[ 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, 467x657, images - 2022-07-20T082736.160.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20706364 No.20706364 [Reply] [Original]

Has Thomas Aquinas ever been debunked?

>> No.20706486

>>20706364
Aquinas be like:
>"my premises have lead me to the conclusion that 2+2=5"
>"Objection: isn't this proof that my premises are wrong?"
>"Respondeo: akshually no, the problem here is that you are understanding "5" in a univocal sense, when according to Aristotle's doctrine of analogy "5" can be predicated in many different ways, so in God it is true that 2+2=5"
>repeat

>> No.20706571

>>20706486
Aquinas not "be like that", my brother in Christ, on God, fr fr, no cap, bussin'

>> No.20706688

>>20706364
Never been debunked nor proven wrong by anyone. The only way modern philosophers circumvent thomism is by basically saying "There are no concepts lol, akshually they are just names we gave to different things" aka nominalist bs

>> No.20706693

>>20706364
>debunked
Philosophy is not for you.

>> No.20706698

>>20706688
Even if nominalism is false, why should humans behave according to their human essence and not, say, according to their purely animal essence? It seems that not even aristotelian ethics can escape the is/ought gap.

>> No.20706708

>>20706698
well "human" is a subcategory of animal, meaning that humans actualize their "animal" essence by behaving as humans

>> No.20706716

>>20706708
Humans are entirely animals, they educt their animality the best when they fulfill their human end. The same way a woman is entirely human, and educts her humanity the best when she fulfill her womanly end. It would be stupid to think that men actualize their animality better by behaving as, say, gorillas the same way it stupid to think that a tranny actualizes its humanity better than an manly man. Dunno if im being clear

>> No.20706748

>>20706688
>Never been debunked nor proven wrong by anyone
I guess you never heard of some random, insignificant guy named Kant, oh well, don't blame you.

>> No.20706793

>>20706748
The idea that metaphysics can't produce acceptable knowledge because there is no a priori knowledge on which we can base our reflexions is interesting but that is if you consider that reason itself as a concept isn't a tangible experience don't you think ? And that's the very point of STA : reason is what makes humans able to decrypt metaphysics

>> No.20706803

>>20706708
And "homosexual" is a subcategory of human, meaning that homosexuals actualize their "human" essence by behaving as homosexuals

>> No.20706833

>>20706364
Consistently. Many times we’ve had this thread and shown how he has. Only fools become Aquinas scholars and read all that BS he wrote.

>> No.20706834

>>20706803
Homosexual as a subcategory of human means nothing. Sexuality is not an identity, it is a human operative act that finds its metaphysical end in procreation. and masturbating in the asshole of some random dude will not produce any result that comes close to procreation.

>> No.20706839

>>20706698
go live like an animal you dumb nigger and see where it gets you

>> No.20706851

>>20706834
>Homosexuality as a subcategory of human means nothing
So you're saying that there's no such thing as an essence of homosexuality? Hmm... how nominalistic of you.

>> No.20706862

>>20706839
Oh, so this is the best thing you Thomists can come up with. Truly, we're so lucky to have you as the 21st century disciples of the Angelic Doctor.

>> No.20706875

>>20706862
somebody already gave you the intellectual answer. but nobody gave you the common sense answer. go on, live like an animal you skeptical pussy if it's so enticing. but you won't. pussy.

>> No.20706881

>>20706875
I'm not saying we should live like animals you dumb fuck. I'm just saying that the Aristotelian ethics of Aquinas fail to demonstrate why we shouldn't.

>> No.20706940

>>20706881
So you agree that we shouldn't but you still want to bitch about it? Kek. Also, literally every philosopher who touched the subject of ethics stated many arguments on why one should live an ethical life.
>s-show them to me
go read a book.

>> No.20706972

>>20706940
>So you agree that we shouldn't but you still want to bitch about it?
It was just an example to showcase how Aquinas' ethics can't justify which essences we ought to follow. I also brought up homosexuality to prove this point, a subject in which I actually disagree with the Thomist conclusion.

