Does anyone know about any authors that explicitly attempt to offer some rebuttal to something Aquinas wrote? And I dont mean on the basis of theism/atheisim, but actually targeting the logic underpinning his argument, any of them! I feel like I have never encountered a meaningful attempt to argue against Aquinas.
Responses to Aquinas
Nicholas Martinez
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
newadvent.org
twitter.com
Sebastian Cooper
I don't think so. The best you'll get is some fedora tippers who take aim at his Five Ways, but I'm not aware of anyone who has attempted to actually critique his entire philosophical / theological framework. Usually it's just "Aristotlean philosophy is bullshit" and that's the end of it.
Maybe Kant is the best you'll get. He wasn't specifically taking aim at Aquinas but his philosophy probably hit Thomism harder than anything else in terms of delegitimizing it in academia.
Tyler Peterson
in what sense exactly?
It's been a few years since i've bothered with the christcucks but St. Photio's Myrobiblion in the 10th Century seems to have politely teabagged western european religious thought.
Jaxon Lopez
>fedora tippers
catholic animal
>Kant
oh i thought the OP was talking about nearer contemporary authors to the time..
hell,
John Smith
How could Photios have "rebutted" Aquinas when he lived 200 years before Aquinas? Also Photios was a renowned backstabber and heretic who was a poor philosopher and an even worse theologian, which is unsurprising because the majority of his energies were spent trying to acquire political power through subversive means, not intellectual pursuits.
Please go back to watching Jay Dyer and do not comment here.
Carson Baker
>Usually it's just "Aristotlean philosophy is bullshit" and that's the end of it.
yeah kind of because it is
>rebuttal to something Aquinas wrote?
if unclear earlier, i meant to ask "such as what"
The 12th century was an intellectual dark age and Aquinas, for some strange reason, seems to be improperly accorded some fame but I've never seen anything he wrote or said that was offering anything particularly insightful, even with the given that he was "following" in the footsteps of all that neo-platonistic error, which Plotinus already debunked, along with the God notion, the moment it was said within his earshot.
see plotinus versus christians/jews/gnostics on the notion of a god which is disconnected from physical material reality whilst claiming the fruits of the creation of the god; i.e. material physical reality and the human body, is an evil thing made by some other god (devil)
if only they were intelligent enough to understand the refutation
Oliver Robinson
>yeah kind of because it is
Can you back that up?
Jacob Bennett
>How could Photios have "rebutted" Aquinas when he lived 200 years before Aquinas?
yes i realized that in hindsight.. i was thinking "the contemporary era" and tend to forget aquinas was as late as he was. i confused him with augustine i think.
>Please go back to watching Jay Dyer and do not comment here.
yes.i .. who?
>Also Photios was a renowned backstabber and heretic who was a poor philosopher and an even worse theologian, which is unsurprising because the majority of his energies were spent trying to acquire political power through subversive means, not intellectual pursuits.
ah but that's why he became a saint and the boss of the church, second only to the emperor himself. power. whereas aquinas failed to become pope or even bishop, and died without seeing his dreams fulfilled by a term of government service, whatever those dreams may have been.
I disagree entirely with the philosophical point also; as Photios most famously showed up the great flaw in so-called academe and amongst theologians where they posit that nothing can be knowable and then go on to proclaim that this is good and this is bad, and so on.
It's actually very insightful perhaps on a more material or higher grade level when trying to figure out practical-actionable subjects such as the virtues and "why it is" that few people seem to bother being good people, despite being intelligent enough to see the reasoning to be so,
"the Academics are unaware that they are conflicting with themselves. For to make unambiguous assertions and denials, whilst at the same time as stating as a generalization that no things are cognitive, introduces an undeniable conflict:
How is it possible to recognize that one thing is true and one thing false, and yet still entertain perplexity and doubt, and not make a clear choice of the one and avoidance of the other?"
(EC) St. Photios 'the Great' of Constantinople,
Myriobiblion
9th Cent. Byz.
Carson Phillips
again, see plotinus - these things or misconceptions of practical philosophy 'as' "other world" theology were already debunked before they became popular.
Robert Cruz
see plotinus, or, you know, know who Gorgias and Chrysippus were.
Aristotle versus Chrysippus is almost no contest, but the logic and rhetorical teaching of Chrysippus (coming from Gorgias and not Socrates) seems to have died with the Roman Pagans, or been burned or whatever.
