Aquinas
-
I am reading a critique on Thomas Aquinas. i am having problems digesting the 2nd portion:
AquinasÂ’s teaching had a positive side in that before his time there was little emphasis on the normal, day-to-day world, that is, the world and our relationship to it. These things do have importance because God created the world. By the mid-thirteenth century, certain Gothic sculptors had begun to fashion leaves and flowers and birds, and had given these figures a more natural appearance. Thanks to Thomas Aquinas, the world and manÂ’s place in the world was given more prominence than previously. The negative result of his teaching was that the individual things, the particulars, tended to be made independent, autonomous, and consequently the meaning of the particulars began to be lost. We can think of it as the individual things, the particulars, gradually and increasingly becoming everything and thus devouring all meaning until meaning disappears.
specifically, the part on negative results. anyone wanna try and take a stab at it? too cheem for me -
Aquinas' thinking is reflected in the Roman Catholics nowadays...you got realise?
-
hmm.. explain pls?Originally posted by laurence82:Aquinas' thinking is reflected in the Roman Catholics nowadays...you got realise? -
well, He is not called the Angelic Doctor for nothing...Originally posted by laurence82:Aquinas' thinking is reflected in the Roman Catholics nowadays...you got realise? -
Not the birds and animals part though, unless you chaps have some environmental regulationsOriginally posted by ben1xy:hmm.. explain pls?
I am talking about missions to the poor
I realised most churches or denominations I come across are pretty focused on god and church building, but the RCs more than others, are heavily engaged in charities and other forms of works
In essence, there is a pretty heavy focus on individuals and living environment, ie, care for living conditions of the people.
My personal observation of my Christian friends made me realise that a lot of RCs, more than others, from my cousins to some forumers to classmates, are pretty knowledgable about the world and there is sort of desire to know and understand the world in which man is living in right now.
Losing meaning? Issit? -
You finish reading Summa Theologica liao or not?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:well, He is not called the Angelic Doctor for nothing...
-
ar buay lah....damn long you know..Originally posted by Icemoon:You finish reading Summa Theologica liao or not?
if you're interested you can look it up here.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ -
have u read St John of the Cross?... that 1 i read till i dunno wad i'm reading!Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:ar buay lah....damn long you know..
if you're interested you can look it up here.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ -
-
I haven't even read Calvin's Institutes.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:ar buay lah....damn long you know..
if you're interested you can look it up here.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
-
1. Since this is about Aquinas, post in RC forum lah.Originally posted by ben1xy:I am reading a critique on Thomas Aquinas. i am having problems digesting the 2nd portion:
AquinasÂ’s teaching had a positive side in that before his time there was little emphasis on the normal, day-to-day world, that is, the world and our relationship to it. These things do have importance because God created the world. By the mid-thirteenth century, certain Gothic sculptors had begun to fashion leaves and flowers and birds, and had given these figures a more natural appearance. Thanks to Thomas Aquinas, the world and manÂ’s place in the world was given more prominence than previously. The negative result of his teaching was that the individual things, the particulars, tended to be made independent, autonomous, and consequently the meaning of the particulars began to be lost. We can think of it as the individual things, the particulars, gradually and increasingly becoming everything and thus devouring all meaning until meaning disappears.
specifically, the part on negative results. anyone wanna try and take a stab at it? too cheem for me
2. The negative result portion looks to be to be a wrong understanding of Aquinas. The emphasis on particulars will lead to a loss of meaning only if one forgets the existence of Divine Providence. This looks to me like the classic argument of Free Will vs. Pre-destination. It also seem to overlook the fact that Aquinas was heavily influenced by Aristotelian thought, which would not produce that chain of logical deductions resulting in the loss of meaning.
regards,
obiterdicta -
Yah, I can understand more of the Summa than The Ascent of Mount Carmel.Originally posted by ben1xy:have u read St John of the Cross?... that 1 i read till i dunno wad i'm reading!
obiterdicta -
Thanks, get what the Author is getting at now. anyway since u mentioned Aristotle i take it that u have read Aquinas's work! i haven't been able to understand how he is able to reconcile Aristotle’s idea of God as the “Unmoved Mover” with the Bible’s “Personal Father”. He also went on to talk abt how God is the Prime Cause of everything.Originally posted by ObiterDicta:1. Since this is about Aquinas, post in RC forum lah.
