/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17437434]

What do I need to read before jumping into Aquinas?

[Anonymous No.17437438]

the god delusion

[Anonymous No.17437445]

[Anonymous No.17437464]

>>17437434
dont bother. it takes an intelligent man less than 3 minutes to refute it all

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RyYPPTcoCiU

[Anonymous No.17437467]

Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine.

[Anonymous No.17437479]

>>17437434
The bible, I've heard discussion that some of Aquinas' other books are better to read before summa. Anyhow just trace the main scholastics, start with Plato and Aristotle, then Plotinus and then Anselm etc.

[Anonymous No.17437482]

>>17437434
A lobotomy.

[Anonymous No.17438014]

Edward Feser

[Anonymous No.17438177]

>Why yes, a thing can be simultaneously singular and plural
Seriously, Thomas?

[Anonymous No.17438311]

>>17437464

[Anonymous No.17438372]

>>17437434
Plato
Aristotle
Trismegistus
Josephus
The Gospels
Plotinus
Ambrose
Augustine

[Anonymous No.17438388]

The best thing you need to do is Plato and Aristotle. But first you need to get swoll as fuck. I recommend a regular plan of push ups, sit ups, and chin ups on alternating days just to start. And then you'll need build a virtuous character and put it to the test. As Aristotle says, a man grows in virtue by practice. So start attracting hot women while refusing to have sex with them.
Otherwise, you'll miss the visceral character and strength it takes to comprehend true philosophy, and become like a puny weakling, or worse, an analytic philosopher.
Thomas himself was built like an ox, and legends says his loins were girded by an angel when some thot prostitute was hired by his brothers to seduce him.
Once you've built the proper character and body, your mind will be unchained and you'll ascend to see God as the purely actual, connecting it together with the Platonic Good and the Logos of Christ, comprehending the natural law and mogging continental, marxist, and analytic alike.

[Anonymous No.17438447]

>>17438388
Based as fuck

[Anonymous No.17438471]

>>17437464
His voice is so much more shrill and irritating than I remember.

[Anonymous No.17438662]

>>17437438

Get that cringe out of here, Heathen-cuck.

[Anonymous No.17438951]

>>17437464
>>17437438
> Richard Dawkins
I seriously can't believe that you are coming up with this shit

[Anonymous No.17439030]

>>17437464
>They look as though they're designed because Darwinian natural selection makes them look as though they're designed
>but they're not designed, they only look as thought they're designed
>"Ok, but why does Darwinian natural selection occur at all then? Why does it make them appear designed at all? Is that not a kind of design?"
>Because it just does, it's not God alright!

[Anonymous No.17439056]

>>17437434
Read Aristotle? Why is Aquinas so beloved on this board but not St. Augustine?

[Anonymous No.17439063]

>>17438388
>a puny weakling, or worse, an analytic philosopher.
why did you write the same thing twice?

[Anonymous No.17439074]

>>17438388
Pure calisthenics? That might maintain you're muscles once you're already jacked but you're not gonna get swole without weights anon

[Anonymous No.17439107]

>>17437434
Feser's introduction to Aquinas
Kreeft's Practical Theology
Kreeft's annotated summa, it might be called Summa of the Summa but I'm nowhere near sure
>>17439056
Augustine isn't as "intellectual," or at least he's perceived that way. I still love him.

[Anonymous No.17439110]

>>17439030
This.

[Anonymous No.17439391]

>>17437434

You need to read this post which gives you to understand that it is necessary to reject god in all events, regardless of contingent circumstances (existence, specific historical character of the supposed god, posibility of damnation, and so on), which makes the question of god superfluous.

Always reject the idea of god in all events. Do not fear pseudo-intellectual apologetics couched in naturallistic fallacies, and the idea that one should submit to a tyrant because there is no other choice.

[Anonymous No.17439503]

>>17438014
Feser is terrible in his public philosophy. Seriously, read any other contemporary Thomist or Aristotelian than Feser. Or maybe read Feser's published academic work rather than his public facing stuff, he's not actually that bad in his academic work.

Scholastic Metaphysics and Aristotle's Revenge both made me want to throw the book across the room. They were just really lazy.