Nathan Ward
>Kant
Ahahaha ywnbaw youtu.be
Daniel Rogers
>The 12th century was an intellectual dark age
stoped right there, don't talk about what you don't know
Parker Russell
I should have known that this thread would have devolved in the same way anything tangential to religion does here. Thank you for trying:Hopefully someone can come along to answer my question. I am shocked no philosopher, doesnt even have to be major, since Aquinas has taken a stab at his logic. I mean the Summa is literally juts a list of arguments, is every single one really that internally coherent?
Kayden Cox
>>The 12th century was an intellectual dark age
>stoped right there, don't talk about what you don't know
uh no, i can't really imagine a worse time to be alive in than that part of europe in the 12th century.
of course your brainwashing dictates that you uphold the mythos of greatness of this era of simple-minded butchery and learn no lessons about why europe would go on to kick the catholics out and burn them for the thing they had done during this era of greatness..
..and why Aquinas must be pretended to be so wonderful despite his inability to actually do anything in the real world.
and this, kids, is why you don't attempt to intellectualize your disgust at judeo-christianity by copying ideas and phraseology from 18th century germoids.
Jonathan Evans
>Hopefully someone can come along to answer my question. I am shocked no philosopher, doesnt even have to be major, since Aquinas has taken a stab at his logic. I mean the Summa is literally juts a list of arguments, is every single one really that internally coherent?
i did ask you specifically 'what thing he said or wrote' you were wondering had been either refuted or expounded upon since.
you're not really giving anybody anything to work with.
Michael Myers
if i may add, Aquinas and Augustine w/re: intellectual dark age,
I conflated these two in error earlier on but this is because their 'place' was largely t same; both of them served to provide intellectual justifications, badly needed, as to why the common rabble of zealots ought not burn the greek and latin books they'd rediscovered because of the general realization that the old pagans had a great deal to teach and were not devil-men and succubus-women as the first christians had insisted all learned literate persons were.
i.e. this is an intellectual dark age barely managing to tie its shoelaces in terms of broad and vitally needed sciences such as medicine, municipal governance, law and rhetoric, judicial practice, trade and economics, etc., so this is not unlike finding cavemen and marveling at their ability to convince each other not to break their skulls open to cure headache.
it is an anthropological curiousity, but there is nothing practical or new there for any learned person, which was not either better fathomed centuries earlier or which would not in any case even exist 'as' a problem in the first place without the self-defeating religious errors being brainwashed into the local barbarian society.
Austin Martin
Aquinas tried to marry Jerusalem and Athens to prevent the destruction of the West so anyone who rejects that paradigm, e.g someone like Kierkegaard
Christian Lewis
I think generally you'd be better off critiquing his angelology, the more minute elements of his theology that get entangled with dogmatic Catholic autism and stray from strict philosophy and metaphysics, and his ethics; the main reason people tend to fail when critiquing Aquinas is that they try to disprove all of the shit he was right about while ignoring a ton of the stuff he got dead wrong
Like, I don't dislike Aquinas, but that whole section of the Summa dedicated to explaining that the saints in heaven will spend all eternity heartlessly laughing at the agony of the damned being tortured without even a trace of pity is unironically one of the most fucked-up things that anyone's ever said, that's the kind of genuinely heinous shit that deserves a bit more scrutiny
Adrian Long
>Like, I don't dislike Aquinas, but that whole section of the Summa dedicated to explaining that the saints in heaven will spend all eternity heartlessly laughing at the agony of the damned being tortured without even a trace of pity is unironically one of the most fucked-up things that anyone's ever said, that's the kind of genuinely heinous shit that deserves a bit more scrutiny
wow i ought to read this hahahaha
you know, i'm not a catholic at all, but my favorite of them is pope innocent iii, not because of anything he did but because of that text he published as a younger man - when Aquinas says shit like that it REALLY sounds like he's trying to match and exceed Innocent, but without any of the feeling,meaning or grace.
that is both fucked up and revealing of his character i think.
Matthew Ross
>Aquinas tried to marry Jerusalem and Athens
and some say marriage between two homosexual men is something new and avant garde.
Logan Thomas
>Does anyone know about any authors that explicitly attempt to offer some rebuttal to something Aquinas wrote?
