/lit/ - Literature

Doesn't quantum physics disprove what he said?

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

>>11357426
By being Thomas Aquinas

Where the fuck do I start with this guy? his stuff seems so dense and I feel like it could easily go over my head if I improperly digest it.

>>11318417
Aristotle because his work was taken to it's natural conclusion by the greatest philosopher of all time

>>11278896

Have faith you Danish bitch.

>>11148378
Whether fate is unchangeable?

Objection 1: It seems that fate is not unchangeable. For Boethius says (De Consol. iv): "As reasoning is to the intellect, as the begotten is to that which is, as time to eternity, as the circle to its centre; so is the fickle chain of fate to the unwavering simplicity of Providence."

Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Topic. ii, 7): "If we be moved, what is in us is moved." But fate is a "disposition inherent to changeable things," as Boethius says (De Consol. iv). Therefore fate is changeable.

Objection 3: Further, if fate is unchangeable, what is subject to fate happens unchangeably and of necessity. But things ascribed to fate seem principally to be contingencies. Therefore there would be no contingencies in the world, but all things would happen of necessity.

On the contrary, Boethius says (De Consol. iv) that fate is an unchangeable disposition.

I answer that, The disposition of second causes which we call fate, can be considered in two ways: firstly, in regard to the second causes, which are thus disposed or ordered; secondly, in regard to the first principle, namely, God, by Whom they are ordered. Some, therefore, have held that the series itself or dispositions of causes is in itself necessary, so that all things would happen of necessity; for this reason that each effect has a cause, and given a cause the effect must follow of necessity. But this is false, as proved above (Question [115], Article [6]).

Others, on the other hand, held that fate is changeable, even as dependent on Divine Providence. Wherefore the Egyptians said that fate could be changed by certain sacrifices, as Gregory of Nyssa says (Nemesius, De Homine). This too has been disproved above for the reason that it is repugnant to Divine Providence.

We must therefore say that fate, considered in regard to second causes, is changeable; but as subject to Divine Providence, it derives a certain unchangeableness, not of absolute but of conditional necessity. In this sense we say that this conditional is true and necessary: "If God foreknew that this would happen, it will happen." Wherefore Boethius, having said that the chain of fate is fickle, shortly afterwards adds—"which, since it is derived from an unchangeable Providence must also itself be unchangeable."

From this the answers to the objections are clear.

>>10725484
monks are mentally ill then?

It's clear that Aquinas' ideas are garbage as either god does not exist or even if he does (or they do), they're perfect assholes who are undeserving of our veneration. Further, it's also clear that Aristotle was absolutely wrong about the physical sciences, though he may have had some historically interesting insights on ethics and other squishier things.

So given the above, why do people insist that these two are such "philosphical heavyweights" apart from the fact that both of them "wrote a lot of stuff a long time ago"? Sounds to me (and I think rightly unless someone can step up) like a garbage valuation-process of old ideas.

Give me a simple, easily explained summary (heh) of one single good or true interesting philosophical notion that either of Aquinas or Aristotle had in their own works.

How does one read the Bible?
Where do I begin?
I have the ESV.

Why did he build his house on a foundation of mud?

Why did he build his house on a foundation of mud?

In the Catholic Church dogma, what is the biblical basis for the intercession of the saints, who are long dead?

I'm no protestant, but this is a question that I have been asking all my catholic friends with no satisfying answer. In Revelations, we are aware that the angels bring God the prayers of saints (Revelations 8.3-4). But this only tells us that there are saints who are men, debunking the argument of "Only Jesus is saint", not that these prayers come from dead saints. We also know that when humans die, they go to Hades or Seoul, which are both part of the Land of the Dead, and there they rest until the Final Judgment. Still, nowhere in the bible we read that those in Seoul (for only those who rest there can be called saints) can have any contact with those living and with God.

Then, what is the biblical basis for such intercessions?

>>10400772
>God exists because fuck y'all doubting niggaz

Where should I get started with Aquinas?

Also theology thread

The arguments at defense of Christian theology:

>the argument at literary volume
Over centuries hundreds of theologians wrote thousands of volumens. How can YOU possibly compete with that?

>the argument at presupposed ignorance
I won't speak with ignorants. You have to first read all of st. Augustine and Aquinas. By the way, those are heavily rooted on Plato and Aristotle, so read all of those too. Then the entire Bible, and when you're done you can get back to me.

>"pearls before swine" argument
I have all the arguments, but I won't share them with you, because you would just ignore them anyway.

>argument at faith
Christianity is primarily about faith, so I don't have to give you any arguments.

>argument at social benefit
Christianity is beneficial to the society, so why would anyone even want to argument against it?

>argument at fedora
LMAO atheist *tips fedora*

With those arguments in store, Christians are impregnable in debate.

Was there ever a worse person? He and Augustine single-handedly swerved Aristotle's and Plato's legacy, immortalized perverted translations and crass, deliberate misinterpretations to fit their cosmology. It irks me to no end.

>>10321719
>>10321656
>>10321600
See what I'm talking about? Absolutely twisted perception of Platonic Idealism.

Why does it seem like every book I've picked up recently is basically Christian propaganda? If I read another word of "muh God" or "muh objective morality" I'm gonna freak. Right-wing intellectuals don't argue their points, they just throw a bunch of opinions at you.

>inb4 I'm a fedora
No, I just don't think "because God said so!" is a good ethical argument.

When did you realize that St. Thomas Aquinas has all the answers?

imagine having a 5-minute conversation with Thomas Aquinas

Did no great philosopher address the works of Aquinas? For the sake of not being misunderstood, by great I mean the philosophers whom are today considered quintessential (e.g. Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Hegel...). Although Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza should not be on that list since they were more than familiar with scholasticism. But what about the others? In addition: are there any contemporary significant Aquinas scholars?

On a side note, has anyone on this board actually read the entire summa? What do you think of his work?

who is his successor? spinoza? GEM and/or her husband?

>>9934387
for me, it's plato. however, aquinas does such a good job at structuring his investigations that even a bum-legged, one-eyed goatfucker could be led to god.

so i'll say the summae