Anonymous
8/5/2025, 8:55:10 PM No.24613403
How did Aquinas connect philosophy and theology?
Replies:
Thread 24613403 - /lit/
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 9:06:35 PM No.24613429
>>24613403 (OP)
Philosophy gives you the truth of natural reason. Faith gives you revealed truths of faith. You can use philosophy to make sense of faith and show that faith is not actually irrational (the hypostatic union, the Trinity, etc.) /thread
Philosophy gives you the truth of natural reason. Faith gives you revealed truths of faith. You can use philosophy to make sense of faith and show that faith is not actually irrational (the hypostatic union, the Trinity, etc.) /thread
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 9:32:51 PM No.24613494
>>24613403 (OP)
Theology is essentially a branch of philosophy
Theology is essentially a branch of philosophy
Replies:
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 9:36:28 PM No.24613504
Replies:
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 9:38:07 PM No.24613509
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 9:43:37 PM No.24613521
>>24613403 (OP)
sounds like a school assignment
sounds like a school assignment
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 9:44:56 PM No.24613525
>>24613403 (OP)
He did it by abusing a false interpretation of Aristotle
He did it by abusing a false interpretation of Aristotle
Replies:
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 9:53:59 PM No.24613549
>>24613525
>Aristotle
Written like an idiot who thinks all he did was translate what "The Philosopher" wrote.
he was a Platonist. like almost all christian philosophers.
>Aristotle
Written like an idiot who thinks all he did was translate what "The Philosopher" wrote.
he was a Platonist. like almost all christian philosophers.
Replies:
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 9:59:55 PM No.24613564
>>24613549
Tell us, pray, what exactly did the Platonists get right that Aristotle got wrong? inb4 some vague bullshit about mysticism.
Tell us, pray, what exactly did the Platonists get right that Aristotle got wrong? inb4 some vague bullshit about mysticism.
Replies:
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 10:06:58 PM No.24613581
>>24613403 (OP)
Heavily loaded question.
Heavily loaded question.
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 10:09:26 PM No.24613587
>>24613569
I've read it. First of all, it's a shit book - his treatment of essence in particular is shameful. "Well... the essences in Aristotle are still sort of like natural patterns... so they could be patterned on patterns in a divine intellect..." even though Aristotle btfo's that argument in Meta 3 and elsewhere. Or like in his treatment of the immortality of the soul, citing the Eudemus, Plotinus himself did not take the arguments in the Eudemus seriously. In fact, Plotinus was intelligent enough to recognize the opposition between Plato and Aristotle. I think the worst of all, maybe, is his thoughtlessly repeating the charge that Aristotle's unmoved mover is complex (and what is it full of? Forms of course!) even though Aristotle says it's perfectly simple and one, says it only thinks itself, NEVER speaks of it as thinking Forms, and gives dozens of arguments against there being any such thing as a Form at all, in any sense. And then "ohh wellll maybe the Forms are all unified in this one-many!" But that's exactly what Aristotle attacks in books 13 and 14, the theory of a plurality of Forms emanating from the One. Seriously, you would have to be a pseud, someone who hasn't spent much time with Aristotle himself, to find that book convincing; this is also borne out in academic reviews of it btw. All Gerson does is take arguments from ~4th-6th century commentary on Aristotle and translate them into academic speak.
Second of all, its entire thesis is that Aristotle is only "really" saying what Plato meant to say all along but for some reason never quite did. So you haven't answered my question at all and are, in fact, a retard. That's not surprising for a Gerson fan though.
