The idea that Marx is somehow less of a debate lord and less influential on the modern era than St. Thomas Aquinas is extremely funny to me. What is he gonna do, go over the eschatology of angelic beings?
Tbf the scholastics did turn debates (disputationes) into a highly formalized game. Aquinas wrote his major work in that debate format and had almost as much of an impact on Catholic theology as his primary influence, Ibn Sina.
I was aware, however, the kind of shit posting that Marx was up to is far more akin to modern discourse as opposed to any kind of formalized disputation game. So many as a philosophy debate team Aquinas might be more valuable lol.
i remember seeing a Thomas Aquinas philosophy book in a book store once and feeling curious enough to get it. I bought it, went across the street to read it, and returned it in like 15 minutes. I apologized perfusly, and explained that the book was incomprehensible drivel. They laughed. They were cool.
I was once told that I needed to read the Summa Theologica in order to restore my belief in Catholicism because, and I quote, “It is the most logical document on Religion that has ever been created.”
I think I got three chapters in before I kinda just petered out because not only is it not really logical, but I realized that it was essentially one gigantic fanfiction on how all of his favorite ancient authors are actually all talking about the same thing, which just happens to be how Catholicism is the one true religion. How convenient.
It was probably extremely impressive for him to draw so many correlations between disparate authors and concepts in a time period where the average literacy rate was essentially non-existent for the vernacular, and extremely limited to the upper class for Latin. That said, his philosophy is pretty fucking dog shit.
This is pretty unfair. Not that his work is “true”. I mean it’s metaphysics…
But he didn’t say all ancient thinkers were actually Catholics (in the way the church was Catholic at Aquino’s time). It’s more that “god” was more like what ancient philosopher’s believed the universe or the origin of reality to be, than what the church said god and jesus were.
That god was an ineffable totality.
Dude was basically a panpsychist. We take it for granted now cause that’s a pretty common take for modern christians. But at the time it was pretty heretical.
Like if you compile his beliefs on god and the universe, dude does NOT sound like a catholic at all. Except if you count the super heterodox times of the first few centuries CE, where there wasn’t really a dogma stablished yet.
He sounds like Einstein or something tbh. Who wasn’t a christian.
Dude literally has entire arguments with the lists for the hierarchies of angelic and demonic beings, forgive me if I am not exactly going to equate him to one of the best physical minds of the twentieth century. By saying that ‘He sounds like Einstein.’, is quite literally doing the same thing that he does to Aristotle to him. I do not think they actually thought the same way, though there are some threads of throughline just simply due to the fact that they both exist within the Western tradition of thought.
I am not saying he thought that Aristotle was a Catholic, I am saying that he absolutely discards and disregards areas of those philosophies that directly contradict Catholic doctrine. I am of the opinion that he is fundamentally incorrect about their compatibility, with both the Augustinians and Averrioists being far more on the money about what the implications of the philosophy lies. You can learn far more by reading about St. Thomas than reading St. Thomas imo.
His real contribution is that reason is at least equal in its revelatory power to faith. However, much of his reasoning is usually incredibly strained and the substantial metaphysical application is fairly well annihilated by both David Hume and Kant’s Critique on Pure Reason. He isn’t as logical as he thinks he is, which to be fair to him, he seems to have recognized later in his life as he never actually completed the Summa Theologica, saying “All I have written seems like straw to me.”
That said, Catholicism has always been extremely heterodox in terms of it’s belief systems, as long as you did not threaten the political and social authority of Church, which St. Thomas always went out of his way to affirm. He does not appear that heretical within the larger tradition.
The idea that Marx is somehow less of a debate lord and less influential on the modern era than St. Thomas Aquinas is extremely funny to me. What is he gonna do, go over the eschatology of angelic beings?
Tbf the scholastics did turn debates (disputationes) into a highly formalized game. Aquinas wrote his major work in that debate format and had almost as much of an impact on Catholic theology as his primary influence, Ibn Sina.