[Anonymous No.17439517]

>>17437434
the collected meg and mog by nicoll and pienkowski
it's a pretty good modern retelling of aquinas' beliefs about the occult

[Anonymous No.17439529]

>>17439030
>>"Ok, but why does Darwinian natural selection occur at all then? Why does it make them appear designed at all? Is that not a kind of design?"
Time, decline and death hasn’t effected it yet, and no

[Anonymous No.17439571]

>>17439030
The based secular Aristotelian answer is "evolution is teleologically directed, but teloi are immanent and do not require conscious direction." You know, like Aristotle thought (well, not about evolution specifically, but about nature generally) before his doctrine of teleology got hijacked by the Platonists, and Aquinas inherited the form where teleology requires direction by some intellect.

[Anonymous No.17439579]

>>17439571
>evolution is teleologically directed
That is demonstrably false, and we even know why it’s false

[Anonymous No.17439593]

>>17439579
Teleological language (appeals to function, explanation in terms of adaptation, etc.) are ubiquitous even in modern biology. A lot of the skepticism of teleology in biology, I think, comes from the idea that 1. teleology requires a conscious designer (it doesn't!) and 2. a teleological interpretation of evolution requires some notion of "constant improvement" such that we can talk about something being "more evolutionarily advanced" than another (it doesn't!). All that's required for my claim to hold up is that explanations in terms of function and well-adaptedness to the environment have a place in biology, and I think they do.

[Anonymous No.17439626]

>>17439593
>Teleological language (appeals to function, explanation in terms of adaptation, etc.) are ubiquitous even in modern biology.
And in no way imply that evolution is teleological, but are merely colloquial terms out of usefulness.

Once again, pretty much every biologist knows that evolution isn’t teleological, and knows why. I’m just waiting for you to figure out why

[Anonymous No.17439675]

>>17439626
One can claim they are merely colloquial terms with no explanatory role, but then the burden is on you to explain why they are useful if they are false. It's quite a natural explanation to think that they are useful because they get at some fact of the matter underlying biological explanations.

What this doesn't commit us to is the claim that:
1. teleological explanation is irreducible;
2. intelligent design is operative in biology.

[Anonymous No.17439714]

>>17439675
>One can claim they are merely colloquial terms with no explanatory role, but then the burden is on you to explain why they are useful if they are false.

That’s because ‘use’ in biology has a very clear meaning, usually linked to survival. None of that tells you what a life form is surviving for, which is what you claim to know. You also still haven’t figured out the specific bias that’s at the root of teleology

[Anonymous No.17439719]

>>17437434
The Church Fathers and counsels

[Anonymous No.17439782]

>>17439714
Actually its meaning isn't clear, which is why there's a very large literature on understanding the place of functional language in biology. For example, there is a dispute between:
- historical and ahistorical understandings of function-ascriptions
- accounts of function more relevant to developmental biology ("organizational" function) and those relevant to evolutionary biology (evolutionary function or adaptation)

Hearts are for the sake of pumping blood; stomachs are for the sake of digesting food; livers are for the sake of pumping out toxins. I'm not claiming that the whole organism survives for the sake of some larger goal. I'm saying that organs and many actions have important functional ends which are 1. not simply identifiable with whatever effects the organ tends to have (there is a distinction between function and accidental effect), and 2. allow for distinguishing in a fairly robust way between well-functioning and malfunctioning. *This* is far less rejected in biology (and philosophy of biology, which, I should remind, is *ridiculously* scientistic - don't worry about spooky theistic supernaturalist influence) than you are presenting it to be.

[Anonymous No.17439835]

>>17437464
Instead of giving reasons for why God cannot exist this fucker really just strawmanned 5 arguments. Yikes.

[Anonymous No.17439846]

>>17437434
You're not going to read aquinas

[Anonymous No.17439868]

>>17439782
>I'm saying that organs and many actions have important functional ends which are 1. not simply identifiable with whatever effects the organ tends to have (there is a distinction between function and accidental effect),
Which assumes there’s such a thing as an idealized and static ‘functioning’, which is generally a bad idea to assume in biology

>and 2. allow for distinguishing in a fairly robust way between well-functioning and malfunctioning.
Which assumes that we know everything, which biologists also never do, since biologists deal with arguably the most complex systems we’ve ever encountered.

All of this seems to assume that all biologists are Dawkinsite orthodox Darwinists who believe in hardcore biological determinism, such as Dawkins does in the case of genetics, which many of them don’t. Since life forms are complex systems (and even the word ‘system’ might be inappropriate), mechanical approaches are highly dubious. Ironically, these mechanical approaches seem more consistent with teleology than with non-teleological analyses

[Anonymous No.17439939]

>>17437445
I can't imagine how anyone can look at American protestantism and still idolize Calvin

[Anonymous No.17439968]

>>17437445
Friendly reminder that Calvin wanted a miracle to spread his heresies, so he paid a man to pretend being dead and "resuscitate" when Calvin would arrive at his home. However, when Calvin did arrive at his home, the man was really dead.

