/lit/ - Literature

I'm trying to understand the Thomist position on why sexual acts outside of reproduction are bad or unfitting

From what I've read so far, Thomas argues that
>using something in a way that perverts its function is bad
>this is not just "using something for a purpose other than it was designed for", e.g. your hands are not made for walking, but walking on your hands is not morally evil as a result
>but we might say that if something is used against its purpose in such a way that it frustrates the purpose its designed for, that's bad
>sexuality is a common human good, meaning it is something for producing more children for the benefit of mankind
>if you use sexuality for something other than that, it frustrates that purpose, and consequently is bad
>however sexual pleasure is also partially a function of sexuality and is helpful for pair-bonding, so this is also relevant

Is this right? I'm having trouble diffrentiating between online thomists speculating and what Thomas actually argued.

I don't quite grasp the argument that something like masturbation actively frustrates the production of children - this would seem like an issue of frequency/type (e.g. jacking it 10 times a day to /d/ porn is likely to hinder your ability to fuck a woman, but like once a month with no porn wouldn't) rather than it being substantively wrong by default

I'm not very smart so if there are any big-brain Thomists out there who can explain sexual ethics to me I'd appreciate it

>>19581915
It is my duty to inform you that you are on the road to ETERNAL DAMNATION, and shall suffer HELLFIRE FOR ALL ETERNITY, FOREVER AND EVER.
REPENT NOW OR SUFFER YOUR SINS.
>>19581960
By God's grace, he was given the power of reason, to see and to know his glory, and his work was preserved so that all can see, the unmoved mover, the one, GOD ALMIGHTY, HOLY and MOST BLESSED.
>1122. And those who say that mathematical number is the primary reality and that there is always one substance after another and give different principles for each, make the substance of the universe itself a group of substances unrelated to each other (for one substance confers nothing upon another, either by being or not being), and give us many principles. But beings do not want to be badly disposed.—“Many rulers are not good; therefore let there be one ruler.”
>t. Aristotle, in his metaphysics
> 2663. But many rulers are not good. For example, it would not be good for different families which shared nothing in common to live in a single home. Hence it follows that the whole universe is like one principality and one kingdom, and must therefore be governed by one ruler. Aristotle’s conclusion is that there is one ruler of the whole universe, the first mover, and one first intelligible object, and one first good, whom above he called God (1074:C 2544), who is blessed for ever and ever. Amen.
>t. Aquinas, in his commentaries to the metaphysics.
You are like the fish who is confounded by the very concept of water.

>The chad Aquinas BTFO of the virgin Averroes

Should I read Aristotle before reading Aquinas or can I just skip to Aquinas? I’m mainly just interested in Catholicism/Christianity, not really philosophy as a whole

Who would be the top 10 philosophers with the most instagram followers?

Any books on this?

The endgame of philosophy is Thomist-Marxism. This is the objective truth that all who study rationally will discover.

Nothing which implies contradiction falls underthe omnipotence of God.thomas aquinas,Summ. Theol., Iaq xxv, Art 4

>>13383333
You forgot the biggest Aristotelian psued of them all, OP

>Without any doubt we must hold simple fornication to be a mortal sin.
Jesus literally forgave harlots, and a mortal sin by definition cannot be forgiven.
Why do you people respect this brainlet?

copies of copies and translations of translations
words that had different meanings and implications at the time
church and state were one, so many laws were as well
metaphorical language used throughout, but not always

The Bible is complex and difficult, which is why it's the most studied book in history. I think people who really want to understand it should read the works of others who wanted to do the same.

>>11377597
God is pure actuality, unconditioned being, whose existence is same as His essence. He is distinct from the material world, but is necessary for its existence and sustenance. He is absolutely simple and has divine attributes such as omnipresence, omniscience, etc. that are understood by the way of analogy.

You can arrive at all of this via unaided human reason. Read some St. Aquinas, pseuds.

>>11148373
that what is accidental, is properly speaking neither a being, nor a unity. But every action of nature terminates in some one thing. Wherefore it is impossible for that which is accidental to be the proper effect of an active natural principle. No natural cause can therefore have for its proper effect that a man intending to dig a grace finds a treasure. Now it is manifest that a heavenly body acts after the manner of a natural principle: wherefore its effects in this world are natural. It is therefore impossible that any active power of a heavenly body be the cause of what happens by accident here below, whether by luck or by chance.

We must therefore say that what happens here by accident, both in natural things and in human affairs, is reduced to a preordaining cause, which is Divine Providence. For nothing hinders that which happens by accident being considered as one by an intellect: otherwise the intellect could not form this proposition: "The digger of a grave found a treasure." And just as an intellect can apprehend this so can it effect it; for instance, someone who knows a place where a treasure is hidden, might instigate a rustic, ignorant of this, to dig a grave there. Consequently, nothing hinders what happens here by accident, by luck or by chance, being reduced to some ordering cause which acts by the intellect, especially the Divine intellect. For God alone can change the will, as shown above (Question [105], Article [4]). Consequently the ordering of human actions, the principle of which is the will, must be ascribed to God alone.

So therefore inasmuch as all that happens here below is subject to Divine Providence, as being pre-ordained, and as it were "fore-spoken," we can admit the existence of fate: although the holy doctors avoided the use of this word, on account of those who twisted its application to a certain force in the position of the stars. Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 1): "If anyone ascribes human affairs to fate, meaning thereby the will or power of God, let him keep to his opinion, but hold his tongue." For this reason Gregory denies the existence of fate:

wherefore the first objection's solution is manifest

Reply to Objection 2: Nothing hinders certain things happening by luck or by chance, if compared to their proximate causes: but not if compared to Divine Providence, whereby "nothing happens at random in the world," as Augustine says (Questions. 83, qu. 24).

By God, this thread is chock full of deluded post-modern degenerate NIHILISTS. How can you look at the world around you and not realize that it is not just by chance that it exists, that some kind of higher power conceived it and that this higher power is the same which rules over our very lives? How far up your ass must you be to think that your actions have no effect in the grand scheme and that all of it is meaningless? How deceived by the Enemy must you be to think that man can live without law and that it all trickles down to a savage struggle between men?

Wake up and repent while you still can. I urge every one in this thread to seek salvation in the words of the Lord. The end is nigh and I advise you to stop seeking answer in the deceitful babble of puppets of Satan, who dare to call themselves philosophers (Nietzsche, for example), I urge you to seek knowledge from the Bible, from the word of the LORD. It's truthful, it was inspired by God himself.

May the Lord lead you all to salvation.

>be theologian
>be taken seriously while you make up dozens of fan theories for a really old book
>the only difference between a theologian and a /lit/ shitposter is which books they occupy themselves with

How do i get into thomas aquinas and scholasticism?

I have already read the catechism,bible and some apologetical works i.e pensees,mere christianity,city of god,confessions,etc.

Take off with the Thomists

>>6463157
I can see it being the first thing I read after retirement maybe, but for now there's no point in devoting that much time and effort into one "book." You can learn most of Aquinas' theology from other sources anyway.

>>6463174
>no, I haven't read it

>ftfy

It can't. Therefore God.