>> No.20707003

>>20706881
>Aristotelian ethics fail to show you why you shouldn't behave like an animal
I already explained why "behaving like an animal" is essentially not incompatible with being fully human since human = subcategory of animal.
But if you mean "like a wild beast" then the answer is available : according to Aristotle, each being exists in order to maximise the perfections that are virtually available in the concept which they materialize. Behaving like a beast is not part of the human concept, since the very entelechy of man is to be able of reason. Man can only imitate being an animal, and the (rather stupid) conscious choice of doing so is contrary to aristotelo-thomist wolrdview :
>Makes it impossible for you to maximise your perfections on the individual level
>Is therefore against common good (intermediary metaphysical end of all men)
>Is therefore against the effusion of the grace since surnature requires functional nature in the first place.

>> No.20707028

>>20707003
>according to Aristotle, each being exists in order to maximise the perfections that are virtually available in the concept which they materialize
So why should I care what Aristotle thinks we humans exist for? Aristotle is still BTFO by the is/ought problem.

>> No.20707030

>>20707003
>I already explained why "behaving like an animal" is essentially not incompatible with being fully human since human = subcategory of animal.
And I have already shown how appealing to certain essences in order to justify ethical behaviour is arbitrary because homosexuality is also a subcategory of human and yet Aquinas thinks that homosexuals should not fulfil their essence. Why is that? What criteria do you have for drawing the line at a certain level of specificity and not another?

>> No.20707035

>>20707028
the will to power BTFOs the is-ought problem

>> No.20707055

>>20706834
>Sexuality is not an identity, it is a human operative act that finds its metaphysical end in procreation. and masturbating in the asshole of some random dude will not produce any result that comes close to procreation.

I could literally say the same thing about rationality:
>Rationality is not an identity, it is a human operative act that finds its metaphysical end in procreation and the other functions of the sensitive soul. and wasting time studying the world and "grasping le first causes of things" will not produce any result that comes close to procreation and the like

And yet Aristotle and Aquinas say that rationality as a feature of human beings is actually morally relevant, but why?

>> No.20707085
File: 30 KB, 554x554, litjak.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20707085

>>20706693
>nooooo you can't be analytic! you gotta just FEEL the philosophy. you gotta vibe with what they're spittin y'knamean

>> No.20707104

>>20706833
>Many times we’ve had this thread and shown how he has.
Show me some proof or you're speaking from your ass.

>> No.20707113

>>20707030
>Why is that
Because the bible says so via revelation. You either agree or not.

>> No.20707117

>>20707085
No philosophy can or has ever been debunked. Prove me wrong.

>> No.20707123

>>20707113
But the problem is that Aquinas thinks that natural law can be rationally demostrated without appealing to revelation.

>> No.20707139

>>20707117
Cartesian dualism has been debunked time and time again.

>> No.20707205

>>20707139
>and time again
If they actually debunked the first time, why did they have to do it a second time?

>> No.20707227

>>20706364
Literally debunks himself by being a retard

>> No.20707238

>>20706364
Yes, by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

>> No.20707256

>>20707205
I'm sorry, I should have expressed myself more clearly. What I meant is that cartesian dualism has been debunked by many different thinkers regarding many different aspects of it. So regardless of whether you're a materialist, a skeptic, an aristotelian or an idealist, you are going to find something wrong with at least one aspect of cartesian dualism, hence why no one subscribes to it anymore.

>> No.20707605

>>20706364
Bump

>> No.20707633

I'm not a Catholic, Thomist, or even Aristotelian but you really should try to avoid the idea of "debunking" philosophers. It's better to engage in good faith with a text, read some criticism, and see where you end up from there. In this case, I'd say Anthony Kenny is a good contemporary critical companion when reading Aquinas.

>> No.20707671

>>20707633
You can engage in good faith with someone's work and nonetheless try to debunk it. At the end of the day, the reason why philosophically minded people should read past thinkers like Aquinas is so as to discover whether or not they were right in their beliefs, and not simply out of mere historical curiosity.