I've read it. First of all, it's a shit book - his treatment of essence in particular is shameful. "Well... the essences in Aristotle are still sort of like natural patterns... so they could be patterned on patterns in a divine intellect..." even though Aristotle btfo's that argument in Meta 3 and elsewhere. Or like in his treatment of the immortality of the soul, citing the Eudemus, Plotinus himself did not take the arguments in the Eudemus seriously. In fact, Plotinus was intelligent enough to recognize the opposition between Plato and Aristotle. I think the worst of all, maybe, is his thoughtlessly repeating the charge that Aristotle's unmoved mover is complex (and what is it full of? Forms of course!) even though Aristotle says it's perfectly simple and one, says it only thinks itself, NEVER speaks of it as thinking Forms, and gives dozens of arguments against there being any such thing as a Form at all, in any sense. And then "ohh wellll maybe the Forms are all unified in this one-many!" But that's exactly what Aristotle attacks in books 13 and 14, the theory of a plurality of Forms emanating from the One. Seriously, you would have to be a pseud, someone who hasn't spent much time with Aristotle himself, to find that book convincing; this is also borne out in academic reviews of it btw. All Gerson does is take arguments from ~4th-6th century commentary on Aristotle and translate them into academic speak.
Second of all, its entire thesis is that Aristotle is only "really" saying what Plato meant to say all along but for some reason never quite did. So you haven't answered my question at all and are, in fact, a retard. That's not surprising for a Gerson fan though.
Replies:
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 10:14:22 PM No.24613594
>>24613569
>So what's the difference between Aristotle and Plato anyway? Why do you think Plato is better?
>I think they're... the SAME!
Idiot.
>So what's the difference between Aristotle and Plato anyway? Why do you think Plato is better?
>I think they're... the SAME!
Idiot.
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 10:17:52 PM No.24613607
>>24613564
>inb4 some vague bullshit about mysticism.
Then please tell me where Aquinas misinterpreted Aristotle. inb4 some vague bullshit concerning what Aristotle wrote.
If youre discrediting the central thesis before even hearing the argument youre a fucking retard for even entering the field of philosophy. Like a dude entering engineering but not wanting to hear anything about material sciences.
>inb4 some vague bullshit about mysticism.
Then please tell me where Aquinas misinterpreted Aristotle. inb4 some vague bullshit concerning what Aristotle wrote.
If youre discrediting the central thesis before even hearing the argument youre a fucking retard for even entering the field of philosophy. Like a dude entering engineering but not wanting to hear anything about material sciences.
Replies:
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 10:21:41 PM No.24613617
>>24613564
Theory of forms. inb4 something about it being vague bullshit about mysticism.
Theory of forms. inb4 something about it being vague bullshit about mysticism.
Replies:
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 10:35:01 PM No.24613670
>>24613607
We're two different people. I do think Aquinas misinterprets Aristotle in all sorts of ways, from the significance of the third sense of "per se" predication in Posterior Analytics, to the principle of individuation, to the role of the agent intellect in cognition, really all sorts of shit, but that's not what I want to argue about. You set up an opposition between Plato and Aristotle, implying Plato was somehow superior, and I ask you simply, in what way is Plato better than Aristotle? And you don't have an answer of course because you're a pseud without a very clear understanding of either of them, especially the latter.
>If youre discrediting the central thesis before even hearing the argument youre a fucking retard for even entering the field of philosophy. Like a dude entering engineering but not wanting to hear anything about material sciences.
Again, you're talking to different anons. But, again, someone who posts a book whose central thesis is that Aristotle is pretty much an orthodox neoplatonist, if correctly read, in response to a question about why Plato is supposed to be better than Aristotle, is a rank pseud, and no amount of scattershot insulting will change that.
>>24613617
>Theory of Forms
Which theory of Forms? What do you think the Theory of Forms actually is? Seriously, there is no Theory of Forms in Plato, this is an extremely controversial area. On some readings, he's actually in line with Aristotle, and Aristotle was simply too autistic/uncharitable to notice it. That's the school of thought I'm inclined toward but it's impossible to prove any of these readings. This is not Gerson's directionality, though, but the reverse, and the account of Forms is different. However, given that you are a pseud, I assume by "theory of Forms" you mean "the world is objectively intelligible, there is an objective what-ness of things, and this is grounded in some way in God". If that's what you mean, that's what Aristotle also says, so you still haven't answered my question. If you mean "there is a mysterious entity, the x in itself, and things participate in it", then you're out of step with the actual Platonists, and your theory is retarded and was refuted by Aristotle. If you mean "there are Forms in a divine intellect" - do you mean it like Aquinas meant it? Because that's not how Platonists mean it, but how Aristotle meant it, i.e. there are no distinct Forms at all, really, but the absolute unity of God is the ground of objectivity. Or do you mean it like Gerson and the neoplatonists mean it? Because no Christian can follow you there, so your cute little post about Christian platonism collapses yet again, and you are exposed as a pseud anew. Fucking hell I hate this board and everyone on it.
