I just found out that most people don't accept Aristotle's four causes...

Modern-day Thomists are the boomers of philosophy. Brainlets whose little crania couldn't fit the philosophy of Kant, Hegel and the rationalists. They cling on to a philosophy that literally no one in academia has cared about for about 400 years. The only people who still care about Thomism besides them are crusty old bearded incels locked up in towers in the Vatican City.

Is your professor unironically Edward Feser?

And Gregory B. Sadler.

I couldn't possibly lay it on any thicker. The idea that modern people ignore Aristotle because a church they don't even respect did something before Aquinas was canonized is ridiculous on the face of it. The church didn't even care what the church did.

I cannot tell if you're being sarcastic.

He’s saying that the Church has nothing to do with why modern philosophy depts or the social elite ignore Aristotelian metaphysics and epistemology. That you were told something self aggrandizing by a Cath academic has no bearing on the actual reason for the death of rationalism

I actually cannot tell if you're being sarcastic.

99.99% of people don't know what the fuck Aristotle's four causes are, I think that's more relevant than an 800 year-old condemnation by Catholic bishops

Try doing biology without final causes...

It's impossible.

Is that sarcasm?

>people in the vatican like thomas aquinas

good joke user

>ctrl f "Schopenhauer" and "principle of sufficient reason"
>0 results
What were the neo-Thomists thinking?

Attached: schop.jpg (198x282, 20K)

Then you have autism

>original sin not in the old testament
>atonement through jesus not in the old testament
>original sin not in the new testament
>atonement through jesus not in the new testament
>therefore jesus died for our sins

The only thing greater than the Theological abomination of the Church is its Logical abomination. The likes of Nietzsche have less contempt for Jesus.

What? Is Eve eating the apple not original sin?

-steps in-

hijacking this thread to have an honest to God, anonymous book review done in an honest God honesty that is about philosophy.
A very great read for any person out there interested in philosophy. Be they from the highest φιλόσοφος, or to the young and the homeless. This book is the entry gate to one of the most important philosophical history series that will shake decades of philosophy.
My reasononing will be at that shortly.

First to begin, We will look at it's exterior's knowledge. We take notice of the Author's personhood primarily and prumptly because we take to notice that the man is a Catholic Jesuit. and that by his nature it is also a work done in religous reasoning. So this work will also inflict impact upon other religous work.
It will require a high degree of knowledge upon glances but upon further inspection its disagreences are noted with everytime so it only remains partially deep, by the number of disagreeing nature it does not go to deep only to explain a short clammoring for people with higher degrees. So in some degrees it is extremely steep of a hijacking this thread to have an honest to God, anonymous book review done in an honest God honesty that is about philosophy.
A very great read for any person out there interested in philosophy. Be they from the highest φιλόσοφος, or to the young and the homeless. This book is the entry gate to one of the most important philosophical history series that will shake decades of philosophy.
My reasononing will be at that shortly.

First to begin, We will look at it's exterior's knowledge. We take notice of the Author's personhood primarily and prumptly because we take to notice that the man is a Catholic Jesuit. and that by his nature it is also a work done in religous reasoning. So this work will also inflict impact upon other religous work.
It will require a high degree of knowledge upon glances but upon further inspection its disagreences are noted with everytime so it only remains partially deep, by the number of disagreeing nature it does not go to deep only to explain a short clammoring for people with higher degrees. So in some degrees it is extremely steep of a learning curve to read
border line borderline pyschopath. Multi line multi time paradime paradox photograph orthodime orthodox party time snorlax pizza time pizza line paragraph.

Spaghetti smells runny red roses rollo the floor hello low toes the floor funny shmllz noses smelly foots and fungus up my nose into a paradoxhijacking this thread to have an honest to God, anonymous book review done in an honest God honesty that is about philosophy.
A very great read for any person out there interested in philosophy. Be they from the highest φιλόσοφος, or to the young and the homeless. This book is the entry gate to one of the

Possibly, but original sin as in its inheritance, that all men are born sinners, is in neither Testament.

Can't believe that was all that was necessary for me to become a φιλόσοφος

Reminder that Eve did nothing wrong and the serpent was right.

where is butterfly

Attached: 61dGq06foaL._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (323x499, 51K)

what the fuck do you think adam is if not an allegory for man in general? gen 3:15, gen 3:22, gen 6:12
many such cases!

adam was literally the first person as well as homologous.
pic related the greek prediction of Christ.

Attached: squaringthecircle.jpg (549x500, 166K)

you dont believe in evolution?

Yes? This would further prove my point, since Adam was not inherently sinful, but sinned of his own accord.

and since adam was dislocated from the garden of eden being born means that it is inevitable you will sin, since we no longer exist in a context where the only sin is to eat the do not eat fruit. we dont choose to have knowledge anymore.

>im smarter than augustine

I’m not him but the two are not mutually exclusive ideas. Evolution would say there was originally a first man with the set of mutations that we now label as homo sapien.

