Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 141 KB, 800x675, Thomas-Aquinas-Black-large-800x675.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14911381 No.14911381 [Reply] [Original]

Alright, no memes. Who has actually refuted Thomism? Every conversation I've had with an atheist has ended in them either not understanding the argument or them giving up. Kantianism and Humeianism are clearly long gone and we as a society have collectively agreed that we exist in a material world and are able to empirically learn about it; this fits Thomism perfectly. What legitimate philosopher has refuted him?

>> No.14911411

>>14911381
Tell me more about Thomism.

Is it basically official Catholic Philosophy?

>> No.14911412

>>14911411
quasi-official, the church doesn't have a official philosophy as such.

>> No.14911419

>>14911411
You can be Catholic without being a Thomist but Aquinas is generally considered the Catholic churches greatest philosopher. Thomism is essentially Christian-Aristotelianism.

>> No.14911433

>>14911381
It's just that he systematized too much and was already leaning more towards a naturalistic kind of mindset as opposed to a spiritual kind of mindset. But then again most religious people reduce themselves into being nothing more than mere creatures. My main criticism of him is that he said it's okay to torture Heretics and if that doesn't refute him in some way then you must not care about goodness. Since goodness and Truth are one thing in God it means that somewhere his truth is lacking. Berdyaev criticized him a bit but I forgot what he said. Probably some Orthodox people have some criticisms for him.

>> No.14911436

>>14911411
I have a super catholic close friend. He is very involved in the Catholic community and is a great person but he doesnt read literature or Philosophy at all. When we discuss topics he is always behind in arguments, but he has mentioned Thomism a few times in his best arguments. Since he doesnt read himself I'm sure the whole community is knowledgeable on Thomism, and probably only on that beyond repeating the Bible verbatim.

>> No.14911447

>no one has provided an argument against thomism so far
Not even op but come on lads

>> No.14911448

>>14911412
>>14911419
>Thomas Aquinas held and practiced the principle that truth is to be accepted no matter where it is found. His doctrines drew from Greek, Roman, Islamic and Jewish philosophers.

Based. Syncretism, I appreciate that, but I'm guessing most Catholics have lost this spirit, in that their search for truth has been fossilized by tradition; are Thomists still open to truths from other religions and such (like Protestantism or *gasp* Urantia?)

>> No.14911487
File: 165 KB, 453x680, 78.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14911487

>>14911448
>The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.

>The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life, they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

more: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhishiktananda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_Griffiths

>> No.14911504

>>14911447
The argument of contingency is infallible. It is a paradox that is resolved by defining something into existence, but it is the only answer to the origin of the universe.

>> No.14911561

>>14911487
Thank you.
I'm amazed, I did not know the Catholic Church was officially so enlightened and tolerant.

195:10.11.Christianity is seriously confronted with the doom embodied in one of its own slogans: "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The non-Christian world will hardly capitulate to a sect-divided Christendom. The living Jesus is the only hope of a possible unification of Christianity. The true church—the Jesus brotherhood—is invisible, spiritual, and is characterized by unity, not necessarily by uniformity. Uniformity is the earmark of the physical world of mechanistic nature. Spiritual unity is the fruit of faith union with the living Jesus. The visible church should refuse longer to handicap the progress of the invisible and spiritual brotherhood of the kingdom of God. And this brotherhood is destined to become a living organism in contrast to an institutionalized social organization. It may well utilize such social organizations, but it must not be supplanted by them.

>> No.14911583

>>14911561
shut the fuck up about your retarded cult I am Catholic and am speaking for the faith when I say you will burn in hell

>> No.14911591

>>14911583
Swedenborg said that mean people don't have faith in God.

>> No.14911595

>>14911591
Who cares about his worthless opinion

>> No.14911597

Aquinas like Augustine supported prostitution being legal for "the common good". As a Muslim I see that as undermining his conception of the common good altogether

>> No.14911642

>>14911381
What *exactly* is Thomism? Almost every philosopher in the history of the discipline believed in a first cause.

>> No.14911665

>Every conversation I've had with an atheist has ended in them either not understanding the argument or them giving up

Sure, all of them, every single last one of them didn’t understand it. Or they did, showed you that it’s an incomprehensible mess of sophistry and language games, and since you have a stake in it being literally flawless, just plugged your ears, went ‘lalala, I can’t hear you’ and then declared victory.

Anyway, onto your question: Thomism is unfalsifiable. It never states in which case it is certainly an inaccurate model of reality. This disqualifies it instantly as having any truth value whatsoever, because it’s not willing to put its claims to any test whatsoever.

>> No.14911669

>>14911583
195:10.12.But the Christianity of even the twentieth century must not be despised. It is the product of the combined moral genius of the God-knowing men of many races during many ages, and it has truly been one of the greatest powers for good on earth, and therefore no man should lightly regard it, notwithstanding its inherent and acquired defects. Christianity still contrives to move the minds of reflective men with mighty moral emotions.

195:10.13.But there is no excuse for the involvement of the church in commerce and politics; such unholy alliances are a flagrant betrayal of the Master. And the genuine lovers of truth will be slow to forget that this powerful institutionalized church has often dared to smother newborn faith and persecute truth bearers who chanced to appear in unorthodox raiment.

195:10.14.It is all too true that such a church would not have survived unless there had been men in the world who preferred such a style of worship. Many spiritually indolent souls crave an ancient and authoritative religion of ritual and sacred traditions. Human evolution and spiritual progress are hardly sufficient to enable all men to dispense with religious authority. And the invisible brotherhood of the kingdom may well include these family groups of various social and temperamental classes if they are only willing to become truly spirit-led sons of God. But in this brotherhood of Jesus there is no place for sectarian rivalry, group bitterness, nor assertions of moral superiority and spiritual infallibility.

>> No.14911677

>>14911487
>Vatican 2

>> No.14911681

>>14911665
>Anyway, onto your question: Thomism is unfalsifiable. It never states in which case it is certainly an inaccurate model of reality. This disqualifies it instantly as having any truth value whatsoever, because it’s not willing to put its claims to any test whatsoever.

Aquinas presents his arguments via logical arguments. Are you saying logical arguments cannot be falsified?

>> No.14911694

>>14911669
only the words of Christ should be listened to, all other sayings are mere opinions

>> No.14911697

>>14911681
And logical arguments were merely show you internal consistency. If you want it to be an accurate model of reality, it also needs to be consistent with reality. Anyone can make a set of propositions consistent with itself and call it a day. That doesn’t get you anywhere. It’s also the reason why we, instead of theological deductions, we use models based on real world data, because those have actual consequences linked to them and actually help us describe reality, which Thomism does not. Like I said, anyone can make a consistent logical deduction. Here’s one:

1. All horses are pink
2. Henry is a horse
Conclusion: Henry is pink

This is logically completely sound, and has precisely fuck all to do with an accurate description of reality

>> No.14911703

>>14911697
How is a logical deduction from the empirically true statement that change is found in the universe something that isn't an accurate description of reality?

>> No.14911718

>>14911703
>change is found

Okay, now, how can we use this cutting edge piece of knowledge to use for something that has actual consequences? Can you use this knowledge for developing new medicine, for instance? Can you translate this knowledge into new technologies, that will better the collective lives of mankind?