We're two different people. I do think Aquinas misinterprets Aristotle in all sorts of ways, from the significance of the third sense of "per se" predication in Posterior Analytics, to the principle of individuation, to the role of the agent intellect in cognition, really all sorts of shit, but that's not what I want to argue about. You set up an opposition between Plato and Aristotle, implying Plato was somehow superior, and I ask you simply, in what way is Plato better than Aristotle? And you don't have an answer of course because you're a pseud without a very clear understanding of either of them, especially the latter.
>If youre discrediting the central thesis before even hearing the argument youre a fucking retard for even entering the field of philosophy. Like a dude entering engineering but not wanting to hear anything about material sciences.
Again, you're talking to different anons. But, again, someone who posts a book whose central thesis is that Aristotle is pretty much an orthodox neoplatonist, if correctly read, in response to a question about why Plato is supposed to be better than Aristotle, is a rank pseud, and no amount of scattershot insulting will change that.
>>24613617
>Theory of Forms
Which theory of Forms? What do you think the Theory of Forms actually is? Seriously, there is no Theory of Forms in Plato, this is an extremely controversial area. On some readings, he's actually in line with Aristotle, and Aristotle was simply too autistic/uncharitable to notice it. That's the school of thought I'm inclined toward but it's impossible to prove any of these readings. This is not Gerson's directionality, though, but the reverse, and the account of Forms is different. However, given that you are a pseud, I assume by "theory of Forms" you mean "the world is objectively intelligible, there is an objective what-ness of things, and this is grounded in some way in God". If that's what you mean, that's what Aristotle also says, so you still haven't answered my question. If you mean "there is a mysterious entity, the x in itself, and things participate in it", then you're out of step with the actual Platonists, and your theory is retarded and was refuted by Aristotle. If you mean "there are Forms in a divine intellect" - do you mean it like Aquinas meant it? Because that's not how Platonists mean it, but how Aristotle meant it, i.e. there are no distinct Forms at all, really, but the absolute unity of God is the ground of objectivity. Or do you mean it like Gerson and the neoplatonists mean it? Because no Christian can follow you there, so your cute little post about Christian platonism collapses yet again, and you are exposed as a pseud anew. Fucking hell I hate this board and everyone on it.
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 11:00:01 PM No.24613771
>God exists... because he just has to, OK???
Replies:
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 11:48:07 PM No.24613923
>>24613494
The goal of philosophy is to arrive at wisdom through critical thinking and logical argument.
Theology begins with faith and divine revelation. It starts with a set of accepted beliefs (e.g., the Bible, a creed, or specific divine encounters) and uses reason to understand, explain, and systematize those beliefs.
The goal of philosophy is to arrive at wisdom through critical thinking and logical argument.
Theology begins with faith and divine revelation. It starts with a set of accepted beliefs (e.g., the Bible, a creed, or specific divine encounters) and uses reason to understand, explain, and systematize those beliefs.
Anonymous
8/5/2025, 11:56:01 PM No.24613958
>>24613403 (OP)
learn Latin
learn Latin
Anonymous
8/6/2025, 12:07:54 AM No.24614014
Replies:
Anonymous
8/6/2025, 12:29:20 AM No.24614097
>>24614014
I bet you grew up in house where it was perfectly acceptable to shit with the bathroom door wide open
I bet you grew up in house where it was perfectly acceptable to shit with the bathroom door wide open
Anonymous
8/6/2025, 3:02:50 AM No.24614620
>>24613587
Lmao Gerson is a Cambridge translator, don't call something shit because you don't agree with it. Cambridge is the shit
>"Well... the essences in Aristotle are still sort of like natural patterns... so they could be patterned on patterns in a divine intellect..."