>> No.20707705

>>20706364
Yes, the survivorship bias completely debunks his idea of teleology

>> No.20707731

>>20707705
I also find Aristotelian teleology to be very problematic, but could you explain how is it affected by the survivorship bias?

>> No.20708101

>>20706364
Yes, plenty of times.

>> No.20708131

>>20706364
So what is the essential Aquinas book if one wants to understand his most influential ideas

>> No.20708267

>>20708131
De Ente et Essentia is a fairly short read in which he establishes the base of his metaphysical system. The Shorter Summa, as the name implies, is a good summary of his main philosophical and theological positions.

>> No.20708310

>>20707731
The survivorship bias is pretty simple to explain, and was explained in ancient times as the folly of paying tribute to the god of the sea, since we don't see the tribute of the ships that have sunk.

This goes for teleology as well: in biology, we see perfectly 'designed' organisms, which makes us assume that there must have been a perfect 'designer' who made these perfect creatures. The problem with this is that, like with the sunken ships, the failures don't appear in your sample, so for 1 perfectly adapted creatures, there's about 1000 who could have shown up, but died, and are now gone. This bias gives the illusion of teleology, of for instance biology working towards some goal, a perfectly fibctional creature, while in actuality, the mechanism in getting well-adapted creatures is usuallu just simple trail-and-error. Mother nature simply tries out every option available, kill off everything that doesn't work, and ends up with everything that does work

>> No.20708318
File: 1.99 MB, 2000x1303, 1653281385682.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20708318

>>20708267
Thanks anon, I'll check 'em out

>> No.20708333

>>20706698
To all who lurk beyond, take heed and beware!
THIS is your brain on NOMINALISM!

>> No.20708352

>>20707117
>What is false is actually true, because some people believe what is false so long as it makes them feel smart and good!

>> No.20708517

>>20708310
I think you are mistaking Aquinas' conception of teleology and the ethical and theological arguments he derives from it, with the notion of teleology one finds in people like William Paley and Intelligent Design apologists. For Aquinas, teleology it's not an explanation of the supossedly incredible complexity of biological organisms, but rather the reason why we find that certain causes (both inanimate and living) have a tendency to produce certain effects instead of others. For Thomists, final causality is what makes the rest of the four causes (material, formal and efficient) to be actually intelligible, because the telos of a certain things is what determines their matter, form and so on (it is the fact that a knife has a tendency to cut through things that makes it necessary for it to be made of a certain material, to have a certain shape...).

Now, let me clarify that l'm not a Christian and I still find Aristotelian final causality to be very problematic (because if it's simply the tendency of things to produce certain effects, then it is completely dependent on contingent empirical data and is morally irrelevant), but I don't think survivorship bias raises any problem for it.

>> No.20708566

>>20708517
Who cares what you think?

>> No.20708933

>>20708566
Clearly you do if you read that much of what he wrote retard.

>> No.20708935

>>20707123
"Natural Law", yes. As in, the concept as a whole. Arbitrary constituents of that Natural Law, like why genital mutilation was part of Natural Law until Yahweh changed his mind, however, cannot. This is in contradiction with Aristotle who (like Plato) rejected revelation as a specific category of knowledge and instead believed that all things can be understood via empiricism and reason.

Also Aristotle would disagree that "homosexual" can be an essence via simple empiricism, as engaging in homosexuality hurts humans physically and mentally and reduces their virtue. To respond to you just repeating >>20706851, Aristotle's answer would be that correct, there is, and we can not only empirically verify this but also just rationally notice that the Gods would not have beamed down natural teloses that result in such harm and lack of virtue. This is also how Aristotle gets around >>20708310, as the Gods are beaming down teleology to everything, all at once. This is also how things can possibly have multiple teloses (a hand both punches and grabs, so which is the telos?), because it's Gods, plural, specifically 47-55 of them.

Aquinas lacks a number of the answers to these problems that Aristotle can deploy, because he has to defend the authority of the Torah.