See, that’s the difference between actual science and bullshit sophistry. Actual science has consequences. Biological theories on viruses are now being used to fight the coronavirus. Now, what about Thomism? Is it being used for anything, other than giving Catholics good feelfeels in their tummy? You tell me

>> No.14911725

>>14911718
Wait, if you actually think that logically true statements are not true if they do not inherently produce consequences that can be empirically observed, please do not ever do math or take an IQ test. Logically true statements are TRUE even if you cannot observe them, hence why 1+1=2 exists outside of material perception.

>> No.14911727

>>14911381
>Kantianism and Humeianism are clearly long gone
what

>> No.14911781

>>14911718

There are more ways to serve the human good than making the next widget to consume, since humans have more and subtler interests than can be served by such products.

That God exists illuminates our rightful priorities, lends coherence and purpose to human life, and ultimately integrates the search for the true, the good and the beautiful as a coherent and substantive endeavour. This in turn helps foster the kind of intellectual and spiritual environment in which the technological progress we do make, in light of a superior understanding of the ends of man in relation to God, proceeds in harmony with the true human good. This cannot fail to make life better than it would otherwise be.

>> No.14911845

>>14911381
>Every conversation I've had with an atheist has ended in them either not understanding the argument or them giving up
That's called being an atheist, mate; they can't argue for shit. The reason why is because they almost never understand what they're talking about, and often have a bunch of emotional baggage.
I don't think you'll get a discussion here--the thread will either end up dying or a bunch of atheists or larpagans will come in and post things about a kike on a stick and muh ancestors.

>> No.14911880
File: 29 KB, 118x178, 62370_cov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14911880

Palamas has great refutation of it.
If you want a church father go to Saint Maximus the confessor.

>> No.14911882

>>14911880
>Palamas

yike, read John Bekkos. The EO are literal schismastics and haven't produced any interesting theology post-schism. Eastern rite is nice though, but Palamas is for brainlets and larpers.

>> No.14911883

>>14911880
barlaam wasn't a thomist though

>> No.14911901

>>14911448
I identify as a Catholic and I am open to other religions, though Protestantism and Urantia are probably the last two I would ever look into based off what I learned so far. Though I am probably heterodox because I do not believe in dogma.

>> No.14911913
File: 28 KB, 315x506, 9781978703780.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14911913

>>14911882
>interesting theology
its about truth dumbass, and modern teologians like Dumitru Staniloae can still shit on your bullshit

>> No.14911915

>>14911901
Catholicism is not something to pick and choose from, heretic.

>> No.14911920

>>14911725
Math is not some immaterial woo woo. Mathematical statements can be tested in reality. 1+1=2 is relevant because I can actually test it. I can test it using my fingers.

>> No.14911936

>>14911781
>There are more ways to serve the human good than making the next widget to consume, since humans have more and subtler interests than can be served by such products.

In that case, if a vaccin for the coronavirus is produced, refuse it. Instead, pray the virus away. You of course won’t, because when it comes to real consequences, you couldn’t care less about illumination of rightful priorities. You won’t care about coherence, purpose to human life, integration of the search for truth, the good and the beautiful as a coherent and substantive endeavour. You won’t give a flying fuck about any of that. When the vaccin comes out, you will run to wherever they’re putting it in your body, just like anyone else, whether they believe in a god or don’t. And that’s all the proof I need. In words you’re a believer, in deeds you’re an atheist, and what you do is what you believe in

>> No.14911940

>>14911920
Your abstraction of 1+1=2 does not make it empirical.

>> No.14911946

>>14911920
stfu mathlet go and find "i" anywhere in reality

>> No.14911954

>>14911940
My abstraction? What are you talking about? 1+1=2 can be tested in reality. If I have one ball, add to it another ball, and get any number other than two, I would have falsified it. Besides, math isn’t immaterial. Math is intersubjective. It’s a language we use to describe the world around us.

>> No.14911956

>>14911946
Consciousness is an unknown at this point. That doesn’t mean that a god exists. That would be an argument from ignorance

>> No.14911968

>>14911956
im talking about the number i but the self or the past, future being like the past are just as nonexistent on empirical grounds.

>> No.14911983

>>14911968
>number i
Tool used to describe reality, an intersubjective notion, as I explained in my earlier post
>workings of time
An unknown, which would make the reasoning that therefore a god must exist another argument from ignorance

>> No.14912008
File: 3.23 MB, 2000x1334, 5UduD0K.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14912008

>>14911936

>> No.14912025

>>14911983
its not arguments of ignorance, but arguments for the fact that empiric bs cant explain immaterial thing. And you are assuming i is a tool to discrete reality, so its made up does not exists ? That is absolute nonsense no mathematician will accept that numbers are just made up bs. why even bother with if it was like that.
And there are lots of new numbers being discovered now that dont describe reality and are far outside it even.

>> No.14912031

>>14912008
nothing in religion forbids going to the doctor or using science.

>> No.14912109
File: 90 KB, 720x892, ESP4MC_UMAAeDpy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14912109

>>14911381
The non-dualists and monists already refuted everything Christian, including the mystics.

>> No.14912130

>>14912031
>implying atheists aren't retarded

>> No.14912140

>>14912031
it does if u take it seriously desu

>> No.14912290

>>14912140
Taking religion seriously means that you accept God's providential authorship of all things, and treat all goods, miraculous or otherwise, as gifts from him and with thanks. Religious and irreligious alike use God's gifts, but the atheist is just an ingrate.

>> No.14912300

>>14912109
Nah. The Monists get as far as the third word of Genesis, and are refuted by everything after. Christ is the answer to the monist's desire for union with God, yet without the pernicious requirement of negating everything else as an illusion.

>> No.14912335
File: 2.19 MB, 1700x2275, Aristotle_Altemps_Inv8575.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14912335

>>14911954
Time and space, ie. number and form are the modus operandi for our perception. The things we abstract from are the things we abstract to. The process of abstraction starts when we see two balls, recognize them as two separate things, because we recognize form which means we recognize separation. Form doesn't exist when when all is one. If one is encapsulated in something else, like a sphere within an endless space, we recognize two. Form implies separation, separation implies number (multitude/many). Form/number also implies being: being something at least for an instant, however short, before changing into something else. Now, their are conditions for knowledge, knowledge is like a tropical plant that needs a specific habitat to pop out of the ground and flower. If you cannot distinguish one form from the other, all is one, and there is no one or two or three, there is only it. No form = no separation = no number = no balls. As for change: something doesn't need to be exactly the same for all eternity for number to have any bearing on reality/the empirical. It does however need to be the same for one instant however brief. Now consider this: if these conditions do not apply to ''reality'', is knowledge possible? Can you say that 1 + 1 = 2 has any bearing on reality? No. And here is the punchline: how can we have knowledge of these conditions applying to ''reality'', aka 'to what truly is-there', or not if knowledge without these conditions is impossible? We can't. Another form (or better put: 'way') of having knowledge of the world can impossibly be fathomed by us, and realizing that this way of knowing can be seen as a 'tool' to orient and work in the world, just as our legs are (however I'm not dumbing this down to just some darwinian argument) it makes you doubt even more than before whether or not these 'essential conditions' for knowledge truly apply to 'what-there-is' or not. We cannot say that it is either one of these possibilities based on knowledge. What we CAN say is that: 1. There is a 'noumena' something necessarily works on our apparatus from the outside, this means no solipsism (''Oh no, we're just trapped in a mental cage dude! Does anything even exist?? Whoah''). But also that yes, there is causative necessity as in 1+1 = 2, but that is relative to us. Where God/Ousia/an ultimate ordering principle comes in is that metaphysics concerns itself with what lies beyond that highest point that ontology (the study of what is within this reality we interpret) reaches. We just previously reached that outermost limit, beyond it we wouldn't be able to say something with necessity (according to man) and all we would say would have a status of poetry. We can study the implication that this limit and the 'presence of something' (see how uncomfortable it becomes to say that?) has on our reality. You could call this 'giving our reality, what we can speak of in ontology' context. Thus -> Theology/the transcendent ineffable.