I was aware, however, the kind of shit posting that Marx was up to is far more akin to modern discourse as opposed to any kind of formalized disputation game. So many as a philosophy debate team Aquinas might be more valuable lol.
Aquinas is truly a fucking travesty. I’d take Martin Luther for that price, but my god, what a pathetic list.
I said it elsewhere here, but Augustine mogs Aquinas in every way that matters, incredible the original creator didn’t recognize this.
The best part about charts like this is discovering the ideology of its creator
Illiterate marble statue pfp who receives philosophy through phonk edits of peaky blinders quips
Not best part as in “super interesting” but as in a fun little game I like to play
idk, they just seem like a boring Christofascist loser who fetishizes Catholicism but is also cool with Protestants.
Not best part as in “super interesting” but as in a fun little game I like to play
Luther is better but I think top row would be overrating him.
Dude was the first poster
i remember seeing a Thomas Aquinas philosophy book in a book store once and feeling curious enough to get it. I bought it, went across the street to read it, and returned it in like 15 minutes. I apologized perfusly, and explained that the book was incomprehensible drivel. They laughed. They were cool.
I was once told that I needed to read the Summa Theologica in order to restore my belief in Catholicism because, and I quote, “It is the most logical document on Religion that has ever been created.”
I think I got three chapters in before I kinda just petered out because not only is it not really logical, but I realized that it was essentially one gigantic fanfiction on how all of his favorite ancient authors are actually all talking about the same thing, which just happens to be how Catholicism is the one true religion. How convenient.
It was probably extremely impressive for him to draw so many correlations between disparate authors and concepts in a time period where the average literacy rate was essentially non-existent for the vernacular, and extremely limited to the upper class for Latin. That said, his philosophy is pretty fucking dog shit.
This is pretty unfair. Not that his work is “true”. I mean it’s metaphysics…
But he didn’t say all ancient thinkers were actually Catholics (in the way the church was Catholic at Aquino’s time). It’s more that “god” was more like what ancient philosopher’s believed the universe or the origin of reality to be, than what the church said god and jesus were.
That god was an ineffable totality.
Dude was basically a panpsychist. We take it for granted now cause that’s a pretty common take for modern christians. But at the time it was pretty heretical.
Like if you compile his beliefs on god and the universe, dude does NOT sound like a catholic at all. Except if you count the super heterodox times of the first few centuries CE, where there wasn’t really a dogma stablished yet.
He sounds like Einstein or something tbh. Who wasn’t a christian.
Dude literally has entire arguments with the lists for the hierarchies of angelic and demonic beings, forgive me if I am not exactly going to equate him to one of the best physical minds of the twentieth century. By saying that ‘He sounds like Einstein.’, is quite literally doing the same thing that he does to Aristotle to him. I do not think they actually thought the same way, though there are some threads of throughline just simply due to the fact that they both exist within the Western tradition of thought.
I am not saying he thought that Aristotle was a Catholic, I am saying that he absolutely discards and disregards areas of those philosophies that directly contradict Catholic doctrine. I am of the opinion that he is fundamentally incorrect about their compatibility, with both the Augustinians and Averrioists being far more on the money about what the implications of the philosophy lies. You can learn far more by reading about St. Thomas than reading St. Thomas imo.
His real contribution is that reason is at least equal in its revelatory power to faith. However, much of his reasoning is usually incredibly strained and the substantial metaphysical application is fairly well annihilated by both David Hume and Kant’s Critique on Pure Reason. He isn’t as logical as he thinks he is, which to be fair to him, he seems to have recognized later in his life as he never actually completed the Summa Theologica, saying “All I have written seems like straw to me.”
That said, Catholicism has always been extremely heterodox in terms of it’s belief systems, as long as you did not threaten the political and social authority of Church, which St. Thomas always went out of his way to affirm. He does not appear that heretical within the larger tradition.
Hey come on he basically perfected syncretism
I had a theology teacher in high school who kept hyping up the Quinque Viae as some undeniable proof that god exists.