Neo-thomists
>And I dont mean on the basis of theism/atheisim, but actually targeting the logic underpinning his argument
No one, even the newest approach to Thomism achieved a perfect synthesis with Fregean philosophy and all the corrections that have been achieved in logic to this day.
>Kant
>He wasn't specifically taking aim at Aquinas
That last part is kinda correct, Kant tend not to address Aquinas’s own arguments in the first place. Rather, he address later and weaker arguments from other writers. Arguments like Aquinas’s got lost in the shuffle, historically. And when contemporary philosophers do pay attention to them at all, they tend to read into Aquinas what they know (or think they know) from these later, very different and much weaker arguments. For example, people who read Aquinas’s Fifth Way often suppose that it is essentially the same as William Paley’s famous “design argument,” which compares the universe to a watch and God to a watchmaker. In fact, Aquinas’s and Paley’s arguments couldn’t be more different, and Aquinas would not have had much time for Paley’s...
>harder than anything else in terms of delegitimizing it in academia.
They are Protestants and you know it, it wasn't a "Aquinas was wrong about everything!" but a "We don't like Catholicism so lets turn to Kant!".
Jacob Cox
>the saints in heaven will spend all eternity heartlessly laughing at the agony of the damned being tortured without even a trace of pity
That's basically the Christian equivalent of the laughter of the gods. If you comprehend that "eternal torture" is basically just eternal worldly existence, it's not actually as bad as it sounds (unless you're already looking down from the angelic perspective, in which case you would not be in this thread.)
Jack Ross
A lot of Christians - I dread to say even most - genuinely do unsettle me with the way they talk about Hell, like there are obviously a ton of exceptions but it starts to reach a point where they legitimately seem like they're getting off on the thought of seeing sentient beings in pain; if Nietzsche was right about only one thing in his entire life it was that the common Christian doctrine of Hell is abhorrently sadistic and sociopathic
I think it's been eased up in modern times for the most part among average people, but the way the more "old-fashioned" Christians tended to talk about the subject of damnation literally makes God sound infinitely worse than Satan, fucking horrific shit like getting burned alive and bombarded with the worst smells and sights imaginable, a single human sin somehow managing to immediately incur infinite guilt that immediately warrants eternal torture, parents in Heaven being so doped up and brainwashed that they have big happy grins watching their children get tortured in Hell, fucking insane nightmarish ravings straight out of goddamn Lovecraft
For whatever reason it tends to seem like the Catholic Church intentionally lifted to the forefront those theologians who had the absolute bleakest view imaginable of God and the universe, I genuinely don't even know how you'd cope if you legit 100% believed that God did this shit to people
Luis Nelson
>They are Protestants and you know it, it wasn't a "Aquinas was wrong about everything!" but a "We don't like Catholicism so lets turn to Kant!".
uhh more like a "we've just had our glorious catholic german empire be fucking routed by Napoleon, the world is ending and the church s fucking failed to make us strong!! - let's turn to Kant" or something closer to that, in all context.
Chase Thompson
>That's basically the Christian equivalent of the laughter of the gods. If you comprehend that "eternal torture" is basically just eternal worldly existence, it's not actually as bad as it sounds (unless you're already looking down from the angelic perspective, in which case you would not be in this thread.)
strongly disagree. strongly strongly.
any normal human being with a shred of conscience would be sickened by laughing at another persons actual real pain; nobody with any real conscience could ever comprehend such a thing being said of gods or holy persons, it displays a great absence of awareness of basic goodness - which you yourself espouse when you say,
>unless you're already looking down from the angelic perspective, in which case you would not be in this thread.
which as an idea, on your part, attempts to put basic human conscience, reason and everyday goodness far out of reach of the common human being - which is entirely false, as ordinary people display far more conscience all the time.
Charles Nguyen
BASED
A
S
E
D
Connor Rivera
It's time user.
Asher Bennett
>whole section of the Summa dedicated to explaining that the saints in heaven will spend all eternity heartlessly laughing at the agony of the damned being tortured without even a trace of pity is unironically one of the most fucked-up things that anyone's ever said, that's the kind of genuinely heinous shit that deserves a bit more scrutiny
But he is right.
