Aquinas

ben1xy SG

I am reading a critique on Thomas Aquinas. i am having problems digesting the 2nd portion:

Aquinass 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 mans 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

laurence82 SG

Aquinas’ thinking is reflected in the Roman Catholics nowadays…you got realise?

ben1xy SG

hmm.. explain pls?

SingaporeMacross SG

well, He is not called the Angelic Doctor for nothing...

laurence82 SG

Not the birds and animals part though, unless you chaps have some environmental regulations

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?

Icemoon SG

You finish reading Summa Theologica liao or not? Laughing

SingaporeMacross SG

ar buay lah....damn long you know..

if you're interested you can look it up here. Very Happy

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

ben1xy SG

have u read St John of the Cross?... that 1 i read till i dunno wad i'm reading!

laurence82 SG

Confused

Icemoon SG

I haven't even read Calvin's Institutes. Embarassed

ObiterDicta SG

1. Since this is about Aquinas, post in RC forum lah. Razz

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

ObiterDicta SG

Yah, I can understand more of the Summa than The Ascent of Mount Carmel.

Razz

obiterdicta

ben1xy SG

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 Aristotles idea of God as the Unmoved Mover with the Bibles 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

SingaporeMacross SG

i think he means that God is the beginning and the end. Alpha and Omega.

SingaporeMacross SG

I've been stuck at Ascent to Mount Carmel for a few years now.. argh..

ben1xy SG

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!

Icemoon SG

It is just the language.

Actually many things are simpler than we imagine. Even research papers package the main ideas with bombastic language. Razz

Of course some stuff like Trinity forever cannot understand one. Laughing

ObiterDicta SG

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

ben1xy SG

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

ObiterDicta SG

Then it is likely the fault of the translator.

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. Smile

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