[Anonymous No.17439979]

You don't need to read anything before reading somebody else. I've been influenced by a lot of different thinkers but it doesn't mean you have to read Aristotle and Plato in order to have a conversation with me.

[Anonymous No.17439986]

You don't have to read the Old Testament, but you should have a basic knowledge of sacred history.
Read all of the New Testament, then the Church Fathers. The most cited by Aquinas are Dionysius the Areopagite (not the pseudo one) and Saint Augustine. You could also read Ambrose, John Chrysostom and Gregory the Great.
You don't really have to read Greek philosophy, most people on this board don't know much about Catholic theology and want to emphasise the Greeks too much. But reading Plato and Aristotle can't hurt.

[Anonymous No.17440013]

>>17439868
> Which assumes there’s such a thing as an idealized and static ‘functioning’, which is generally a bad idea to assume in biology
I'm not sure what role 'idealized and static' play here. I'm committed to the existence of some concept of functioning, granted (that's what this entire argument is about), but I don't know what you mean by idealized and static.

>Which assumes that we know everything, which biologists also never do, since biologists deal with arguably the most complex systems we’ve ever encountered.
It doesn't assume that. When I say "distinguishing" I don't mean that in all cases we have the ability to distinguish between them; I mean that such a distinction exists, and that in *some* cases we can have reliable knowledge of when some feature is functioning well or poorly. This is all compatible with a wide range of ignorance about function and biological systems, too.

>All of this seems to assume that all biologists are Dawkinsite orthodox Darwinists who believe in hardcore biological determinism

I don't assume that. Are you referring to where I called philosophy of biology "ridiculously scientistic?" My only purpose in doing so was to be able to appeal to results in philosophy of biology without getting the response of "well, philosophers like spooky stuff" - I'm trying to defuse that in advance by pointing out that all of this work is done in a solidly naturalistic framework. I didn't mean to imply anything about mechanism or biological determinism.

[Anonymous No.17440022]

>>17439074
>you're

[Anonymous No.17440151]

>>17439571
>You know, like Aristotle thought
Aristotle was the one who came up with the first cause (prime mover) argument you dull fool.

[Anonymous No.17440156]

>>17437464
>>17437445
>>17437438
and people ask me why I'm catholic, kek

[Anonymous No.17440171]

>>17439571
>The unmoved mover (Ancient Greek: ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, romanized: ho ou kinoúmenon kineî, lit. 'that which moves without being moved')[1] or prime mover (Latin: primum movens) is a concept advanced by Aristotle as a primary cause (or first uncaused cause)[2] or "mover" of all the motion in the universe.[3] As is implicit in the name, the unmoved mover moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 (Greek: Λ) of his Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the unmoved mover as being perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: self-contemplation. He equates this concept also with the active intellect. This Aristotelian concept had its roots in cosmological speculations of the earliest Greek pre-Socratic philosophers and became highly influential and widely drawn upon in medieval philosophy and theology. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, elaborated on the unmoved mover in the Quinque viae.

[Anonymous No.17440214]

>>17440151
>>17440171
The first cause argument is not a teleological argument. It's a cosmological argument.

[Anonymous No.17440216]

The best arguments nowadays are actually modern and they utilize abductive reasoning.
Basically due to Occam's Razor, you need to show that the materialistic explanation is unlikely for a few key problems in modern science, and the alternative hypothesis of intelligent design is most likely to be true.

1) Fine-tuning of the universe. (The fine tuning of the forces as they are all purposeful, the universal constants and initial conditions as varying them by a marginal percentage results in a universe that could not support life) If you try to reason that it is a multi-verse you run into the Reverse Gambler's fallacy (if someone wins the lottery which is statistically unlikely it is inferred that they must have played a great deal)
2) Hard problem of consciousness and free will. At first glance it would certainly seem that the purpose of consciousness is to guide the body through use of its will. But this implies consciousness interacts with matter.
3) Mystery of Abiogenesis (1.) Chicken-or-Egg problem. DNA needs proteins to function, and vice versa (supposedly solved through RNA-World Hypothesis which has turned up many of its own problems), finding a chemical pathway for the building blocks of life (the one they taught you about in high school doesn't make much of a case), and the problem of chirality.
4.) The case for over-tuning of human evolution. Man is well-suited for use of technology and is unique compared to other animals(their faces are more expressive, their faces are naturally more distinct within the species, and the morphological differences between a human with their ancestor and other animals with their ancestors removed by 10 million years is starkly contrasted)

[Anonymous No.17440225]

>>17440214
Actually, I should elaborate on this, since I don't think this is enough.

