[ 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: 106 KB, 320x420, st-thomas-aq.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1446640 No.1446640 [Reply] [Original]

Where do I start with St. Thomas Aquinas?

>> No.1446658

A history book.

Don't bother with his actual works save quotes and excerpts.

>> No.1446662

>>1446658
Why?

>> No.1446674

uhhhhh... summa theologica?

also read chesterton's book on him because it's dope (chesterton is dope)

>> No.1446802

.....anything else?

>> No.1446827

You should start with ripping any primary texts you own in half. Then burning them. After that, go to your local library and do them the same favor.

Then read the complete works of David Lewis, and get a PhD in philosophy. Write your dissertation on something contemporary and analytic.

>> No.1446844

Don't listen to the haters, OP. They're just jealous that they don't stack up to any of the great Christian intellectuals. Yes, despite the all those years and all those thousands of dollars spent studying literature or philosophy, they know that their work will never achieve any fame, that is, if their work ever is published, (if they even have anything of substance to write about in the first place). At the very least, they have a long and certain future in the service industry or vagrancy during which they will have all the time in the world to contemplate the works of Thomas Aquinas and even better philosophers.

>> No.1446847

>>1446827
If you are typical of analytic philosophers, no wonder everyone thinks you're a bunch of shitheads.

>> No.1446852

>>1446844
Man, what you said in my defense is cool and all, but you didn't help me at all.

Just so you all know, I'm not Christian or anything. I just want to read his works. Plain curiosity. You guys don;t have to get so asspained about it.

>> No.1446859 [DELETED] 

>>1446844

Curious, do they know what it's called when you're a philosopher but not 'analytic'? I want to study philosophy at university, but I'm a bit hesitant because I want to do real philosophy, not just analyse language (which has no relevance whatever to anyone in the world and is simply for deadheads in armchairs).

>> No.1446861 [DELETED] 

>>1446859
Dude, make a new thread.

>> No.1446862

>>1446844

Curious, do you know what it's called when you're a philosopher but not 'analytic'? I want to study philosophy at university, but I'm a bit hesitant because I want to do real philosophy, not just analyse language (which has no relevance whatever to anyone in the world and is simply for deadheads in armchairs).

>> No.1446866

>>1446862
Dude, make a new thread

>> No.1446883

>>1446852
Why should I, asshole? Someone already told you to read the Summa Theologiae.

>>1446862
I can't really advise you on that because I'm not a philosophy major. I second the recommendation to make a new thread.

>> No.1446887

>>1446862
>but I'm a bit hesitant because I want to do real philosophy, not just analyse language

1.Analyzing language isn't just what analytic philosophy is. You could say it's one of several methodologies that they use answer the questions that interest them.

methods|||questions

"analyzing language" is a small part of "methods".

>real philosophy

You haven't studied philosophy yet, but you know what real philosophy is? Go take a class and see what you think after learning a bit more.

>> No.1446926

>>1446887

You seem to have got it in your head that you have to be at a college to know anything. I've been reading philosophy since I was a young teenager and have actually read (for example) all five volumes of Summa Theologica over the course of six months, which is why I clicked this thread out of curiosity in the first place. I've read many of the analytic philosophers, and they've left me utterly cold compared to philosophers such as Aquinas or Plato who wrote on ethics and in plain language on subjects relevant to all people, not just a small number of deadheads in our colleges and universities drawing their dividends.

>> No.1446933

>>1446926
you must really like that word 'deadhead'

>> No.1446940

>>1446926

Reading isn't enough to get educated. You need to write and be criticized. Sorry.

>> No.1446964

>>1446940
even though i basically agree with you, you're kind of a dickhead

writing and being criticized (and more significantly, i think, just talking about things with smart people who know their shit, particularly professors, is invaluable) certainly help your education immensely, but saying it's necessary is kind of misleading. it's absolutely necessary if you want to be an academic + really be an expert on a subject, but if you want to know something about it + think about things, just reading is fine.

>> No.1446970

>>1446933

As I talk about the group of people, I use the same word.

>>1446940

Very silly and ambiguous, particularly as you haven't given a definition of 'educated'. Most of the university students I've known are no paragons of learning, nor do they want to be.

>> No.1446982

>>1446940
Quite correct unless you can participate communally in thought, you haven't learned anything. Knowledge requires meaning requires expression. Thoughts floating around inside a head are subjective nothings.

>> No.1446993

>>1446964
>it's absolutely necessary if you want to be an academic + really be an expert on a subject, but if you want to know something about it + think about things, just reading is fine.

Oh, certainly. You can get a lot from just reading. When I used the word "educated", I was admittedly talking about a pretty high standard (academia).

The fellow I was talking with was passing judgment on all of analytic philosophy and all college students, and I do think that you need to be educated (in the sense of the word I am using) to make such broad judgment (or at least, to not sound like an ignorant asshole when making such judgments, or to have a slim hope of actually justifying your judgment).

>>1446970

I've defined it, and pointed out the utility of my definition above. Some additional remarks:

(1) anecdotal evidence is not reliable data
(2) you've engaged with these students (probably) only in casual conversation, not reading their written work, criticizing it, and seeing how they can modify their work in response to your criticism. They probably have this skill, and you probably lack it.

>> No.1446997

>>1446982

Two examples that come to mind of self-educated men are Dickens and Shakespeare, the first and second greatest writers in the English language. Bunyan was a master of literature, philosophy and theology, yet he only ever read the Bible and wrote Pilgrim's Progress on scraps of paper in Bedford jail.

Aquinas himself said "Beware the man of one book", meaning beware the man who meticulously and studies one great work. He only quotes a small number of authors in Summa Theologica, but he knew those books like the back of his hand. If anything, you could make the case that going into the environment of mainstream academia stunts the brain.

>> No.1446998

>>1446993
>Oh, certainly. You can get a lot from just reading. When I used the word "educated", I was admittedly talking about a pretty high standard (academia).

okay we cool, you my dude

>> No.1446999

>>1446997
>implying that every Christian feverishly reading the Summa in his basement is just as smart as Dickens and Shakespeare