[ 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: 41 KB, 387x544, St_Thomas_Aquinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6239087 No.6239087 [Reply] [Original]

Where do I start with Thomism, /lit/?

>> No.6239095

Aristotle
in other words, the Greeks

>> No.6239096

>>6239087
The Greeks.
No seriously, you can't read St. Thomas without understanding that everything he said is basically "Aristotle for Catholics".

>> No.6239136

>>6239095
>>6239096
Alright, what books do I read?

>> No.6239181

you should start decapitating Kierkegaard

>> No.6239192

>>6239087
Aristotle, Ibn Rushd, ben Maimon

>> No.6239203

>>6239136

Hm, Aristotle is a lot to put on someone's plate, but Aquinas (thankfully) wrote commentaries on a number of Aristotle's works (the Ethics, the Politics, the Physics, the Metaphysics), so choose one of those Aristotelian books, and read it alongside one of Aquinas' commentaries.

Or start with Frederick Copleston's History of Western Philosophy; I think it's either volume 2 or 3 that covers Aquinas. He doesn't make Aquinas easier, in a certain way, but it is an accessible and solid introduction to him.

>> No.6239339

>>6239203
alright, anything else? some other influential thomists?

>> No.6239360

Are Aquinas' arguments now widely accepted to be false? Or do they not really age?

>> No.6239369
File: 31 KB, 326x500, feser_aquinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6239369

>>6239339

This is a good intro. Because it's a beginner's guide, some things discussed will be noticeably incomplete, like why it is exactly that Intellect transcends death. But hey, hopefully it'll give you a good starting point with Thomism as it did for me. It sufficiently explains the Aristotelian groundwork for Aquinas's work, natural theology, ethics, etc. Give it a read, see what you think.

>> No.6239428

>>6239339

Hm, maybe look up Etienne Gilson and Josef Pieper.

>> No.6239432

>>6239369
Have you read his book on scholastic metaphysics? If so is I any good?

>> No.6239438

>>6239360
They aren't taken seriously, but neither is the idea of god/s

>> No.6239445

>>6239438
how so?

>> No.6239453

>>6239432
I read the first maybe 50 pages and put it down for a while. The first part is some refutations of scientism, which were enlightening, but then it got into some pretty heavy terminology about act and potency, listing a bunch of subtypes of each. I made a diagram, but wasn't quite in the mood for that sort of thing at the time lol. It was sort of showing the path of things to come later, so it was like "Scholastics make the distinction between a and b. a means this, which can be divided into c and d. c means e." etc. without enumerating on anything, which is saved for later. I've been meaning to pick it up again actually.

>> No.6239456

>>6239445
Lack of evidence

>> No.6239464

>>6239360

Thomism came back in the late 19th and early 20th century after people not liking Medieval philosophy for awhile. These days Thomism has allot of support and it is only getting more reputable as time passes. Allot of people who thought they got his arguments really did'nt in the past for several reasons so we've had ALLOT of strawAquinas bashing and a lack of real understanding of his work. As >>6239096 mentioned, after the revolt against Scholasticism in the 17th century most Philosophers actually didn't understand Aristotelean metaphysics well at all, so they did'nt really understand the arguments that Thomas put forward. And logic was downplayed after the Black Death so over time the rigor of the Meideval Philosophers was not appreciated like it should have been. When Frege Reinvented logic and clarity, formality and rigor were improving in Philosophy you started getting allot of new interest in Aquinas and other Scholastics, and more and more Philosophy departments take him as one of the truly great Philosophers. Modal Logic, careful linguistic distinctions and a "scientific" bent unifies modern Analytic and Scholastic Philosophy, if you replace the Analytic's autism with Piety then you get a pretty good picture of what guys like Aquinas were all about.

>> No.6239468

>>6239438

Then when is Aquinas taught at the graduate level and can constantly be found in academic journals that deal with contemporary topics ?

>> No.6239473

>>6239360
Contemporary Thomists obviously think at least some of them hold. You can read about some objections to the first three Ways here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#3

>> No.6239496

>>6239468
Fine, religious apologists take him seriously.