>> No.14912341

>>14912109
Fuck off Guénonfag.

>> No.14912385

>>14912140
No person worth taking seriously backs the idea of an omnipotent God in the way as a sky daddy taking care of all your needs. When they pray, meditate, contemplate the divine, they do nothing of the sort as a serious practitioner seeks in that moment to seek a parallel line evanescent, but not touching the divine and just ask for a favor and pray for good luck. It's superstition. This is a children's understanding of the divine. These people only seek a code/way of life and if you discuss these matters with them, you won't be talking about the same thing. So yes, go see a doctor.

>> No.14912440

>>14912341
holy based...

>> No.14912490

>>14912109
Christian orthodoxy is anti-dualist though, low IQ poster

>> No.14912525
File: 897 KB, 2220x2792, hohhoho.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14912525

Damascius 700 years earlier, explicitly.
Plotinus 1000 years earlier, implicitly.
Plato via negativa 1600 year earlier in Parmenides

>> No.14912529

>>14912140
no doctor are just a servants of God the same way you are. They are saving life no one in their right mid would call that a transgression against God, or that is somehow bad.

>> No.14912536
File: 3.19 MB, 3557x4454, sabazios.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14912536

>>14912109
misinterpreted Zoroastrianism (gnosticism and manichaeism), and eastern shit, are the only dualist beliefs out there

>> No.14912770

>>14912140
nah, prayer and works states you need to be active and take initiative if you want something done. The fact that you can see a doctor when you're sick IS the blessing.

>> No.14912787

>>14911381

His arguments often make no Logical sense, just daisy chains of affective bumper stickers. Simply putting "therefore" between random words does not constitute an argument.

>> No.14912814

>>14911381
Hume isn't long gone we've just kind of ignored him so we can live our lives. Inductive reasoning has no basis in deductive reasoning. It's funny that religion defaults to a pragmatic argument about what works in our lives

>> No.14912819

>>14911845

Actually no, you're so wrong there. People with faith often tell me what I believe in and they will often tell me what my arguments are before I've even told them what I believe in.
That's not even a case of a bad argument. That's just blatant dishonesty and lying to make their case better.

And uh.. emotional baggage? No, I realized years ago that religion sucks, because it isn't an answer to anything. I understood the effects of having a sense of belonging to a particular group, which will give you those warm feelings of comfort in a world where you ain't got the answers to the million questions nor the time to find out.

I do understand what I am talking about and fact of the matter is that the theists always tell me my positions on every damn thing like they know it all before I've even said anything.

>> No.14912856

He takes random sources as fact and does mental gymnastics around it

>> No.14912927

>>14912819
I doubt it lad
Dig deep enough and it's always the same reasons

>> No.14912961

>>14912927

Really? So go then, fly.. enlighten me and tell me what I know, since you know my mind.
I do not need to say anything, because you already have the answers.

>> No.14913042

>>14912961
I didn't say I know specifically which one it is, and I know for a fact there's no real point, because as you're on the internet, you can say I AM FINE and pretend it's not the case -- but in almost every single case I've ever encountered, it has boiled down to family problems - usually frustrations with an overbearing mother dragging you to church when you would rather play video games, or issues with the father - the father is a very common one; it's down to parental problems.

And usually, the atheist has some grievances with the faith, always unanswered no doubt, because you didn't know to whom you should ask these questions. Rather than go to a knowledgeable individual, you googled and, frustrated, you gave up and saw it all as silly nonsense. That, or you went to a priest at your local "pastor", who gave you a shitty answer, because the truth is that he doesn't know as much as he thinks. After a while, the problems the atheist faces always develop an intellectual level, because people don't like to imagine that they're not as rational then they are; they develop a level of skepticism that differs according to things they like or don't like, to the point where it's impossible to argue anything, not because it's skepticism, but because it's wilful denial.

Usually, this happens somewhere between 10 - 14. A difficult time, I understand; I went through puberty, too.

Or, just ignorance.

I've encountered atheists arguing other things every time, but after digging a little deeper, I've found underlying social frustrations every single time, sometimes people are not willing to admit them, though - especially not to someone they don't know or trust. People don't like it when you go digging, after all. You can cope and deny it all you like, but it usually fits this. If you actually didn't fit into one of the several examples -- and I mean *actually* didn't, not just saying you didn't, then you would be one of less than 10.
And I live in a secular country.

>> No.14913157

>>14913042

You kind of lost me there on "social frustrations" and I'd like to say that you kind of sound like yer full of shite.
Also on the point of social frustrations, gee.. Everyone has these. Your mother has one. Your father has one. Your child has one. Some kid took his toy in the kindergarten when he wanted to play with it, and no matter what he did, he couldn't get it back.

That's no excuse for leaving the faith, though. No, that takes something more. Mine comes from understanding. Oh, yes. When you're a 14-year old teen and you know a thing or two about planetary formation, then the priest does sound ultimately very ridiculous.

>> No.14913178

>>14911718
>>14911718
>>14911697
>>14911665
What in the goddamn hell are you even doing on /lit/?

>> No.14913217

>>14913157
>I'd like to say that you kind of sound like yer full of shite.
Likewise. You have just done exactly as I expected. "N- no you're dumb". Fuck off.

>Also on the point of social frustrations, gee.. Everyone has these.
Yes, but you're usually a special type.

>Mine comes from understanding.
I doubt it.
>know a thing or two about planetary formation
So it boils down to ignorance once more. You're just going to keep pretending you know anything. You're not as smart as you think, you're just slightly smarter than some random priest.

>> No.14913248

>>14913217

Yes, I provide one thing that leads me out of my faith and it is ignorance to you. Good for you.

I already said in a previous post that illustrates my views on the matter perfectly: we have a million questions and we don't have the answers to all of them nor the time to find out.
I know that I don't know and I accept my ignorance.
What I do know for sure is that the faith I was brought up in, Christianity, is not true. It is a composite belief system built from many different elements of a dozen mythologies.

So yes, in essence, my reason for leaving the faith comes from understanding.

A special type of person that suffers from social frustrations? Really.
I also find that there are specific people who suffer from mass delusions as well. Gullibility to fantastic claims is one of the symptoms.

>> No.14913306

>>14913178
this board is about books, not christlarping

>> No.14913354

>>14911381
You can't be Christian and follow a bunch of pagan philosophers like Aristotle.

Either God can be reached through logical argumentation and deducation and then you are a philosophers, or you reach God through faith in Jesus Christ and then you are a Christian.

>> No.14913380

>>14911561
it's called catholic for a reason, the idea is to have something for everybody

>> No.14913385
File: 971 KB, 350x263, giphy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14913385

>>14913354

>> No.14913393

>>14913354
Partial revelation = reading secular philosophers w/ reason
Full revelation = reading the bible w/ faith
stfu air head.