2. The negative result portion looks to be to be a wrong understanding of Aquinas. The emphasis on particulars will lead to a loss of meaning only if one forgets the existence of Divine Providence. This looks to me like the classic argument of Free Will vs. Pre-destination. It also seem to overlook the fact that Aquinas was heavily influenced by Aristotelian thought, which would not produce that chain of logical deductions resulting in the loss of meaning.
regards,
obiterdicta
What does this prime cause refer to?
my apologies if i sound confusing -
i think he means that God is the beginning and the end. Alpha and Omega.Originally posted by ben1xy:What does this prime cause refer to?
my apologies if i sound confusing -
I've been stuck at Ascent to Mount Carmel for a few years now.. argh..Originally posted by ben1xy:have u read St John of the Cross?... that 1 i read till i dunno wad i'm reading! -
hahaa. i had to re-read confessions of St Augustine many many times before i could even slightly comprehend some of the stuff he was talking abt. The depth of his mind is stunning!Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:I've been stuck at Ascent to Mount Carmel for a few years now.. argh.. -
It is just the language.Originally posted by ben1xy:hahaa. i had to re-read confessions of St Augustine many many times before i could even slightly comprehend some of the stuff he was talking abt. The depth of his mind is stunning!
Actually many things are simpler than we imagine. Even research papers package the main ideas with bombastic language.
Of course some stuff like Trinity forever cannot understand one. -
I haven't read much of Aquinas.Originally posted by ben1xy:Thanks, get what the Author is getting at now. anyway since u mentioned Aristotle i take it that u have read Aquinas's work! i haven't been able to understand how he is able to reconcile Aristotle’s idea of God as the “Unmoved Mover” with the Bible’s “Personal Father”. He also went on to talk abt how God is the Prime Cause of everything.
What does this prime cause refer to?
my apologies if i sound confusing
You don't need to reconcile the 2 ideas about God. This is because while Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle's philosophy, his theology was Catholic. In any case, the Unmoved Mover conception of God is what natural reason can lead one to. The conception of God as 'Father' is something that can only be known to us through Divine Revelation. Hence, the 2 are just different aspects of God, and they do not necessarily contradict each other.
Prime cause just means the 1st cause, or the beginning of a chain of causation.
obiterdicta -
hmm. maybe i am looking into his words too much. But what i like abt him is that he dwells into very pertinent problems like Good vs Evil. He doesn't avoid these tough questionsOriginally posted by Icemoon:It is just the language.
Actually many things are simpler than we imagine. Even research papers package the main ideas with bombastic language.
Of course some stuff like Trinity forever cannot understand one.
Trinity is ... hahaa.. when i was teaching Catechism... i was so afriad some of students would bombard me with that -
Then it is likely the fault of the translator.Originally posted by Icemoon:It is just the language.
Actually many things are simpler than we imagine. Even research papers package the main ideas with bombastic language.
Of course some stuff like Trinity forever cannot understand one.
One does not become one of the greats in Christian thought whom even many Protestants eagerly read by simply dressing up ideas in bombastic language, if that is what you are suggesting of Augustine.
In any case, as the Confessions was written (in fact 'weaved togther' would be a better phrase) with copious amounts of quotations from Scripture, so its clarity (or lack thereof) would be highly correlated to that of Scripture.
cheers,
obiterdicta -
Originally posted by ObiterDicta:I haven't read much of Aquinas.
You don't need to reconcile the 2 ideas about God. This is because while Aquinas was influenced by Aristotle's philosophy, his theology was Catholic. In any case, the Unmoved Mover conception of God is what natural reason can lead one to. The conception of God as 'Father' is something that can only be known to us through Divine Revelation. Hence, the 2 are just different aspects of God, and they do not necessarily contradict each other.
Prime cause just means the 1st cause, or the beginning of a chain of causation.
obiterdicta
i always thought Aritotle's ideas to be contrary to our Catholic doctrine. That's why i do not fee comfortable with how Aquinas take some stuff and human-ize it -
Haha .. theodicy is something you cannot avoid.Originally posted by ben1xy:hmm. maybe i am looking into his words too much. But what i like abt him is that he dwells into very pertinent problems like Good vs Evil. He doesn't avoid these tough questions
Trinity is ... hahaa.. when i was teaching Catechism... i was so afriad some of students would bombard me with that
maybe he tried to package his argument in such a way nobody can understand . I suppose the laity (sp?) don't read his book during his time.
unlike now .. you write anything in EH pple like SIS can shoot you down immediately. -
SIS asks good questions at times... though i suspect his motivesOriginally posted by Icemoon:Haha .. theodicy is something you cannot avoid.
maybe he tried to package his argument in such a way nobody can understand . I suppose the laity (sp?) don't read his book during his time.
unlike now .. you write anything in EH pple like SIS can shoot you down immediately.
but others... u sometimes dun even feel like replying -
But dunno how come Aristotian physics can influence the clergymen .. to the extent they malu-ed themselves in front of the growing scientific establishment during the Scientific Revolution.Originally posted by ben1xy:
i always thought Aritotle's ideas to be contrary to our Catholic doctrine. That's why i do not fee comfortable with how Aquinas take some stuff and human-ize it -
dun need to suspect his motives .. he confessed he trying to persuade pple not to believe in Christianity.Originally posted by ben1xy:SIS asks good questions at times... though i suspect his motives
but others... u sometimes dun even feel like replying