so that even an unlikely event cannot change the tendency.
Which mean you can have an unlikely event of reduced entropy at any given time, but you cannot have regular (or even irregular) drops in entropy that prevents it from going up over time.
Even though it is not fundamental to the argument, I still insist on the "exceedingly unlikely", at the scale of the universe the probability is a number so low that it is entirely outside the intuitive capabilities of men. Not that it matters for the formal argument.

[Anonymous No.11637827]

>>11637639
>>11637757

I am saying that this particular argument of fancying the world as linear is so flimsy that it could fancy it as cyclical or fractal by the same laziness, regardless of the reasonable questions regarding all 3 models.

Catholicism: where you can't even read.

[Anonymous No.11637873]

>>11637747
Kant did not understand the categories. Brentano proved that long ago in On the Several Senses of Being in Aristotle.

>>11637827
The argument is so flimsy that it was essential to build science. These arguments also don't come straight away but after an exposition of the doctrine of causes. Which you would know had you read Aristotle or Thomas, but apparently it is Catholics that can't read (why even single out Catholics when pre-Christian peripatetics did the same).

[Anonymous No.11637891]

>>11637827
First of all I'm not Catholic. Second of all the reason people go with the linear model isn't because they're lazy, it's because it's the one that makes the most sense, empirically.

Third of all, a cyclic or fractal model would still lead to proving God. The fractal model is easier, because you can predict the end state of a fractal or trace it back to its origin, which still requires some generative power like a linear model does. The cyclic model would show that the net change in the world is zero (you can pick any point in time and the net change in one cycle is zilch). This means that the universe is, from a temporal standpoint, equivalent to nothing. The universe, however, is not equivalent to nothing. Therefore it requires a generative power outside of itself to move it from nothing to something, in the same way that there must be an explanation for why the Earth orbits around the moon at (generically) one radius but not another.

[Anonymous No.11637892]

>>11637873
>The argument is so flimsy that it was essential to build science.

Indeed. Hence the misery of extraversion.

[Anonymous No.11637928]

>>11637891

I agree that all 3 would likewise infer God, as I said initially. As for the rest of the reply, they should've made illiteracy a mortal sin.

[Anonymous No.11637976]

>>11637928
You didn't say they all lead to God, you said they were interchangeable in Aquinas's argument. They're not interchangeable. If you used Aquinas's argument and only changed the model from linear to cyclic, you would not be able to use the same line of reasoning to prove that God exists, because you would be left with a cycle of temporal causes and effects with no origin. To argue the cyclic model, you have to make an argument which goes beyond temporal cause and effect (and in the outline I gave you don't actually argue about finding an origin, you argue that something must explain the difference between existence and nothingness if cause and effect can't). As for your entire string of posts, they should have burned pseuds at the stake.

[Anonymous No.11638296]

>>11637976

The Ontology in Aquinas is so shallow, as vulgar as Rand's Objectivism, and God's inference so ham-handed beside it, that it being linear is secondary, even irrelevant, to it being bad as Ontology and as something from which to infer God. Ideally, a linear model is not interchangeable neither with a cyclical one nor with a fractal, but Aquinas speaks of linearity so poorly and of divine inference therefrom even poorer, that as far as he is concerned all models are interchangeable, equally bad by themselves, and even worse for Theology.

[Anonymous No.11638318]

>>11617809
Aquinas isn't a serious philosopher because he doesn't actually care about truth. He has his conclusions and found some ex post facto justifications to arrive at them. Thats not what a truth seeking enterprise looks like.

[Anonymous No.11638325]

>>11619451
>All things that are in motion require a mover
>except this first thing which doesn't require a mover!

Lmao literally special pleaded himself right into fucking retard center.

[Anonymous No.11638372]

>>11638318
>I know something is true
>how is that so?

Do you shit on Mathematicians for trying to prove conjectures?

Besides, Aquinas created logic proofs for first principles. Those are subject to being true or false. Complaining that Aquinas already had a conviction about what was true and that his philosophy sought justification and not truth, still wouldn't change the fact that his first way of proving God's existence isn't any less true (assuming the proof to be sound; but your comment isn't focused on the truth value of Aquinas's arguments. For some odd reason, you're infatuated with whether or not the way he proceeded to make arguments was respectable. Perhaps you should be concerned with the truth value of his statements, if you're going to rail him for not caring about truth.) Call it vain if you want, doesn't change the truth value of his justifications.

Having said that, you're a fool to conclude that Aquinas does not care about truth. God is truth. This is what Aquinas cared about; God is what he sought out.