>> No.14913423

>>14913385
So your a Pagan Christian?

You worship Christ and Zeus?

>> No.14913435

>>14913393
>Partial revelation = reading secular philosophers w/ reason
>Full revelation = reading the bible w/ faith
Alright, then why is the partial revelation a bunch of highly complex philosophy that becomes the core of Thomist philosophy, while the full revelation is a bunch of vague and unclear histories, legends, metaphores, parables, poems, etc.

>> No.14913519

>>14913248
>I already said in a previous post that illustrates my views on the matter perfectly: we have a million questions and we don't have the answers to all of them nor the time to find out.
And?

>>14913248
>What I do know for sure is that the faith I was brought up in, Christianity, is not true.
1. Christianity does not speak for all religions
2. Religions do not speak for theism
3. How do you even know?

>It is a composite belief system built from many different elements of a dozen mythologies.
This is how I know you are wrong.

>I also find that there are specific people who suffer from mass delusions as well. Gullibility to fantastic claims is one of the symptoms.
Like atheism? I do agree.

>> No.14913535

>>14912525
I always see you namedropping Damascius but have never seen you once actually post anything interesting about his ideas and have never seen you once be capable of summarizing any of his important ideas in your own words beyond merely copying and pasting sections from his writing

>> No.14913896
File: 1.35 MB, 322x242, 1571943311858.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14913896

>>14912335
>No replies
Brainlets can't even

>> No.14913977

>>14912335
I really, really wish I was proficient enough in English to try and understand what you just wrote. It seems fulfilling.

>> No.14913982

>>14911381
>Who has actually refuted Thomism?
Fuck off relitard
There, done.

>> No.14913991

Do you seriously imagine that someone cares enough to refute all of the mindless ignorant drivel that people have imagined throughout the ages?
No.
You wanting some childhood faerie tale to be true, does not make is even worthwhile to refute.

>> No.14913997

>>14911381
>What legitimate philosopher has refuted him?
OP have you read Shankara's commentary on Gaudapada yet? I saw someone asking similar questions about Thomism and it's disputations/relationship with Hindu philosophy and I wrote in that thread that philosophical discussions which could be interpreted as refutations of certain Thomistic ideas are found in the aforementioned text, you or someone similar to you said in that thread they were going to read it but I have not seen any Thomas posters talking about it since then.

>> No.14914005

>>14911920
oh man

>> No.14914050

>>14911936
Okay, not that guy, but I legitimately have a question referring to what you wrote. I'm not religious, but I am ethnically a jew, and as a child I was taught there is a principle in Judaism that claims that if put on a scale, caring for your own life is more important than all other religious principles. So, if such a religious Jewish man were to go to a hospital, would he be staying loyal to his faith? Or is this principle a bullshit get-out-of-jail card that automatically blows away that man's faith as a fraud?

>> No.14914069
File: 63 KB, 467x700, B1CE1369-345C-4A17-8D39-5EF0EC67985D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14914069

>>14911381
>Who has actually refuted Thomism?

Retroactively

>> No.14914085

>>14912770
God helps those who help themselves, eh?

>> No.14914098
File: 166 KB, 520x358, 2xscjb.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14914098

>>14913178
This is /lit/ ?
Why are we having /his/ discussions in /lit/?

>> No.14914136

>>14913519

"But muh beliefs can't be wrong" isn't refuting the claim Christianity is a composite belief system.

>> No.14914157

>>14914098
Bible isn't real it's a work of fiction not history so it belongs on /lit/. Christcucks refute themselves by even posting here

>> No.14914164

>>14914136
You haven't actually shown this, though, have you? You've just made a baseless assertion, and one that many of us, Christian or not, see a lot of the time.
You're making a lot of claims, but offering no actual claims for it. I know the kind of things you're going to say, as does pretty much everyone who has studied - you just haven't asked people who are more knowledgeable about it, and you're afraid of being wrong. Surely you're better than this?

>>14914098
Because /pol/ is full of retards + the posts get moved to /bant/ where they die, and /x/ is full of retards who want to summon a succubus and believe they can communicate with aliens to read through the Akashic Records through use of DMT.

>> No.14914171

>>14913423
Zeus isn't God through logical argumentation though, what if I reach the Christ God through logical argumentation and deduction?

>> No.14914184

what should i read of aquinas to start ?

>> No.14914188

>>14914098
Because every religious retard, just like every poltard, thinks they need to stick their little brown noses into everything. To them, everything that has nothing to do with them must be spammed with their bullshit because the only reason they are so vocal is that they are insecure and immature little assholes

>>14914157
This thread isn't about the bible. None of the relitard spam threads have anything to do with lit

>> No.14914194

>>14914171
>Zeus isn't God through logical argumentation though, what if I reach the Christ God through logical argumentation and deduction?
Then you are not a Christian, because Christians reach God through faith.

But thats not the point, you are either a pagan or a christian, not both. choose.

Either:

1. logical and cultured
2. Insane bible verse quoting.

>> No.14914203

>>14914188
Its hatred, they promote christianity everywhere, because they hate culture, literature, free enquiry, they want to destroy it. Because it proves them inferior.

>> No.14914227

>>14914194
Well, I guess I'll just deduct and deduce until I reach a point in which I am incapable of doing so anymore, either because I have reached a barrier, or because I am no longer intelligent enough to do so.

>> No.14914386

>>14913997
Again: go suck a dick Guénonfag

>> No.14914397

>>14914203
Nah, it's fanboyism. We all had knew those guys in school who couldn't talk to others so they turned to Tolkien or furrydom, or drugs and religion

>> No.14914434
File: 865 KB, 1010x1200, 1576280771925.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14914434

>>14914386
>Why yes, I am the illustrious /lit/ celebrity and the enigmatic genius known as Guenonfag, always ready at a moment's notice to call out retroactively refuted philosophies such as materialism, marxism, freudianism, buddhism, processionism and all such similar garbage, how could you tell?

>> No.14914517

>>14914050
The principle you're talking about is Talmudic, but can be reasonably assumed from the Old Testament (e.g. David eating the consecrated bread when he and his men were hungry).

I do not think there is a single rabbi that would say it was wrong, for instance, for a faithful Jew ate pork or even human flesh in order to save his life in extremis. /pol/ memes aside, nor would they say that a righteous Jew could kill an arbitrary number of people in order to preserve his own life, say by drinking their blood (though I do believe this line of thinking is behind some outrageous pronunciations by certain rabbis).

>> No.14914589

>>14914517
Hmm, I agree with no rabbi ever denying breaking kosher rules for the sake of life, but I wonder about the righteous Jew. I'd be surprised about the rabbi telling me the same about "goyim" life as Jewish life to be honest.

>> No.14914621

>>14911954
>If I have one ball, add to it another ball, and get any number other than two, I would have falsified it.
But it was you who initially decided the balls were seperate. You yourself created this idea of seperation, and gave various abstract signs to each piece you seperated (one, two, etc.)

>> No.14914624

>>14911956
>Consciousness is an unknown at this point.
Consciousness is just the idea of I in the brain. If I remove your idea of I, I remove consciousness. No mythical voodoo needed.

>> No.14914625

>>14911381
Your Thomas is quite good, it's your Thomists I don't like.

>> No.14914640

>>14911920
I can test it with two fingers in your mom’s pussy.