Essences in whatever sense face the same end. Gerson talks about it. But no, Gerson is not dependent on any presumptions about divine intellect. You should look up Ur-Platonism.
>Plotinus was intelligent enough to recognize the opposition between Plato and Aristotle.
Yeah the neoplatonists in general understood that there was a distinction. Neokantian interpreters of Hegel also understand that Hegel isn't identical with Kant. It is a question of degree. To say that Aristotle is a Platonist is not to say that he is identical or redundant with Plato. Of course there are differences - it is a question of whether to see it as separate traditions or a refining tradition. It is central to Gerson that Plato is understood as containing a certain essential philosophy and then a variety of auxiliary hypotheses. Hence why it was common for the same people to both take Plato and Aristotle to be part of a continuous philosophy while also recognizing differences between them.
>NEVER speaks of it as thinking Forms, and gives dozens of arguments against there being any such thing as a Form at all, in any sense
This is the most obvious of complaints and so Gerson speaks of it at length.
>this is also borne out in academic reviews of it btw
?? Gerson is well regarded in academic reviews.
Lmao Gerson is a Cambridge translator, don't call something shit because you don't agree with it. Cambridge is the shit
>"Well... the essences in Aristotle are still sort of like natural patterns... so they could be patterned on patterns in a divine intellect..."
Essences in whatever sense face the same end. Gerson talks about it. But no, Gerson is not dependent on any presumptions about divine intellect. You should look up Ur-Platonism.
>Plotinus was intelligent enough to recognize the opposition between Plato and Aristotle.
Yeah the neoplatonists in general understood that there was a distinction. Neokantian interpreters of Hegel also understand that Hegel isn't identical with Kant. It is a question of degree. To say that Aristotle is a Platonist is not to say that he is identical or redundant with Plato. Of course there are differences - it is a question of whether to see it as separate traditions or a refining tradition. It is central to Gerson that Plato is understood as containing a certain essential philosophy and then a variety of auxiliary hypotheses. Hence why it was common for the same people to both take Plato and Aristotle to be part of a continuous philosophy while also recognizing differences between them.
>NEVER speaks of it as thinking Forms, and gives dozens of arguments against there being any such thing as a Form at all, in any sense
This is the most obvious of complaints and so Gerson speaks of it at length.
>this is also borne out in academic reviews of it btw
?? Gerson is well regarded in academic reviews.
Anonymous
8/6/2025, 3:06:31 AM No.24614626
>>24613549
He couldn’t read Greek and Plato wasn’t translated into Latin until about two hundred years after Aquinas died.
He couldn’t read Greek and Plato wasn’t translated into Latin until about two hundred years after Aquinas died.
Anonymous
8/6/2025, 4:24:30 AM No.24614835
>>24613504
Accepting that God is the omnipotent creator, human conceptualization is still capable of putting him withing a system of thought. God bestows wisdom on us - that is how we can think about him in the first place. Cognition isn't "bigger" than God, but it is the basic, necessary entry to understand his existence, without which there would be no faith, ergo, no God.
I guess you could say that when we are being wise it's God working through us, but that would mean that theology is essentially just God thinking about himself, which just seems odd.
Accepting that God is the omnipotent creator, human conceptualization is still capable of putting him withing a system of thought. God bestows wisdom on us - that is how we can think about him in the first place. Cognition isn't "bigger" than God, but it is the basic, necessary entry to understand his existence, without which there would be no faith, ergo, no God.
I guess you could say that when we are being wise it's God working through us, but that would mean that theology is essentially just God thinking about himself, which just seems odd.