>> No.6239508

>>6239496

Mm, and metaphysicians and political philosophers! Even in disagreement with him, he's read very carefully (cf. Heidegger), and political philosophers take his thought on natural law seriously, with respect to modern concerns with rights (Harry Jaffa).

>> No.6239515

>>6239496
theology != philosophy. Religious apologists argue about their own things, but there is plenty in Aquinas that is deserving of philosophical merit in its own right.

>> No.6239519

>>6239192

Avicenna doh

>> No.6239529

>>6239496

Do you really think that Aquinas' thought is limited to arguments for God's existence?. You can be an Atheist and hold many of the same metaphysical and epistemological positions that he does in a slightly modified sense.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Summa Theologica was written for 15 year olds, it's literally a first year university textbook. Aquinas has far more sophisticated work that he wrote for serious Philosophers. People who are ignorant of his work tend to think that the Summa is his peak intellectually.

>> No.6239535

>>6239529
No, but none of it is worth anything in contemporary philosophy

>> No.6239545

>>6239535

And who are you to make this claim against the thousands of professional philosophers who disagree with you?, are you Saul Kripke or someone ?

>> No.6239561

>>6239529
>Aquinas has far more sophisticated work that he wrote for serious Philosophers.

I'm on your side, so don't lambaste me. What is this work?

>> No.6239582

>>6239561
"On Evil" is a pretty fascinating work of moral philosophy even if you don't believe in God.

>> No.6239596

>>6239582
ty

>> No.6239597

>>6239561

Summa Contra Gentiles is one, it was the advanced one for dealing with the top tier Jewish and Muslim Philosophers. De Veritas seemed pretty interesting but I've only done bits and pieces of it.

>> No.6239652

>>6239597
AFAIK the two Summae are really the while of his output. This is the first time I've seen them referred to as 'for fifteen-year-olds' so I'm skeptical of your claim, though I'm on your side aside from this claim.

>> No.6239702

>>6239652

Remember 15 year old= University Student in 13th Century Europe with a strong grasp of Aristotelean Logic. Summa Contra Gentiles is the more advanced one that was meant for non-Christians who had Philosophical training at a top tier level, it was meant for converting Muslims and Jews who were at his level, while the other one was meant to be a textbook for students. I'm not saying it to discredit Summa Theologica, it's a great work- but it isn't his pinnacle intellectually. Maybe my prof is just crazy and is wrong about all this but he is an Aquinas expert.

>> No.6239707
File: 22 KB, 400x400, RIP in peace Bob Ross.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6239707

>Concerning the angels, we consider first what belongs to their substance; secondly, what belongs to their intellect; thirdly, what belongs to their will; fourthly, what belongs to their creation.

>Objection 1: It would seem that an angel is composed of matter and form. For everything which is contained under any genus is composed of the genus, and of the difference which added to the genus makes the species. But the genus comes from the matter, and the difference from the form (Metaph. xiii, text 6). Therefore everything which is in a genus is composed of matter and form. But an angel is in the genus of substance. Therefore he is composed of matter and form.

>Objection 2: Further, wherever the properties of matter exist, there is matter. Now the properties of matter are to receive and to substand; whence Boethius says (De Trin.) that "a simple form cannot be a subject": and the above properties are found in the angel. Therefore an angel is composed of matter and form.

what idiot reads this shit?

>> No.6239720

>>6239707
Wait, are you saying there's any logical flaw in that?

>> No.6239723

>>6239707
>what idiot reads this shit?
You, apparently.

>> No.6239730

>>6239720
God is perfect. Things that are perfect are good in every way. Deliciousness is a form of goodness. Therefore God is delicious. French fries are delicious too. Therefore God is a french fry. Canonize me, bitches.

>> No.6239734
File: 1.42 MB, 1810x2500, Stuppacher_Madonna_Jesuskind.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6239734

>>6239730
Dat literally Dawkins-tier argument.
Funny as fuck shitposting bro.

>> No.6239747

>>6239720
The part where it says angels exist.

>> No.6239758

>>6239747
Lol he never says that?

>> No.6239760

>>6239747

How does the existence of an Angel entail a logical impossibility ?