[Anonymous No.11638434]

>>11638372
>God is truth. This is what Aquinas cared about

or he cared about trying to justify his pre-held beliefs

[Anonymous No.11638517]

>>11638372
No I don't shit on Mathematicians and Scientists for trying to prove stuff because they follow the arguments and come to whatever conclusion comes up. Either the ABC conjecture was gonna be true or false and theres no way around picking certain axioms that will get you the wrong answer. Same thing with string theory, it may be some physicists pet belief, but they don't cherry pick data to get to the conclusion they want. If string theory is disproven thats it.

Compare that with Aquinas who starts with premises in arguments that pretty much set him up for the conclusion he wants, with no justification given for the premises. Thats not the work of someone who is honestly seeking the truth.

If you start with the belief that god is the truth, then you will surely find god to be the truth in the same way when feminists start out with the belief that patriarchy is at the root of all problems, they will surely find it at the root of all problems.

[Anonymous No.11638526]

>>11638325
>all potentials that are actualized are actualized by something that is already actual
>there exist two kind of series of potentialities being actualized: accidentally ordered series and essentially ordered series

>in an accidentally ordered series, each member has its own power to actualize potentials: even if we remove a previous member of the series, the series can go on infinitely
>for example, a father begetting a son begetting a son and so on
>this kind of series can regress infinitely

>in an essentially ordered series, each member (except the first) derives its power to actualize potentials from a previous member of the series: if we remove a previous member of the series, the series will eventually stop
>for example, a hand moving a stick moving a stone
>this kind of series cannot regress infinitely, because if it did, nothing would actually happen
>for example, if the stick in the previous example was infinitely long, there would be no hand moving the stick, so the rock would not move

>however, because we see that the rock actually is moving, there must be a hand in there somewhere
>so an essentially ordered series must terminate in a first member
>the first member is something the potentiality of which to exist was not actualized by anything else
>so the first member of the series can not have started to exist, because if it did, its potentiality to exist would have been actualized by something that already exists
>so the first member of an essentially ordered series must be something which didn't begin to exist

[Anonymous No.11638580]

>>11638526
>In an essentially ordered series, each member(except the first)

Theres your special pleading.

And thats leaving aside that theres no justification at all given for >this kind of series cant regress infinitely but this one can

Once again, premises that are merely assumed to be true to get to the conclusion that you want. This isn't serious philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11638761]

>>11638517
>with no justification given for the premises.
lol

[Anonymous No.11638766]

>>11638517
>If you start with the belief that god is the truth, then you will surely find god to be the truth in the same way when feminists start out with the belief that patriarchy is at the root of all problems, they will surely find it at the root of all problems.
And the same can be said for Atheists, anyone for that matter. Come on man... This isn't strong.

[Anonymous No.11638780]

>>11638580
Is your problem with the validity of Aquinas's arguments or the truth of the premises?

[Anonymous No.11638799]

>>11638766
not them, but yes you can say it for atheists (and you should if they do it). what the other person's point is I don't really care, but mine is that if Aquinas is forming these arguments for the main purpose of supporting his faith, and not due to the validity of the arguments, he's a hack.

[Anonymous No.11638876]

>>11638799
The justification for the argument doesn't matter if the arguments are sound lol. A sound argument is incontestable. If you want to debate the soundness or validity, so be it; just know that is not the issue at hand.

What about this:
Say I know the Pythagorean theorem is true, by way of Pygathoras's proof.
I'll let you in on a little secret. There are many, many ways to prove this as a theorem.
So, I decide to prove the Pythagorean theorem in a different way, distinct from the way that I already know it to be true.
I end up proving something that I already knew to be true in a distinct way, distinct from how I knew the theorem to be true.

Is my way somehow invalid? Is it unsound? Am I a hack for proving something that I already knew? lmao

https://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/

[Anonymous No.11639392]

>>11638780
Both. Even if the premises were justified he still special pleads all over the place.

[Anonymous No.11639773]

>>11639392
I'm sure mathematicians are special pleading when they use
>∃!

How is Aquinas special pleading when he goes from saying "some objects that move others require a mover" to "there exists a mover which is not moved,"? He doesn't say "all objects that move others require a mover," to then say "b-but except for this only one!"

Would it not make sense that a line of gears needs a drive shaft at the starting point? There you have some gears that move but need to be moved. Then there is a type of gear (drive shaft) that is itself unmoved, yet moves others.
Is it special pleading to say that a car's axel has a series of gears that aren't moved unless theres a drive shaft that all the gears depend on to move? lmao

[Anonymous No.11639836]

>>11639773
goddamn blown the fuck out

[Anonymous No.11639880]

>>11639773
Your gear example is terrible because we can physically show what causes the drive shaft to move. It didnt start on its own.