Aristotle believes in a prime mover, and he believes in teleology. However, he does not use the prime mover's intellectual direction as an explanation for the end-directed nature of natural phenomena as, e.g., Aquinas does in the fourth way (where an explicit premise is that whatever seeks an end is either possessed of intellect or guided by an intellect). Aristotle does not believe that end-seeking behavior is dependent on intentionality.

[Anonymous No.17440280]

>>17440214
You were the one who claimed Aristotle was a secular atheist, which I just clearly demonstrated was wrong.
>The first cause argument is not a teleological argument. It's a cosmological argument.
You're technically correct, but considering Aristotle believed in teleology anyway, they both link together, even if he never explicitly states it. "Natural" and "prime mover" are equivalent for Aristotle, just as it was for Aquinas. Aquinas just made the link explicit, because Aristotle lived in a time and place where monotheism was essentially heretical.

[Anonymous No.17440342]

>>17440280
>You were the one who claimed Aristotle was a secular atheist, which I just clearly demonstrated was wrong.
I didn't claim that, nor imply it. I used the locution "secular Aristotelian" to contrast with religious forms of Aristotelianism: that is, I used it to refer to secular philosophies which take significant inspiration from Aristotle. The mere use of the phrase doesn't imply I think Aristotle is a secularist, any more than saying a "Christian Aristotelian" view exists implies that Aristotle was a Christian.

[Anonymous No.17440356]

>>17440342
>"You know, like Aristotle thought"

[Anonymous No.17440386]

>>17440356
Yes, with regard to teleology not requiring intellectual direction. I am concerned here with what Aquinas says in ST I.2.3:
>But things lacking cognition tend toward an end only if they are directed by something that has cognition and intellective understanding (non tendunt in finem nisi directa ab aliquo cognoscente et intelligente), in the way that an arrow is directed by an archer.
I am claiming that Aristotle didn't think *that*.

[Anonymous No.17440435]

>>17438177
All things are one and not-one
>Proclus
All things partake in Sameness and Difference
>Plato

So yes, he is right and keeping classical metaphysical tradition up.

[Anonymous No.17440454]

>>17437434
Just read him. If he references anything you find interesting, read that as well. Only read what you're interested in, not chronologically for chronology's sake, like some autist.

[Anonymous No.17440456]

>>17440386
>>17439571
Can you help me to conceive a telos without intelligibility? I doubt Aristotle's presentation on teleology is separated from what binds all the four causes together: Form. Yes, Aristotle was an orthodox platonist.

[Anonymous No.17440474]

>who do I need to read before reading...
Plato. Literally all you need.

[Anonymous No.17440486]

>>17438388
>recommend push-ups to read thomas
>thomas famously fat as fuck

[Anonymous No.17440542]

>>17439939
Simple

[Anonymous No.17440554]

>>17440542
I was precisely referring to evangelical nonsense.

[Anonymous No.17440568]

>>17440554
I think we have a different understanding of the word evangelical.

[Anonymous No.17440601]

>>17440542
>subjective religion isn't on the left side as well

[Anonymous No.17440749]

>>17440542
Protestantism is the liberalism of Christianity because it is individualist in nature, and that some Protestants choose to wear some traditional trappings doesn't change this, it only makes them inconsistent with their own metaphysical assumptions.

[Anonymous No.17440981]

read summa of the summa

[Anonymous No.17441011]

>>17438388

uh yes

[Anonymous No.17441097]

>>17439503
What exactly did you not like about Scholastic Metaphysics? Was it the more analytic focus? I much prefer Gilson and Owens now, but I still thought that book was valuable.

[Anonymous No.17441105]

>>17438388
>As Aristotle says, a man grows in virtue by practice. So start attracting hot women while refusing to have sex with them.