Matthew Cox
desu whenever i hear it it always seems to be displacement; that is: someone who actually has done some heinously vile thing like raped a child or killed a relative to steal their money, is trying to convince him or herself that you or other people as "as evil" as he or she is, for, you know, looking at a womans ankles in the 1890's.
there's a really REALLY old line from Emperor Maximinus when he persecutes the christians for having "held down the whole world for shame" and that they should be happy to swear off the 'new god' as like "being cured from a terminal illness,"
in this context it all fits.
but with that said, most christians would probably be physically incapable of actually doing the kind of harm they wish they could do... but ten again we're not so far removed from the days when normal americans were eating cotton candy and watching falsely-accused black people burn to death at the circus.
Luis Thomas
"may those ['former'-christians] who, after being freed from [the self-defeating errors of] those by-ways [which had led them to nothing but enmity toward their fellow-man], rejoice [at having been] snatched from a grave illness"
Galerius Valerius Maximinus Daza, 308AD
from a defaced inscription
Jaxon Davis
>any normal human being
Gods and angels are beyond human beings. Even saying that they laugh is only an anachronism anyway.
Daniel Miller
i'm not familiar with that emperor meme
Brody Perez
2edgy4me
Joseph Collins
lol you really missed the point of conscience.. and i don't believe you're being sincere at this point, if you 'were' being sincere then you're basically saying that the god, saints and angels are all cartoon devils devoid of goodness and would have nothing but really sonichu comicbook tier stuff as a basis for the religion, which would then disprove the religion itself as being obviously stupid and made-up by crazy evil barbarians. (which we know it was)
Justin Martin
No, I didn't. The point, from the Christian perspective, is that even if the angels tried to help mankind, mankind couldn't be helped. Men have to help themselves, or at least want to help themselves, through an act of their own will, therefore until they realize what they really want, they will keep running in circles, like a bunch of circus performers, constantly enjoying pleasures and then suffering the pains which come when they realize those pleasures are transient and result naturally in their opposites. Hence the laughter of the angels, it's the only redeeming aspect of man's existence when it is not directed toward God.
John Williams
It amazes me how someone could at his age could not understand Descartes. This is just embarrassing.
Kayden Ramirez
Besides the classical critiques by Hume and Kant, J.L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, J.H. Sobel, and Anthony Kenny all have good work critiquing Aquinas's arguments. Alvin Plantinga even offers some critiques of the Third Way in God and Other Minds. Obviously, many people have engaged in meaningful criticisms of Aquinas. You just have to look for it. There are also tons of contemporary Christian philosophers who challenge the Thomistic arguments for divine simplicity, timelessness, impassibility, etc. R.T. Mullins has some good work on this.
Josiah Turner
That's the great think about logic
You can use it to prove just about anything
Josiah Young
bruh wtf is you talking about
Gavin Hughes
We all know God isn't real, we just convince ourselves that he is
Charles Cox
>No, I didn't. The point, from the Christian perspective, is that even if the angels tried to help mankind, mankind couldn't be helped.
which is an admission that the religion fails to instruct mankind in practical good behavior by comparison to both other religions and older philosophies/laws, who were/are able to accomplish far more lol which again.... (disproves the religion itself as being obviously stupid and made-up by crazy evil barbarians.)
>Men have to help themselves, or at least want to help themselves, through an act of their own will, therefore until they realize what they really want, they will keep running in circles, like a bunch of circus performers, constantly enjoying pleasures and then suffering the pains which come when they realize those pleasures are transient and result naturally in their opposites.
Well that is true, but then it follows that the way to break that circle is to educate them in their 'god given intelligence' why it is most rational to follow the virtues and avoid the vices.
laughing at them for not being properly aware of a certain set of laws that you know and refuse to tell them about is something rather un-god-like.
notice how it becomes, to do apologetics on this point, necessary to drag down god and the angel and the saints to the intellectual and moral level of a drunken crowd in a circus, laughing at a cripple, with the only answer in excuse for doing this as being "well we cannot possibly understand gods and angels!" which is patently stupid,
rather: one has made a demon in their own image, embodying their own vices and foibles, and pretended it is an angel!
(damn, i could be a great priest)
>Hence the laughter of the angels, it's the only redeeming aspect of man's existence when it is not directed toward God.
perhaps Aquinas was drawing a comparison with Chrysippus dying of laughter. perhaps not.
Aiden Rodriguez
>which is an admission that the religion fails to instruct mankind
Non-sequitur, show your reasoning if you want to say otherwise. Christianity does the best it can to help given the limitations imposed on it by the state of the world and the ability of its constituents.