And your understanding of the first way is laughable. He really does say all objects that move require a mover, he just words it differently talking about "moving from potentiality to actuality". Idk if you're the same guy that formulated it earlier in this thread but if you want to show me any other formulation I'll show you where the special pleading happens. Its inALL serious formulations of his argument regardless of how catholic pedophiles cry "he never says motion! He talks about potential to actual!!!"

[Anonymous No.11639883]

>>11617809
if reification is logically sound then sure alongside ayn rand and bill nye

[Anonymous No.11639929]

>>11639880
>Your gear example is terrible because we can physically show what causes the drive shaft to move. It didnt start on its own.
Yeah, it's almost like there's a unique unmoved mover that can, itself only, fully convey what attributes and powers lie in an unmoved mover. Sorry that dumbing it down for you takes away from the fullness of definition lol

>He really does say all objects that move require a mover
Oh my... "It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."
>some

It's blatantly obvious that you don't know Aquinas's actual argument. Maybe you've read the Summa's 1st pt. Q 2. Those are the mere summaries. You gotta read more than that champ. ie) read Summa Contra Gentiles
You'll have to do more than watch Wationality Wules's juvenile "refutation" of Aquinas's arguments.

[Anonymous No.11640802]

>>11639929
>almost like theres an unmoved move
Then why pick an example that doesnt show that lmao. Come on bud, try to stay up with the argument

>oh my
Lol I dont think you can read. Did I claim that he says ALL objects are in motion? No i said that he argues "all objects that move require a mover". Let me dumb this down for you because I'm sure you're baffled by the fact that someone understands something better than you. There is a set of things. Within that set there is a subset of things that move(we'll call X) and things that dont move(Y). All you showed right now is that aquinas said "some things are in motion." Merely acknowledging the existence of subset X. I NEVER contested that statement. I NEVER stated that the set of ALL things is the same as subset X. But I did claim that aquinas states that within subset X, all things that are X have become X by something else that is X.

And that's EXACTLY what he does say, here's his own wording.
>Now WHATEVER IS IN MOTION IS PUT IN MOTION BY ANOTHER
Meaning that WHATEVER X it is, ALL X's had to have been put in motion by another. His special pleading happens when he doesnt like infinite regresses and such says
>Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other

Not sure who rationality rules is but all I did was read aquinas' own words and find the special pleading and completely unjustified premises. You can keep your insults while I'll I have my good arguments :) (must feel odd to see someone know the argument better than you huh?)

[Anonymous No.11640842]

>>11619365

[Anonymous No.11642060]

>>11638876
you misunderstand. the point isn't so much about the arguments themselves as opposed to Aquinas' character relating to the arguments. I'm not claiming his arguments are invalid, and I don't necessarily care whether they are or not at the moment. I could even concede they are, and my point doesn't change. the same applies to your example; if you choose a proof for the Pythagorean theorem chiefly because it supports your preconceived notion, and not chiefly because it is valid, you are a hack, cuck, etc.

[Anonymous No.11642353]

>>11642060
>>11638876
and when I say "supports your preconceived notion" I don't mean support in that it *genuinely* supports your preconceived notion, simply that you think it does.

[Anonymous No.11642407]

>>11619365
what does tywin lannister have to do with anything

[Anonymous No.11642515]

>>11640802
"So, if that by which it is moved is itself also moved, it is necessary that it be moved by another, and that one by still another. But we may not proceed thus to infinity, because there would then be no primary mover, and consequently no other movers, because intermediate movers move only through the fact that they are moved by a primary mover, as the stick moves only because it is moved by the hand."
>obviously unjustified premise. Which is somehow equal to special pleading because buzzwords.
He literally argued the point, stop taking parts of his argument out of context.
>>11638580
Special pleading? He's literally just laying out how essentially ordered series work. And if you establish a premise in another argument, you're allowed to use it in later ones. What isn't serious philosophy is completely misquoting a writer's context like you're doing.

[Anonymous No.11642749]

>logically sound
>tried to mix Aristotle and Plato
HAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11643220]

>>11642060
It would seem that creating any supplementary material or arguments makes one a hack then, no?

Supplementary arguments for a position that he deemed true by route of sufficient proof (for him to have that preconceived notion, [he would call it truth] he would need to pursue what is true and subsequently, he finds it in the existence of God) does not seem to make him a hack.

