/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20751802]

Is he worth reading if you're not a Christian and do not wish to convert?

[Anonymous No.20751811]

he's not worth reading even if you are

[Anonymous No.20751845]

>>20751811
Not even his commentaries on Aristotle?

[Anonymous No.20751847]

>>20751802
No. The enlightenment inadvertently crumbled any hope the scholastics may have had.
If you are not a Christian it is a fruitless effort

[Anonymous No.20751865]

i would say not. it's very archaic and imo, too many of his arguments basically go something like:
> here's a thesis
> here's some pretty good objections to the thess
> but actually through jesus all things are possible. so the thesis is actually true.

but it may be worth reading someone like Feser who modernizes his language and highlights some of his stronger arguments.

[Anonymous No.20751877]

To a modern reader you'll get one of the 2 following impressions:
>It's Jesus, I don't have to explain shit
>Jesus-flavored panentheism

[Anonymous No.20751959]

>>20751802
Don't listen to the other anons here who obviously never read anything by him. On Law Morality and Politics is a classic of western philosophy that lays out an early a just war theory, among other valuable contributions.

For a deep dive, I recommend the Summa Contra Gentiles, which was his summa for non-christians. It's much more philosophical than the "because jesus" these other pseuds are telling you. Typically Aquinas is associated with Aristotle, but much of his argument in SCG feels closer to platonism. You may also find the content more relevant, since he's addressing basic philosophical questions rather than training priests. Give it a shot if you can find a set.

[Anonymous No.20751969]

>>20751802
Give one of his work a try. If you find it boring, just stop reading. At least, you will have the experience of reading and not liking, instead of going by what others have said.

[Anonymous No.20751974]

>>20751802
I'd say Ockham is far more influential and a more worthwhile read.

[Anonymous No.20751984]

>>20751802
If you want to convert just pray and attend mass. It's not that fucking hard.

[Anonymous No.20751990]

At least read his short summa so you can actually argue in good faith and not argue against strawmen like the new atheists do.

[Anonymous No.20751998]

>>20751990
But nuAtheists had several websites to be used to argue against Christians entirely devoted to using Aquinas to debunk stuff like Mega Churches and Creationism.

[Anonymous No.20752006]

>>20751998
Christianity is just wholly incompatible with America. Americans literally just worship the Antichrist, in the real sense of the word.

[Anonymous No.20752008]

>>20751998
Why the fuck would atheists be using Aquinas to argue against Traditionalist Catholicism?

[Anonymous No.20752013]

>>20751998
If you don't believe in God you shouldn't be able to use Aquinas in a argument. Sorry I don't make the rules

[Anonymous No.20752023]

>>20752006
>Buttblasted /int/ poster

[Anonymous No.20752026]

>>20752006
Are you retarded? Oh wait, of course you are, you're some fat retard who posts crusaders on twitter. You aren't even a LARPer because that would require you to go outside.

The nuAtheists weren't arguing against "Traditionalist Catholicism", whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean, they were arguing against Low Church Protestantism, because that's the only form of Christianity that matters (it's also the only one that's growing). If you tell most American Christians that you pray, they will ask if you are "Christian or Catholic".

[Anonymous No.20752027]

>>20751802
Here’s the deal anon: if you’re interested in philosophy or theology you should read him, if you aren’t interested in those subjects than don’t.

Aquinas and the schoolastics are complex, it takes a lot of head banging to get them. Granted, this is also the case with most philosophers who use principles you do not yet understand (Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, etc. Are all a huge headache until you understand how they think). Aquinas is important to the history of philosophy though, so reading him is probably a good idea if you want to know more about the subject.

Maybe I am just biased though, his commentaries were the reason I passed a class on Aristotle.

[Anonymous No.20752034]

>>20752026
I guess I'm the one who is retarded, because I meant to reply to >>20752008

[Anonymous No.20752050]

>>20752034
Yeah you failed miserably as the Protestant heretic you are. Also,
>it's also the only one that's growing
this is a lie. The number one religion in which people are voluntarily signing up everyday is still Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.20752081]

>>20752050
no it isnt lmfao

[Anonymous No.20752089]

>>20752081
You only say that because you haven't repented and started coming to a Sedevacantist barbecue.

[Anonymous No.20752096]

>>20751969
/thread

[Anonymous No.20752099]

>>20752089
You are literally a heretic, go to hell sede.

[Anonymous No.20752102]

You could have read 50 pages of Kreeft's Summa of the Summa in the time it took to shitpost about Aquinas and found out for yourself

[Anonymous No.20752106]

>>20752050
>>20752089
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but if you reject the Catholic Church by doing weird LARPy stuff like Sedevacantism, you are by definition not Catholic.

[Anonymous No.20752111]

>>20752099

[Anonymous No.20752115]

Thanks for the replies, anons. I'll probably give him a try after I get around to Aristotle's Metaphysics (so maybe next year). Not looking to argue with christians btw, I'm mostly just interested in the philosophy.

[Anonymous No.20752118]

>>20752111
You’re point?

[Anonymous No.20752122]

>>20752115
Based, report back with your thoughts once you read his stuff anon, God bless and good luck with Aristotle

[Anonymous No.20752125]

>>20752122
Thanks!

[Anonymous No.20752138]

>>20752115
You don't really need to wait that long. I strongly recommend just trying out Kreeft's Summa of the Summa. Maybe watch some of Bruce Gore's videos on Aristotle, definitely try to get a basic sense of Aristotle, but it's not like some organic progression where you need to be an Aristotle pro before you can understand Aquinas.

I'm not even a Thomist or a big Aquinas fan, I just read Kreeft's thing recently and found it surprisingly comprehensible so I thought I'd pass on the knowledge.

[Anonymous No.20752151]

>>20752138
I'll look into it. As for Aristotle, I read Nicomachean Ethics years ago, but I've been trying to get into philosophy again so right now I'm going through some of Plato's dialogues that I haven't read yet so I can build a solid foundation. Aristotle's Metaphysics is definitely on the menu next.

[Anonymous No.20752233]

>>20751811
FPBP

[Anonymous No.20752429]

>>20752050
reminder that you WILL worship the Pachamama, you WILL bow to Canadian aboriginals, and >>20752111 you WILL kiss the feet

[Anonymous No.20753562]

>>20751802

I think there is a certain value in doing opposition research on false ideas, yes. Same reason to read Marx, to better reject him from a position of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.20753880]

>>20751802
he's not worth reading even if you are

[Anonymous No.20753887]

>>20752151
His Ethics is probably the most boring book of all. Not to mention it's one of the few like Politics where he admits that there is no objective answer, which means in the end he admits it's all conjecture.

[Anonymous No.20754790]

>>20752006

[Anonymous No.20755646]

He ugly

[Anonymous No.20755649]

>>20751802
yes
t. atheist

[Anonymous No.20755771]

>>20751802

Another atheist here and the answer is yes, he is 100% worth reading. There's a lot more to Aquinas than just his arguments for the existence of God. You can't really appreciate a lot of the philosophical works that follows without understanding the Aristotelian-Thomist tradition they were building off of and/or critiquing.

[Anonymous No.20755801]

>>20751802
Maybe, if you're interested in Medieval intellectual history and the history of ideas.