>> No.14914651

>>14912335
>The process of abstraction starts when we see two balls, recognize them as two separate things, because we recognize form which means we recognize separation.
Cool, we reached the same conclusion. BUT:
>realizing that this way of knowing can be seen as a 'tool' to orient and work in the world, just as our legs are
You attached the idea of tool to your leg after the fact. The leg was not made as a tool. We gave it the description "tool" after we evolved it.
>We just previously reached that outermost limit, beyond it we wouldn't be able to say something with necessity (according to man) and all we would say would have a status of poetry.
and best of all, because things work this way, we can classify the ordering principle of the universe as will to power, as that is all there seems to be.

>> No.14914684

>>14912300
"just believe Jesus gon dun it instead" doesn't answer anything.

its a cop out.

>> No.14915305

>>14911411
>Thomism/Catholic theology
Ultimately reduces to heresies like modalism/non-dualism and nestorianism. It's a complete mess. You can somehow outright deny dogmas and still be in communion with Rome as a uniate (watered down orthodoxy created to bring people under the authority of Rome). They literally care more about fake unity based on submission to Rome instead of true unity based on having the exact same doctrines.

>>14911882
>haven't produced new intEresTiNg theology post-schisn
So you admit that EO haven't... innovated? And thus haven't schismed from the original Church by constantly inventing heresies?

>> No.14915344
File: 210 KB, 390x501, 1579047200110.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14915344

>>14911882
>John Bekkos
>read this post-schism dude. bro the filioque totally hasn't been retroactively refuted by numerous pre-schism fathers centuries earlier

>Palamas is for brainlets and larpers
He is actually your saint too, you dumb larper. Maybe you should respect him and look into the pre-schism ideas he defends in his refutations.

>> No.14915407
File: 1.26 MB, 1388x2296, the one, or.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14915407

>>14913535
you've told me this once before and I responded with multiple walls of text

>> No.14915414
File: 59 KB, 346x350, 1584665470422.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14915414

>>14911448
>Syncretism, I appreciate that
OH NO NO NO

>> No.14915424
File: 456 KB, 680x1712, the one, or what.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14915424

>>14915407

>> No.14915431

>>14915344
saint means nothing in Catholicism
he's not a church father in catholicism, nor do they subscribe to the council following palamas

>> No.14915439

>>14915407
I honestly don't remember that but I am sorry then if I have misspoken. If you are willing to speak on such matters then would you mind explaining how Damascius refuted Thomism? I'm genuinely curious but don't have the time to read him at the moment although I would like to eventually

>> No.14915448

>>14911411
As an atheist, I consider Thomas to be the most intelligent thinker to ever live and all his reasoning to be completely solid. However, I cannot accept the existence of any greater metaphysical reality. He is still perfectly correct about ordered use.

>> No.14915458

>>14915431
>saint means nothing in Catholicism
I actually agree, sainthood is a mere formality in their scheme as shown by blatant "heretics" like Palamas being saints.
>church father in catholicism
Catholicism and Orthodoxy have the same early Church Fathers though. Catholics just like to pretend that the Eastern ones don't exist.

>> No.14915462

>>14911381
go cut your dick off.
how's that for a refutation?

>> No.14915468

>>14915448
>As an atheist, I consider Thomas to be the most intelligent thinker to ever live
that's not surprising. thomas was a crypto-atheist too.

>> No.14915480

>>14915462
t. Origen.

>> No.14915483
File: 884 KB, 1052x795, 1580745085322.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14915483

>>14915448
>I cannot accept the existence of any greater metaphysical reality
Lol
What is this "I" that cannot accept a greater metaphysical reality?

>> No.14915623
File: 1.02 MB, 2454x2792, aaahaaaa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14915623

>>14915439
>if you wish, [the Unified is situated in the Being of the philosophers, the Being that is still indefinite with respect to the One and Being, and contemplated as before both. That Unified was absolute substance, as we were saying, but it would be mixed if it were from the two principles prior to it. For the Unified is one and yet not one, and insofar as it is not one, it is a function of multiplicity. Therefore, this function has come to it from the second principle, but the former aspect, its being Unified, is from the first. Thus it has proceeded from both as a composite and as a mixture. But since the principles are not completely separate from each other, but rather they subsist above every differentiation (since the separating and distinguishing mode of Being emanates from the second principle, but it does not immediately follow the second principle, and the Unified was indefinite by itself and with respect to those principles, since if it is Unified, then it is also entirely undifferentiated) and therefore the Unified must not be supposed to be composite or composed or to be an element, or composed from elements, except by analogy for the sake of explication and a kind of indication that itself longs to get hold of the truth, in the most obscure way, since the truth is really incomprehensible and beyond reach. Rather, the Unified is simply unified and its simplicity is perfect. The One’s reality is its very separation from all things; the many function as the all that belong to the One, and the Unified is what one could rightly call and speculate upon as the first One-all. There was, until a certain moment, so to speak, the One, and then this One spread out into its own infinity as a kind of chaos. For there was Limit alone and the aither of all things, but chaos was established and proceeded as one, that is, simultaneously as limited and unlimited as a single simplicity, and then upon revealing this nature it became a qualified, amplified one, instead of the ungraspable principles. This third One after the second and the first is what we call the Unified as if it were indefiniteness converted to limit and as it were concretized, or rather a third principle with that which is established both before both and from both, that is, before the two lower principles since it is absolute Being, and from the higher principles, since again it is absolute Being. And therefore it is the same with respect to either pair, but with respect to the higher principles it is a third principle, and with respect to the lower, definite principles, it is a first member of the triad. Therefore, this triad becomes the one as father, and the many as power, and the Unified as the paternal intellect.

>> No.14915631
File: 157 KB, 750x749, 66283952_1151849795012356_6391562332726919008_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14915631

>>14915448
read the first chapter of Penrose' "Road to Reality"
Mr. I Fucking Love "Science"

>> No.14915814

>>14915623
so how does that refute Thomism?

>> No.14916546

>>14914651
>The leg was not made as a tool. We gave it the description "tool" after we evolved it.
That's why I put 'tool' between quotation-marks. Figure of speech bro.
>and best of all, because things work this way, we can classify the ordering principle of the universe as will to power, as that is all there seems to be
You're confusing Nietzsche and Schopenhauer :') What my conclusion opened up is thinking via apophatic theology which also opens up the idea of ultimate cause beyond the material and an ordering principle; hence Aristotle as pic related. Nietzsche was anti-metaphysical.

>> No.14916562

>>14915631
I'm not >>14915448, but I just looked up Penrose 's book, seems very nice, why did you like it? Seems Wheelchairman-tier to me at first sight, how does it leave a door open for metaphysics?

>> No.14916628

I pray that the Lord guides you all in these troubling times.

>> No.14916652

>>14911936

Using vaccines does not make one an atheist in deed. Both the natural world and supernatural acts manifest God's agency, and all the goods which anyone enjoys come from him (thanks Thomism!). That one uses the gifts that God has put into the world- human intelligence, ordered society, love of wisdom- is precisely to rely on him. It is impious to regard God's agency as so restricted that he can only act through miracles.

The atheist of your stripe is not less reliant on God than the theist; he is simply a myopic ingrate. The benefits of a good like a vaccine do not arise and are not distributed in a moral and existential vacuum. They arise in the context of a society with the right mix of virtues to produce them (e.g., Western science, which is a product of Christian Europe), and to use them with the correct human priorities in mind. Vaccines are most effectively deployed in a time of mass emergency when people are motivated to love their neighbour as themselves, because their neighbour is made in the image of God. Scientific endeavour itself is most spiritually sustainable in a society when science is an act of worship, not merely a means to produce new means for the powerful. You can't sustain a flourishing society, such as produces conveniences like vaccines, without a true and good vision of human flourishing, and it is in such matters that the great syntheses, like Thomism, have a rightful say.