If you are to look for proofs that support a preconceived notion for that sake, but find only different invalid or unsound arguments (thus you choose to discard them), does that make you a hack? It just so happens that Aquinas discovered valid (I'd argue sound) arguments for his preconceived notions. I'd call him a hack if he stuck with shit arguments that supported his side.

Is it hack-like to attempt to reach a conclusion through different methods? I'm a math major and I couldn't see how those guys who prove pythagoras's theorem are somehow hacks.

[Anonymous No.11643270]

>>11640802

>>11639880
>He really does say all objects that move require a mover

Do you mean
>All objects that move other objects require a mover
or
>All objects that are in motion require a mover
which is "some objects are in motion, which require a mover"

I don't think you were clear about that

[Anonymous No.11643279]

Where's that Shankara shill when you need him?

[Anonymous No.11643474]

>>11643220
>It would seem that creating any supplementary material or arguments makes one a hack then, no?
I would say it depends on your motives, as I've explained

>If you are to look for proofs that support a preconceived notion for that sake, but find only different invalid or unsound arguments (thus you choose to discard them), does that make you a hack?
the latter half is arbitrary, given the first half, which is what I've been saying makes someone a hack, yes that would make someone a hack

>It just so happens that Aquinas discovered valid (I'd argue sound) arguments for his preconceived notions.
you don't know that. I can't say that that's not the case - that he "just so happened to discover" those arguments - but (as far as I can tell) we don't have any way to verify he did, we can only assume one way or the other (or hold judgement).

>Is it hack-like to attempt to reach a conclusion through different methods?
as I've said before, it depends on the reason

[Anonymous No.11643515]

>>11643474
>the latter half is arbitrary, given the first half, which is what I've been saying makes someone a hack, yes that would make someone a hack

I think this is where we would part ways then, cuz I don't really see it.

Do you genuinely find that to be a good reason not to read him? to accept his arguments?

[Anonymous No.11643609]

>>11643515
again, you misunderstand. I'm not saying "because of this, you shouldn't read Aquinas or accept his arguments". I implore all those interested in what he covers to (eventually) read him. and if they find his arguments sound, as you do, they're well within reason to accept them. I'm merely saying, if the possibility I've reiterated many times over now is true, then Aquinas is a hack. that doesn't mean he shouldn't be read. that doesn't mean his arguments are sound. all that speaks on is his character.

[Anonymous No.11643612]

>>11643609
I meant to say "that doesn't mean his arguments aren't sound"

[Anonymous No.11643713]

>>11638517
>Either the ABC conjecture was gonna be true or false and theres no way around picking certain axioms that will get you the wrong answer.
Have you dropped mathematics in high school?
All mathematical models can be reworked so that a given statement becomes true or false depending on the axioms, provided it doesn't go against other axioms of logic.
The axiom of parallels was a choice, and the theorems resting on it become false when choosing other axioms.
You can do the same for every mathematical theory, provided you follow purely formal axioms (self-identity, non-contradiction, identity of indiscernible, ...)
The continuum hypothesis was proven independent of the usual ZFC axiomatic system by Gödel and Cohen. Is there a wrong answer to it? It very clearly depends on the individual choice of axioms.

>Same thing with string theory, it may be some physicists pet belief, but they don't cherry pick data to get to the conclusion they want.
Your non-argument was already bad in a priori studies, but it becomes even worse in empirical sciences. There are no super theory that fits all the data. And the historical process of theorizing has always been to "cherry pick", every time, and there is nothing wrong with that. This has been shown numerous times, most famously by Thomas Kuhn.

>with no justification given for the premises
No one can justify premises in a formal manner.

>Thats not the work of someone who is honestly seeking the truth.
So according to you, people aren't to be taken seriously if they had an idea before writing about it? Even going back to empirical sciences, do you think that people just throw around data on a wall and theories sprung spontaneously? Researchers have conceptions, and they most of the time spend years before seeing any clear confirmation of it in empirical data.
How does that even work psychologically. Are thinkers supposed to just wait until some developed theory come up in their mind, fully armed like Athena?

[Anonymous No.11643808]

>>11639392
You don't understand Aristotle at all.
The argument has no speical pleading anywhere. It merely looks for the principle of motion, and in the peripatetic views of causes, find that it must come from an unmoved mover. Nowhere does it say that all movers need to be themselves moved.
The need for the unmoved comes from avoidance of infinite regression in efficient cause (which itself has little to do with time regression as you seem to imply, Aristotle refuses to give an answer to the question of past eternity fo the world and Aquinas gives arguments saying it is undecidable by reasoning alone).
The unity of the prime mover comes from the entirely unmoved source being necessarily pure act and there can only be one such pure act (which Aristotle and Thomas expand on in arguments for unicity of God).
Someone clearly didn't start with the Greeks.