>> No.20709013

>>20708935
>(like Plato) rejected revelation
retard alert

>> No.20709342

>>20708935
>Natural Law", yes. As in, the concept as a whole. Arbitrary constituents of that Natural Law, like why genital mutilation was part of Natural Law until Yahweh changed his mind, however, cannot.
But that's not part of natural law for Aquinas, but of divine law, whose contents are the product of revelation and can be historically contingent.

>> No.20709386

>God is outside of logic so deal with it
Never once debunked

>> No.20709437

>>20706748
Kant didn't refute Aquinas. Kantianism just leads to either fideism or agnosticism. Like pretty much all Germanic and anglo-saxon inventions.

>> No.20709450

>>20708935
>Also Aristotle would disagree that "homosexual" can be an essence via simple empiricism, as engaging in homosexuality hurts humans physically and mentally and reduces their virtue.
This seems to be circular reasoning:
>Homosexuality is not an essence because it is immoral
>its immoral because it doesn't adjust to the telos that is derived from our human essence
>humanity is actually a morally relevant essence because it is morally good to act upon the final end of said essence
>it is morally good to partake in actions that are derived from our essence because humanity is a morally relevant essence
You still haven't demonstrated why humanity is the morally relevant essence to follow and not any other subcategory such as homosexuality. In order to demonstrated the inmorality of homosexuality you first have to demonstrate why we should subordinate our actions to the ends of this particular subcategory and not a lower or a higher one. I have not heard any actual justification from aristotelians/thomists as to why the moral line should be drawn at the species level and not at the genus or at a more specific subdivision.

>> No.20709481

>>20709386
It debunks itself. If God is outside of logic then any theology or religion is equally as reasonable, a conclussion that Aquinas would certainly reject. Like, I could come up with a "christian" theology that said that atheists go to heaven and theists go to hell, and whenever people showed me the obvious contradictions between my position and what the Bible claims, I could simply shrug it off as "what, do you think God has to abide by any human notions of coherence?"

>> No.20709534

>>20709481
The very first question of the Summa asks whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required. St. Thomas answers very clearly and reasonably that, yes, a higher science is needed, because even though some things can be known about God (for example, that He exists and created the universe) by reason alone, these things can only be known by long and arduous reasoning and so therefore knowledge of God would necessarily be easily corrupted by human error, and what little was known about God would be known only by a very few men. Furthermore, these truths about God which are knowable are very few, and so to know anything about God beyond these few truths requires that God reveal something about himself to men. Therefore, while Philosophy is built upon the highest principles of human reason, the science of Theology is built upon revealed principles which are beyond what any man could discover by reason alone.

>> No.20709539

>>20709342
Precisely.

>>20709450
You misunderstand. It's not about morality, it's about Aristotle's conceptions of virtue. "Homosexual" ISN'T a subcategory at all. You cannot make a meaningful statement about "homosexuals" or make a meaningful group of "homosexuals". In part, because every instance of "homosexuality" is either harmful, or is not actually occurring.

>> No.20709568

>>20709534
Learn to read anon. There is a difference between accepting that faith is a necessary source of knowledge and saying that God is outside logic. Aquinas believed in the former, not the latter. Even if things like the trinity and the incarnation ultimately depend on faith, Aquinas would say that they are not logically contradictory (indeed, he spends a great deal of time trying to demonstrate that they are at the very least plausible), because accepting that leads to the type of theological consequences I just mentioned.

>> No.20709578

>>20709539
>Homosexual" ISN'T a subcategory at all. You cannot make a meaningful statement about "homosexuals" or make a meaningful group of "homosexuals".
How so? I can clearly make a meaningful statement or a meaningful group out of homosexuals.

>> No.20709645

>>20709568
You confuse the ideas of "beyond reason" and "contrary to reason". God and the things of God are beyond reason. But, God is Truth. Things are reasonable because God has caused them.

>> No.20710256

>>20706364
Jesus was just a magician and god is like not real cos SCIENCE.

There. Debunked.

>> No.20710288

>>20706364
it's impossible to debunk schizos

>> No.20711200
File: 341 KB, 1720x2448, Palamas_Vatopaidi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
20711200

>>20706364
Yes