>> No.14916680

>>14915814
hoping for a response to this Neoplatonist anon, why bother even making the post if you can't explain how it relates to Aquinas

>> No.14916850

>>14911381
By David Hume obviously.

>> No.14916872

>>14911697
I'm pretty sure you'd need (1) to be true for that logic to be sound, anon

>> No.14916900

>>14911882
Why does every Catholic argument against Eastern Orthodox boil down to “wow bro you don’t agree with me? Must be dumb”?
“Haven’t produced any interesting theology”.You haven’t even tried looking; just parroting what you’ve heard. More recent theologians like Seraphim Rose and Staniloae are very respected among Orthodox and provide a lot of wisdom

>> No.14916913

>>14911381
I talked with a catholic priest about the arguments I had heard from EO and he had basically no refutations. Gave me a quote farm about the papacy, which I went over later and only found about 3 out of 30 quotes that actually seemed to hold any weight. When it came to absolute divine simplicity he couldn’t tell me how we can have only created effects in the word and also have Jesus become truly incarnate. He gave me some muddy answers but it was really unsatisfying. And when I brought up St. Basil’s letter 234 he had NO refutation whatsoever to Basil’s distinction of the essence and the attributes. Basil is considered a doctor of the Catholic Church and this should be considered a heresy according to them but obviously he is not a heretic. The priest was struggling so bad for an answer I almost just switched subjects to ease the tension but I decided to press him on it and he ended up just looking through a book of dogma for something and it kept like that until we ended the conversation. Does any Catholic have a response to letter 234?

>> No.14916925

>>14916913
Same guy. This is relevant because I was arguing against absolute divine simplicity, which Aquinas teaches, and didn’t get a good defense

>> No.14916928

>>14916562
any objective truth, no matter what truth it is, is metaphysical

>> No.14916961
File: 1.36 MB, 1413x2281, many.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14916961

>>14915814
>>14916680
Aquinas does not understand Undifferentiated Manyness.
Likewise his Divine Simplicity denies the trinity, taken to its logical extreme.

>> No.14916990

>>14916913

I don't see how absolute divine simplicity is incompatible with the Incarnation. Jesus has two natures, and is one person. Per St Thomas, Jesus as a subsistent relation of the divine nature, is that same person through which the human nature of Jesus is realised. It is precisely because Jesus in his person unites the divine and the human essence, that the Incarnation can be said to have truly happened.

Basil's letter doesn't seem airtight either. His argument for the energies seems to be that without them God could not be known. The obvious rejoinder is that what we know if we only know God's operations/energies is not God himself, but some lesser created effect. Basil's reply is firstly a tu quoque- that the person who claims to know God, if he believes that God is only his essence, has no way to know God either. His second reply is merely to reiterate his own opinion that his solution is successful. His third reply, that Jesus could not have declared God unless he was declaring his energies. But that's not the case- what is special in Jesus is not the words he uses per se, which as words are only finitely capable of communicating the divine nature, but his very person, which itself declares the essence of God, because in his person that very essence is present in finite nature.

Aquinas has an answer for the problems Basil raises regarding predication in terms of analogy: where predicates like 'justice' as apply to creaturely being properly mean only a participation in justice, God is that which the justice of creatures approximates (and indeed, could not but be). That the ultimate metaphysical ground of these predications is utterly One is no issue: the multiplicity of the good in our ordinary use of the terms is due to the finitude of participation in the good. Because this kind of predication is not equivocal, it is possible to refer to and know God in a qualified way. Knowing God through the veil of creaturely predication is what Abraham and the Patriarchs knew.

>> No.14917062

>>14916990
how does an eternal and impassable entity become something additional?

>> No.14917076

>>14916990
Some of what you said went over my head, but I don’t see how what you said can justify the eternal essence of God entering into time and space. don’t Catholics say all we know of God is His creates effects, because we won’t know his essence directly? You seem to be saying that what Orthodox call “energies” are really only limited participations in what is His essence. Basil’s criticisms seem pretty valid if you think God’s operations of creating and destroying are literally the same in his essence and only distinguished in our minds as Aquinas says.
Also maybe I misunderstood your point here but the Orthodox say the energies of God are Him in fullness and are not “lesser effects”.

>> No.14917104

>>14916990
>Mount Sinai theophanies
>Knowing God through the veil of creaturely predication

"lol"

>> No.14917129

>>14911718
A bit heavy-handed towards the end, but a nice bait nonetheless

>> No.14917151

>>14911665
Deep base

>> No.14917168

>>14911665
Where do you ground your truth? Please don’t say sense experience

>> No.14917169
File: 140 KB, 720x511, Aquinas anger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14917169

>>14911381
> Who has actually refuted Thomism?
No. Aquinas was right about everything.

>> No.14917189
File: 1.56 MB, 4032x3024, D340A2EB-2D7E-4DB7-A18D-BCD248A0A3DB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14917189

ITT: A thomist who maxed out his horsepower isn’t smart enough to understand the best counter arguments he’s heard. It’s a special type, the Christian trying to reason toward God. Most of them nod their heads and stop the search at the pew. You’ll end up in a box like everyone else, don’t cry you socially maladjusted knights of anxiety

>> No.14917570
File: 96 KB, 600x780, ass blasted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14917570

>>14911583

>> No.14917724

>>14911920
Have you not read Kant/Hume yet? Genuinely embarrassing statement to make anon

>> No.14917741

>>14911381
It refutes itself. You can use Thomism to argue for literally any religion because they are bad arguments.

>> No.14917757

>>14912335
Based.

>> No.14917764

>>14917076

God's operations with respect to the world have an eternal component in his essence and a contingent component outside himself. There is no need to invent 'energies' in the divine nature which are contingent, since it would then follow that there would be ontological priority within God. But if there is ontological priority between essence and energies, there is no sense in which they are both attributable to God, since God is only he who is most ontologically prior. The energies would be less than fully what God is, hence, a creature, and no part of God proper. It's difficult to understand what the Orthodox could mean by 'energies' which could coherently be attributed to God himself.

Basil's criticisms do not seem cogent to me. God's goodness is his simple eternal being considered as an end; his knowledge, that being as possessing that of all other being and possible being. God's power, his unqualified being considered by the range of his possible effects. His love, his being insofar as it creates and affirms us. The multiplicity of our terms does not entail multiplicity of their referent- the multiplicity is an artifact of our own finitude. In God, there is his being alone, which our terms merely approximate.

On Thomism, there are two kinds of knowledge of God: natural and supernatural. In natural reason, you cannot know God himself directly, but only through his created effects. His created effects, being necessarily participations in his unlimited being, provide better and worse analogies for what he is like. In supernatural knowledge, which is the union with God made possible by grace through faith in Jesus, we are able to know God himself, since he has become directly present to us in the Incarnation.

>>14917062
The eternal essence of God, considered apart from the Incarnation, never enters into time and space. In the incarnation, God has two natures- the divine and the human. The former remains eternal and unchanging; it is the latter that is altered from its usual course, and raised to perfection by being unified to God in Christ. It is in the person of Jesus that our community with him as humans is elevated to union with God himself.