[Anonymous No.11643901]

>>11642515
>so if that by which it is moved is itself also moved is itself also moved, IT IS NECESSARY that it be moved by another, and that one by another still

And then he goes on to give his belief(because there is no justification given) that this cant happen forever. So to get out of it he says you can terminate it somewhere. BUT HE JUST SAID IT WAS NECESSARY. How do you not see how supremely illogical to be like that? Everyone who's seriously thought about it realizes it and they've realized it for 800 years.

Also you're not going to mention at all your severe lack of reading comprehension on my last post? Just gonna pretend like you're a capable reader? You're about as intellectual as Aquanias which is to say not at all.


And I didnt say that his premises being unjustified equals them special pleading. I know you're a catholicuck so reading comprehension and being logical arent your strong suits but try to follow along. He could have justified premises and contradict himself, or he could have a logical argument with unjustified premises, but in the case of Aquinas he has unjustified premises and still manages to contradict himself and special plead all over his paper. And this guy is supposed to be THE PINNACLE of philosophy of religion and theology! That should tell you something about how vacuous theology is as an intellectual pursuit. Actually can you take this shit to /x/? It would definitely fit in better there with their fanfiction stories.

[Anonymous No.11644036]

>>11643901
>And then he goes on to give his belief(because there is no justification given) that this cant happen forever.
>So to get out of it he says you can terminate it somewhere.
It's not him getting out of a sticky situation

An infinite amount of boxcars spanning behind isn't going to move the one in front of us. An infinite amount of gears spanning leftwards isn't going to turn the one next to us. The justification is that an infinite regress doesn't make anything happen. For the boxcar to move closer to us, for the gear to turn, there has to be an initializer that was never moved itself, lest there is another infinite regress. That logically follows; I don't see how you think that's special pleading. Like it's plain as day.

Aquinas doesn't say "all objects that move other objects require a mover." He says "Some objects that move other objects require a mover." With the boxcar and gear example, it's a nice way to see why it couldn't be "all objects that move other objects require a mover." There has to be one unmoved mover or "an object that moves other objects and was never moved itself (which logically follows from the inconsistency of an infinite regress)." I mean that's pretty straight forward, no?

>(because there is no justification given)
Also, have you read Contra Gentiles? Q2 in the Summa only gives the summaries of the proofs for God; Contra Gentiles has the more detailed versions iirc.

[Anonymous No.11644132]

>>11643901
There is not a single case of special pleading in this argument. You most probably haven't read any writer of that school not to get it. As I said here >>11643808 it has nothing to do with time regression, and nowhere it there a special provision for a specific moved object. It reduces the need for causes of motion to a pure act, without motion.
Anyone with a three digits IQ has realized what Aquinas meant for 800 years.
You also have a case of mental illness relating to Catholics when we talk about things that aren't Catholic in particular.

[Anonymous No.11644244]

>>11638526
>>11638580
>13 minutes between posts
>"This isn't serious philosophy"
Well you sure seemed to struggle with it summerfriend :)
Hope putting your faith in humankind works out for you.

[Anonymous No.11644280]

>>11643901
>(Aquinas) is the pinnacle of philosophy of religion and theology
opinions you've seen on /lit/ aren't unanimously agreed upon by the rest of the world, faggot. and please realize that "is there a god" and "who is god" are two entirely unrelated questions.

[Anonymous No.11644522]

>>11643901
You're responding to a quote of him literally making the argument you're accusing him of just taking as a premise. He says if that which moves the moved object is itself in motion, it must be moved by another, and so on. (yes, the strict wording implies "that one by another still" that the second in the series cannot itself be unmoved, but I suspect that's translation. Either way don't be anal about it.) And then that that series cannot go infinitely, as that would equate to no essentially ordered motion in the first place, as >>11644036 details.

You accused him of special pleading, without any good examples of actual special pleading, and taking as an unjustified premise the conclusion of an argument literally quoted at you. Then you go on a screed about reading comprehension and catholicucks and /x/. In >>11640802, the conclusion of an unmoved mover is directly equated to special pleading. Not sure how, it's literally just the conclusion when an infinite series is impossible and an moved mover must have a mover.

[Anonymous No.11644698]

>>11644280
>and please realize that "is there a god" and "who is god" are two entirely unrelated questions.
Not him, but I see people acting like "proving 'God'"="My God is the real deal, heathens". Why is that so common?