Haven’t we already observed that you know nothing about Thomism… Yet you revert to this knee-jerk analysis that it is in “the dark ages of human thought,” simply because it precedes modern physics.
Doesn’t it make any difference to you that through the centuries since St. Thomas wrote that
some of the finest minds engaged and then reflected on his thought? Read the entry under River Forest Thomism. No one excludes Thomist thought from modern science simply because it precedes modern physics. Metaphysics precedes the natural sciences themselves, so what you write really makes little sense.
dj
I understand your complaints. I have admitted not having thoroughly read Aquinas.
I’m not the least bit embarrassed by being a selective reader. If you were to quiz me on my knowledge of the personal affairs of so-called celebrities, I’d come across to you as desperately ignorant, which I am, and am glad of it.
When I read a book I always do so with an open mind, and as a result, have read many unusual interesting books. However, I am a slow reader with poor eyesight, and reading time is precious. Therefore I’ve learned to filter.
No matter what I’m reading, at the first sign of incompetent logic, use of an incorrect fact of which the writer should not be ignorant, or clear incompetence on the part of a writer, I put the book down.
Furthermore, while I regard political history as important (that I not participate in its undesirable repetition), I regard intellectual history as entirely worthless, except to those engaged in the propagation of silly perfesserships. A survey of the mistakes of intellectual history should be enough for anyone to get a decent sense of what didn’t work then and won’t work any better now.
For example, I know
of phlogiston theory, but have never exhaustively studied the theory. I know
the theory behind Ptolemaic astronomy, but have never done the math. Never will. I know of the multiferous gods of the Greeks and Romans but do not care to study their soap-opera history.
I dismiss without further thought the opinions of anyone who purports to justify the existence of something which he has not first defined in detail, and who does not include the specific properties of that something in his arguments for its existence. That failure is the core of my complaint against Aquinas.
It doesn’t matter if the so-called philosopher is some fool on this forum with a GED who has recently learned to spell “philosophy” with the help of a spelling-checker, or an esteemed philosopher (e.g: Nick Bostrom, who I mention unfavorably in my book), or a long-dead esteemed philosopher. To me, only quality of information and logic counts.
When the philosopher’s inadequacy is obfuscated by jargon, so much the worse. Honest philosophical ideas can be easily conveyed in common language. Even physics. Math, not so much. Aquinas is a jargon-meister first class.
I also dismiss anyone who philosophizes about the cause of the universe without having made a university level study of physics and astronomy. Likewise, I dismiss nits who talk about the meaning of life without even reading Michael Behe’s tutorials in basic microbiology, much less understanding any bit of them.
I’m certain that Aquinas was a brilliant man. However, he was also an abysmally ignorant man, by modern standards. He knew less physics than your kid in 6th grade science class, and what physics he thought he knew (Aristotelian) was dead wrong.
What Aquinas knew about the nature of life came from Aristotle, who was dead wrong about that too. What is the point of studying illogical, poorly constructed arguments derived from ignorance?
I first read Aquinas in 8th grade, on my own. The priest in religion class said that he had proved the existence of God, which I’d not doubted. I found Aquinas’ arguments specious then, but was too ignorant myself to elucidate their faults, as I’ve subsequently done (to no avail) on CAF.
Now I got it that lots of others have studied Aquinas. As you put it, “
some of the finest minds engaged and then reflected on his thought.” Who were these minds? Who declares them to be the finest? (My guess is, a bunch of shmoo perfessers who get paid by your tax dollars for reiterating their cronies’ nonsense.) Were the few of them whose qualities I might appreciate, also fans of Aquinas’ thoughts? (I actually know one person whose mind I do value, who is an Aquinas fan, so that comment is a bit ingenuous.)
When I show up in my doctor’s waiting room and go to the magazine rack, I notice that the copies of
People and
Us are grubbier than the copies of
Newsweek and
Time, and that copies of
Discover and
Scientific American are in pristine condition. Obviously, lots of people enjoy the well-thumbed magazines.
Does that mean that the magazines are of value, except as entertainment for the nearly mindless, and as ways to sell the nearly mindless, nearly worthless junk? Following your implications, I should be reading that trash, because others do. No thanks, You go ahead, follow that brilliant crowd.
I do not associate agreement with truth, or with value.
Ignorant as I am, I know more than Aquinas ever did. Moreover, I am a superior and more honest logician (IMO of course), I have found insights into the nature of being which are genuinely unique, which I’ll freely share for the evaluation of the few who might be interested. The likelihood is that my insights are mistaken. However, given the certainty that Aquinas’ insights are mistaken, I’ll go with mine, respecting your right to favor dark age philosophies.
].