[Anonymous No.17441696]

>>17438388
top 10,000 /lit/ post

[Anonymous No.17441728]

>>17438388
This post is fundamentally, unequivocally, and irrevocably based. OST when reading it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIbXatZ1DB8

[Anonymous No.17441734]

>>17440156
You’re catholic to stick it to people on 4chan? The 16 year old tradcath meme is real

[Anonymous No.17441807]

>>17441734
not him but their half baked midwit takes represent the opinions of passively absorbed normie consensus among young people. these stupid opinions being common consensus intuits to you that the common secular consensus may be wrong and to look into religion and judge it for yourself. its not as if faith comes from not wanting to be like these middlebrow cringelords but it starts the journey toward it

[Anonymous No.17441862]

>>17438388
basado

[Anonymous No.17441898]

>>17438388
BY far the most accurate post I have ever seen on /lit/.
God bless you anon!

[Anonymous No.17441937]

>>17438388
Holy shit I have to change my life now

[Anonymous No.17442313]

>>17438388
absolutely based.

[Anonymous No.17442331]

>>17440216
>Basically due to Occam's Razor, you need to show that the materialistic explanation is unlikely for a few key problems in modern science, and the alternative hypothesis of intelligent design is most likely to be true.
Wow, you just used Occam’s razor to reconstruct the argument from ignorance.

Amazin!

[Anonymous No.17442383]

>>17438388
>So start attracting hot women while refusing to have sex with them.
insanely based

[Anonymous No.17442947]

Classical Theism (and hence Thomism) has been debunked

https://www.google.com/amp/s/majestyofreason.wordpress.com/2020/03/14/a-plethora-of-prima-facie-problems-for-classical-theism/amp/

Read and weep

[Anonymous No.17442949]

>>17437434
Could you not

[Anonymous No.17442973]

>>17442947
>debunked

[Anonymous No.17443084]

>>17440435
One more reason to think that classical metaphysics, far from being a rational interpretation of the world, is fraught with absurdity and contradiction

[Anonymous No.17443174]

>>17437434
A catechism.

[Anonymous No.17443186]

>>17440542
They differ in their accidents, sure, but essentially they are the same.

[Anonymous No.17443189]

>>17439968
Really? Do you have the fuller story behind that?

[Anonymous No.17443197]

>>17438388
This except a true understanding of Marx shows he was in complete accordance with this. Start with the greeks, end with the germans. Marx and spinoza were complete chads.

[Anonymous No.17443605]

>>17442313
I didn’t know Bishop Barron had cannons for arms

[Anonymous No.17443787]

>>17439503
Nah Feser is great. The Last Superstition would make the most hardcore atheist reconsider.

[Anonymous No.17444006]

>>17443787
I haven't read that one. I'm mostly going off A's Revenge and Scholastic Metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.17444024]

>>17438388
This. Based post topped off with 88 dubs.

Aristotle and Augustine is what you're looking for OP.

[Anonymous No.17444056]

>>17438388
I hit 225 on squat and am currently reading The Republic. Am I gonna make it?

[Anonymous No.17444684]

>>17444056
It sounds like you’re on the right track. You still have to refuse sex with hot women though, that is paramount.

[Anonymous No.17444756]

>>17437434
Honestly, this is a really good preface to the time period:

https://youtu.be/PXKQUbAKlq4

[Anonymous No.17445200]

>>17437434
at least:
Eric D. Perl - Thinking Being
Etienne Gilson - The Christian Philosophy of Aquinas
Wayne J. Hankey - Aquinas's Neoplatonism (for some nice history)
>>17437467
Ok if you're gonna touch all the philosophical background do this, but also Proclus, Dionysius and Boethius

With Aquinas's actual work, start with his quick writings:
>On the Principles of Nature
>On Being and Essence

[Anonymous No.17446334]

>>17438388
>and become like a puny weakling, or worse, an analytic philosopher.

[Anonymous No.17447353]

>>17437434
Aristotle and Plato. Maybe Seneca for some ethics too. Also the Bible (with the deuterocanon of course) and St. Augustine's works namely The Confessions, De Trinitate and the City of God.


>>17438388
Miraculously based

[Anonymous No.17447489]

>>17443605
couple of them do

[Anonymous No.17447531]

>>17443084
No, you are just really too dumb. Taking them at face value like this and posting what you did is a signal of that.

[Anonymous No.17447829]

>>17438177
if you mean the trancedental multiplicity its a rational distinction, a thing can have multiple causes like a house having a builder and designer, a symphony having multiple instruments involved in its performance

[Anonymous No.17447843]

be familiar with the aristotle and plato, read some augustine first and look into his philosophy, thomas aquinas by martin d'arcy is a good book which will help you to understand the launguage aquinas uses

[Anonymous No.17449316]

bump

[Anonymous No.17449325]

>>17440542
COPE
O
P
E
>Not real Protestantism