>being right on a single topic where anoter guy is wrong makes me smarter than him

This meme assumption has to stop. I know not all algebraic operations can be repeated an infinite amount of times and yield the intuitive generalozition from the finite case, does that make me smarter than Euler and Lagrange ?

>know not all algebraic operations can be repeated an infinite amount of times and yield the intuitive generalozition from the finite case, does that make me smarter than Euler and Lagrange ?
yes u arrogant prick

i believe in both you hellish child no go obey God and listen to your daddy. You are like adam and you are to BEHAVE him. LISTEN TO MOMMY butterfly.

Attached: God-the-Father-900.jpg (900x658, 110K)

I don't even argue against it being inevitable, though I doubt it, I argue against it being inborn, which is contrary to both Testaments.

Doctrine in general explicitly contradicts both Testaments, particularly the New one. It is literally Paulian, not Christian.

ugh

Attached: Smugwojaktipsfedora.png (640x540, 85K)

Attached: 622c72427e6488bd9fc8e8769cdd8bf7.jpg (720x626, 80K)

>Paul corrupted Christianity
If only you knew the truth

Attached: woke christians.jpg (1356x1164, 195K)

>Evolution would say there was originally a first man
No it wouldn't

this picture is actually genius

nice

yes a first man needs a name and his name was adam. How can there be two firsts?

Attached: rich1.png (293x285, 206K)

That inferring original sin and atonement from each other, even though neither are in either Testament, is intellectually disgraceful, is bad enough. But ascribing the Teleology of "sacrificial lamb" to Jesus is an abomination. It is integral to the Gospels that he transgressed Judaism and the "Law", which his detractors then heaped onto him in cruelly ironic ways, prominently "King of the Jews", precisely because he did NOT fulfill that role.

Retard

Abraham and Isaac
is like man and Jesus.
He fulfills the killing sacrifice of Isaac, that is when God sworn his own son instead.
Remember the lambs never fulfilled the sacrifice they only attained for partial sin. Hence why Jesus forgives all the sin by the power of Sin.

become Catholic.

Attached: CrucifixionVanDyckLouvre.jpg (300x353, 28K)

Evolution deals with populations and not individuals

Mixing and matching Testaments is confusing enough without your poor grammar. By all means, what else can I infer? That Jesus gave Satan the keys to his Kingdom? Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 16:23, in fact, it very much explains Catholic abomination.

sin is knowingly committing evil.
a rock that falls on you didnt sin because it has no capacity for knowledge.
once you eat the fruit and doom your offspring to know they are born sinners.

>Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

>Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

As balanced as Kingdom Come and the Roman Empire.

And you call Mormonism fan fiction...

obviously but communities require names thus implying names.
Adam was named first through God and even heard God name Eve.

Each community has an Adam and Eve.

it is. it's literally started by ex-zoroastrians that discovered the bloom of Christianity. Considered to be a lost brother tribe of Isreal at one point. Who had a similar religion Judaism, which is even seen in the book of Job.

Attached: 1923820._UY435_SS435_.jpg (435x435, 15K)

And still less contrary to the words of Jesus than original sin and atonement.

Mixing and matching Scripture is also one of the meanings of adultery.

>And still less contrary to the words of Jesus than original sin and atonement.

You are mistaken. The book of Job is an older part of the bible close to the age of Genesis. It just has zoroastrian elements.
please do research.

What this means is that Christianity is a revelation of God him self, a new covenant.

wtf I love you now.

Every prophet is a new revelation from God :3

Its basic exegesis, good Rabbi.

Not exactly it is second hand.

That is the case, yes. But typically they will bring with them some sort of cultural change/revelations from God himself. A prophet is a cultural phenomenon which will not go away with the increase of technology. :3

Christ is first hand

It’s a reddit-tier meta joke and you ought to go back there

If you cannot tell, then it is.

More philosophers like Fessie Fess?

How does Feser explain the "ground" of Aristotle's conceptions? Are they cognitive/transcendental in a Kantian way, are they just heuristic/useful ("the best formulation of the concept of cause anyone's yet come up with, but still only linguistic"), or does he go full-blown Christian/Thomist and say they are the actual ontological categories of reality itself, mirrored in/by our minds?

If any of the above, where does he do this?

I would guess the latter since he's Catholic.

"I think it you will find that the emptiness is in your
BALLS, plato."
"Diogenes, get off your knees."

He only likes Aristotelian philosophy because it could let him justify the death penalty and other right-wing power fantasies. A cancer on Catholicism.

I think you can remove "a" and "on" from your last sentence but otherwise yeah spot on.

What the hell is a right wing power fantasy and why would supporting the death penalty be one?

>materialists
>thinking

>death penalty
>right-wing power fantasy
please elaborate

Aristotle>>>>>>>Plato
Prove me wrong

but that’s wrong you fucking retard

Hard agree

extremely low iq post, sounds like you watched the school of life video on aristotle