>> No.14917779

>>14917104

Correct. Even in the Mount Sinai theophanies God is not directly present- Moses only 'sees God's back', hence must be present through some created species or other.

>> No.14918246

>>14917779
so under this logic even God's face, His Goodness, His Glory are all a "created" lesser form. why are catholics so intent on perverting Scripture just to suit their rationalistic preferences?

Exodus 33
11 And God spoke with Moses face-to-face, as neighbors speak to one another. When he would return to the camp, his attendant, the young man Joshua, stayed—he didn’t leave the Tent.

12-13 Moses said to God, “Look, you tell me, ‘Lead this people,’ but you don’t let me know whom you’re going to send with me. You tell me, ‘I know you well and you are special to me.’ If I am so special to you, let me in on your plans. That way, I will continue being special to you. Don’t forget, this is your people, your responsibility.”

14 God said, “My presence will go with you. I’ll see the journey to the end.”

15-16 Moses said, “If your presence doesn’t take the lead here, call this trip off right now. How else will it be known that you’re with me in this, with me and your people? Are you traveling with us or not? How else will we know that we’re special, I and your people, among all other people on this planet Earth?”

17 God said to Moses: “All right. Just as you say; this also I will do, for I know you well and you are special to me. I know you by name.”

18 Moses said, “Please. Let me see your Glory.”

19 God said, “I will make my Goodness pass right in front of you; I’ll call out the name, God, right before you. I’ll treat well whomever I want to treat well and I’ll be kind to whomever I want to be kind.”

20 God continued, “But you may not see my face. No one can see me and live.”

21-23 God said, “Look, here is a place right beside me. Put yourself on this rock. When my Glory passes by, I’ll put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with my hand until I’ve passed by. Then I’ll take my hand away and you’ll see my back. But you won’t see my face.”

>> No.14918317
File: 566 KB, 1200x675, BDB6C15D-C7E6-431D-8BF9-9841FACC2D83.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14918317

>>14911920
Surely this is bait

>> No.14918356

>>14916961
>Aquinas does not understand Undifferentiated Manyness.
So, what's to say that it's even a correct idea? And how is it more right than his ideas?

>> No.14918479

Sorry if off-topic, but I wanted to get this off my chest.

How to get started again with Catholicism? I am lapsed catholic for almost 5 years now, got into adventist church (and baptised) after lots of study and recently I have been reading catholic answers and ex-sda sites and I've seen errors within EGW writtings and dubious stuff in SDA church theology which makes me doubt in it's validity, but some of the catholic stuff is still strange to me after spending so much time in SDA (praying to saints and Mary).

I feel like I've stepped into church because I was weak and ignorant and wanted something to comfort me because I started to get into it few months after my grandfather died. :(

Don't wanna doom my soul by being ignorant.

>> No.14918503

>>14918479
Go talk to a priest. Getting "baptised" in that other church is kind of a big deal, amigo.

>> No.14918531

>>14918503
I will soon, feeling like there is a hole/void in my chest and I've crying a bit for 2 days now, feels that I've wasted years of life due being lazy with studies and not reading other sources of faith (like early church fathers and apologetics like Jimmy Akin). Doesn't help that one of my closest friends got me into it and few others. Nevertheless, I have to solve this because it's eating me inside.

>> No.14918558

>>14918531
Then stop waiting. I know it is difficult. I know you are nervous. I lapsed for a bit longer than you, but it felt so wonderful to finally rejoin the Church last year.

>> No.14918579

>>14918558
I think the hardest part besides talking with priest will be arguing with my adventist friends, several of these I've known my entire life.

>> No.14918599

>>14918579
The priest will be able to help you with this.

>> No.14918633

>>14918599
I hope so and checked.

>> No.14918635

>>14912300
The Absolute is indeed a historical rabbi, rather than an infinite consciousness.

Instead of seeking my own self-realization and communion with the All, let me re-read those incredible tales of a man who once used his special magical powers to ensure all the guests of a wedding he was at could resume their hedonism without disruption, and then let me worship that man as the Infinit itself. What could be a more sophisticated worldview, or lifestyle? Nothing. Faithfully will I dunk my head in water, and eat my wafer, and drink my wine, and pay my tithe, and read the same book till I die. And after doing so, I will be sent up into a place where that literary character I read so much about during my life resides, and he will welcome me with open arms. And the two of us will remain there for eternity after, me and my favorite rabbi, and all of my friends and family who believed on him. And it was a happy ending, except for all those dumb unbelievers (like those moronical monists, and everyone else I disagree with) that rightfully lived in a state of unending torment in the deserved lake of fire forever afterwards.

>> No.14918648

>>14918633
It'll be okay, man. As far as praying to the saints and to Mary, it's not complicated. Just the same way you might ask me to pray for you, why should you not be able to ask the faithful departed to pray for you? They're in heaven and near the Lord? Why should you not ask for everyone you possibly can to pray for you? Many of these men and women suffered the same way we do. Look for inspiration in their lives and works. It'll be okay. :)

>> No.14918663

>>14912300
Also you don't necessarily have to "negate" everything as illusion, it's merely the assertion that if consciousness is continuous (i.e has the status of pure being) while phenomena are changing (i.e has the status of becoming), then from the perspective of consciousness itself the changing empirical universe can be likened to an illusion, incongruent to the truest nature of reality (which is being). But I don't personally think it's wise to actually live one's life thinking in such terms.

The Law of One is my favorite spiritual text, feel free to read into it if you'd like:

https://www.lawofone.info/

It asserts the same thesis as Shankara's philosophy, but elaborates on it far more and incorporates a much larger range of concepts resulting in a far more expansive worldview than I've found elsewhere.

Also, don't take my earlier comment to mean much, I'm just messing around rather than trying to degrade you or your belief-system. It's just a joke, not a serious comment.

>> No.14918681

>>14918663
do you actually believe the text was channeled by Ra to a UFO investigator though?

>> No.14918847

>>14911718
And here you admit that science is nothing more than a tool, and does not give us any truth whatsoever. Thomism is an attempt to seek truth. Science is an attempt to find ways of building masturbation machines and Nintendo switches. One is a tool, the other is eternal truth.

>> No.14918862

>>14918681
I've never met "Ra", so I can't really say so. I just find myself floored by the stunning breadth and depth of the conceptual framework offered by the supposed entities who provided the information, and definitely consider it more than a creative fabrication of Don/Carla/LL Research's mind.

For example, explanations such as each galaxy, solar system and planet of the universe as being the respective physical manifestations of a particular level metaphysical Logos, is extremely interesting to me.

There are certain descriptions of the Egyptian pyramids given by the Ra group which have been verified to be true decades later, which is long after the Ra texts were originally chanelled. That's a simple example which adds credibility to their information.

There's also another resource I enjoy:

https://www.wanttoknow.info/secret_societies/hidden_hand_081018

It overlaps with the Law of One information and covers its aspects in a slightly different way. Someone claiming to be an insider of the elites, divulging a glimpse of reality's true nature to them. I can't verify his identity or information true either, but I happen to like the presentation nonetheless.

Ultimately I might simply be biased towards this kind of presentation for whatever reason (because I prefer a universalistic, "scientific" presentation of reality rather than the local, cultural forms typically presented by religion), but my overall feeling is that the Law of One contents are generally accurate, even if I can't verify the identity of the source they came from.