>but then it follows that the way to break that circle is to educate them
Education cannot change the will, it can only guide and show the path. This is theology 101. If you disagree with Christianity I do not really care, I am just showing you that there is nothing contradictory or awful about the idea of divine or semi-divine laughter (which is itself only an anachronism as I said earlier). You also seem to be utterly confused about the actual reality of divinity as well, as you still conceive God or his Angels as anthropomorphic entities.
Kayden Miller
Holy Based
Josiah Bailey
He didn't mention Descartes once in the whole clip.
Adam Davis
>literally makes God sound infinitely worse than Satan
the more i learn about christianity the more i think god and satan secretly switched places
Lucas Martinez
Quads ov truth
Matthew Foster
Because I think in this case a wider net would be more possible. I dont care what the topic was as long as the situation is A) direct rebuttal and B) explicitly aimed at Aquinas.
If you need a structure to work the gears, then how about Prima Pars: Q5. Art. 3
Austin Rogers
Holy mother of cringe. What a faggot. It’s embarrassing.
Joseph Bailey
I ask this insidious vermin one question. Is it common sense to believe Jesus had a father or that he was born of the Holy Spirit?
Lucas Cook
Try to glow less hard next time jew you don't fit in
>insidious vermin
Stop projecting rabbi shekleberg. To answer your question, God is The Holy Trinity: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. Three Persons truly distinct from one another but one God. You can read about it here in the Catholic encyclopedia. newadvent.org
And to quote the beginning of the Apostle's Creed which all Catholics believe in
>I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
I hope that answers your question, happy Easter and repent and join the one true faith Traditional Catholicism.
Benjamin Bennett
>believes in jewish god and jewish religion
>calls others jew
>asked a simple question
>dodges the question repeats his creed like a parrot
Yeah I am thinking cringe.
Adam Carter
Yes, Antifragile is a pretty big rebuttal to Aquinas' way of thinking
Jaxson Howard
>see plotinus versus christians/jews/gnostics on the notion of a god which is disconnected from physical material reality whilst claiming the fruits of the creation of the god; i.e. material physical reality and the human body, is an evil thing made by some other god (devil)
Metaphysical shudra.
Jordan Hall
Confess your faith sure, but drop the Apologetics larp and be like Eckhart,
>Meister Eckhart would not even admit that God was good. ...Eckhart's position was that anything that was good can become better, and whatever may become better may become best. God cannot be referred to as "good", "better", or best because He is above all things. If a man says that God is wise, the man is lying because anything that is wise can become wiser. Anything that a man might say about God is incorrect, even calling Him by the name of God. God is "superessential nothingness" and "transcendent Being" ... beyond all words and beyond all understanding. The best a man can do is remain silent, because anytime he prates on about God, he is committing the sin of lying. The true master knows that if he had a God he could understand, he would never hold Him to be God.
Connor Torres
Imagine being an unironic tradlarper
Daniel Roberts
>doesn't know the difference between jew and Israelite
I shiggy diggy and I didn't dodge any question the Apostle's Creed perfectly answers the question and the understanding of The Holy Trinity completes it, jew.
>Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie--indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. - Revelation 3:9
>Larp
Nobody is larping except for you
Jacob Lee
In that case, tell us about when you gave all your possessions away, like your Bible commands you to do. Or is that the conveniently metaphorical section of your holy book?
Gabriel Williams
>24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
>25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
>26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
Know your place then you gentile cringe cur. You’ll never be not slave to your jew/israelite/hebrew/semitic masters.
Also I specifically pointed out the hypocrisy of that senile old fuck’s thinking process. He accuses Kant and Hegel for challenging common sense, which is the entire premise of cuckistianity.
Thomas Morgan
What reason would there be to not be happy that perfect justice is being dispensed? The difference between Aquinas and you is that Aquinas knew his limitation and was willing to submit his reason to revelation whereas you think you've got everything on lock and think there are no circumstances where your current views could possibly be superseded with a change of perspective.
Tyler Lewis
The ol’ switcheroo.
Jeremiah Diaz
I got a new revelation with me that says you are fag.
Nathan Powell
It's axiomatic that God is perfectly good and anyone in Hell absolutely deserves it. If you dispute that then you lack faith, or overestimate your current ability to perceive truth. Simple as that.
Hunter Turner
>What reason would there be to not be happy that perfect justice is being dispensed?
The part where Allah could be the real God, which would land your ass in hell just as hard as mine