>> No.14918887

>>14918648
>>14918663
>>14918681
>>14918862
>>>/x/

>> No.14918955

Fichte's argument from the science of knowledge is pretty good. Many accused him of atheism.

1. The self is a self-positing activity and when it posits anything it is positing from itself
2. The pronouncement of anything other than itself is still an "other-than" which still assumes the self because there needs to be a self to posit a counter-positing.
3. Basically there has to be an activity to be doing the positing and counter-positing and this activity is the activity of the self, the ego. The self is an activity which is an action.

>> No.14919163

>>14911725
That's not accurate... In what way is our thought/abstraction truly discrete from "material perception"? How do we compare and establish the relative vailidity of our individual abstractions? Logic doesn't just pop out of nowhere, it is fundamentally empirical — abstracted from consistent relations in our experience.

>>14911946
So... Your thoughts aren't real? What you're trying to say is that the abstract isn't concrete. This is true — numbers are just symbols in systems we define... But where do you think the basic relations of logic we employ in doing so come from? Identity, division of objects in space, sequence, etc?

>>14916928
'Metaphysical' is honestly an awful term, it doesn't confer any additional specificity over 'Ontology'. What can we study that isn't an aspect of reality?

>>14917168
All knowledge comes through the conduit of experience. All of it (even the very notion of truth).

>>14918847
Your only access to truth is empirical; what people decide to do with that knowledge is another issue. If you want to argue that it's (empirically) true that religion is also a tool, which can provide important pragmatic utility, I would agree... But stop with the philosophical pretense to truth; accept that you simply take things on faith.

>> No.14920029

>>14918635

Honestly you would be better off even with the crude picture of Christianity that you have drawn than monism. At least in the simple faith of the lay believer, however crude your intellectual understanding, your will can still be directed toward union with God in obedience to his word. Creation is real, hence your separation from God is real, and this will be finally reconciled only through the personal union of God and man in Christ.

The best a monist can hope for is to realise how far from the Absolute he is, and the worst he can do is delude himself that the weak participation in being which is the only thing he can call his own is somehow identical to the Absolute.

>> No.14920077

>>14912536
Christianity is wholly dualistic.

>> No.14920557

>>14911381
Its literally aristotle but catholic, wow so cool and smart. Fuck you

>> No.14920953

>>14920029
Okay anon, I appreciate the recommendation. I will also remind you that the overarching spirit of this website is one of humor, and that my earlier remark towards you and Christian doctrine is not to be taken seriously, but in jest. That said, I hope your worldview provides fulfillment to your life and that you have a good weekend, remembering to stay safe amid the ongoing virus outbreak that has affected all of our lives. Take care.

>> No.14921526

>>14911583
Extra Eclessium Nulla Sallus intensifies.

>>14920029
>simple faith of the lay believer
I think you hit the nail on the head with this - Christianity is intended to be of universal application & as such it can't just be some system of meditations & intellectual propositions that only some fortunate few can engage with. Basically, all the normies need to do is show up & go through the motions to gain at least some benefit (as well as salvation), and as soon as someone wants to go deeper they can. And the depths aren't some "inner school" that actively contradicts the outer form (which I believe was one of the real heresies of Gnostics).

>> No.14921781
File: 260 KB, 1242x1388, 1583966583342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14921781

>>14912300
>Nah. The Monists get as far as the third word of Genesis, and are refuted by everything after. Christ is the answer to the monist's desire for union with God, yet without the pernicious requirement of negating everything else as an illusion.

>> No.14921784
File: 119 KB, 640x640, 1581919794499.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14921784

>>14918635
>Instead of seeking my own self-realization and communion with the All, let me re-read those incredible tales of a man who once used his special magical powers to ensure all the guests of a wedding he was at could resume their hedonism without disruption, and then let me worship that man as the Infinit itself. What could be a more sophisticated worldview, or lifestyle? Nothing. Faithfully will I dunk my head in water, and eat my wafer, and drink my wine, and pay my tithe, and read the same book till I die. And after doing so, I will be sent up into a place where that literary character I read so much about during my life resides, and he will welcome me with open arms. And the two of us will remain there for eternity after, me and my favorite rabbi, and all of my friends and family who believed on him. And it was a happy ending, except for all those dumb unbelievers (like those moronical monists, and everyone else I disagree with) that rightfully lived in a state of unending torment in the deserved lake of fire forever afterwards.

>> No.14921804

Why the fuck are most Thomists here so uneducated about Thomism. Feser may strawman Hume all the time, but at least he understands what his own positions are, the tradcath larpers here can't even do that it seems.

>> No.14921808

>>14918955
If you think this is a good argument you need a course on logic 101 ASAP

>> No.14921809
File: 306 KB, 750x400, 2019.09.13-06.52-boundingintocomics-5d7be5748297a.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14921809

>>14911381
>Thomism
Isn't this basically
>I am Le Rational Being!!!!! so God must be known in the exact ways I Like as a Rational Skeptic
Sounds like idolatry to me. Worshipping your own intellect and an abstraction instead of God Himself.

>> No.14921856

>>14921809

Nope. Thomism is very aware that God requires faith to properly worship, and has a very firm grasp of the limits of the intellect. That said, it also recognises that man is created a rational being, and that worship which incorporates all that a man is, must harness reason as well as everything else.

>> No.14921867
File: 78 KB, 825x464, joker-movie-dc-comics-batman-easter-eggs-references.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14921867

>>14921856
>must harness reason as well as everything else
From what little I know, it seems that Thomism and Thomists give an undue primacy to reason over revelation and faith.

Like I was reading some stuff by a Thomist the other week about God and he gave standard arguments and explanations for Allah but did not mention revelation or the Trinity even once... And that wasn't the only such case

>> No.14921909

>>14921867

Not every piece of work by a Thomist needs to cover every aspect of Thomism. Of course God can be known in a limited respect by natural reason, and demonstrating this is a classic Thomist way of directing the reason of the ignorant, especially unbelievers but also believers failing to develop their rational powers responsibly, toward its proper end. There is no way in which reason is a superior way of knowing to faith, and no way that it doesn't find its completion only in faith.

>> No.14921999

>>14912300
>The Monists get as far as the third word of Genesis, and are refuted by everything after.
Holy based.
Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 suffice to refute most heresies.

>> No.14922281
File: 18 KB, 342x513, xS4mhZ9ik3NfHIOE0Q9eLmr7YFP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
14922281

>>14920557
's Going on there big guy?

>> No.14922556

>>14911412
Would you not call Official Magisterial Teaching the official philosophy? At least philosophy in a religious sense?

>> No.14923905

>>14912335
give me books that will teach me to squash retards with my farts

>> No.14923934

>>14914184
he was right about almost everything

>> No.14923969

>>14911381

>Kantianism and Humeism are clearly long gone


Thanks for the laughs, Anon. Philosophy isn't for you though.

>> No.14924492

>>14916961
this bullshit makes aquinas' treatises of the sleeping habits of angels look like a peer reviewed journal... eat my cock

>> No.14924602

>>14921804
I mean, there's a reason Ed Feser is actually able to make a living off of propounding philosophy and the rest of us are stuck anonymously posting on a forum about Japanese cartoons.

>> No.14924613

>>14924602
Feser teaches at a community college

>> No.14924917

>>14924613
Again, that is more than anyone here is doing.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action