Relationship between personality and the soul?

[EphelDuath]

If you saw no relevance to my comments about the ease of obtaining an “advanced” degree, which was simple and obvious, then I cannot expect you to see the relevance in any more complex argument.

It depends on the university from which the degree was attained more than anything, which is true of any degree and subject.

But the most important thing I take into consideration when choosing to reply, is, will anything I write make a difference to the person I’m engaging? When the answer to that is clearly negative, I don’t reply.

I beg to differ: were you to provide any substantial arguments and be less condescending, I would be far more open to being convinced otherwise.

 

[agapasme]

Excellent choices. A philosopher who got every element of physics wrong, and who reasoned that heavy objects fall faster than light ones, teamed up with a theologian who believed that our flat earth was the center of the universe (things that they could actually perceive and investigate), figuring out the truth about the soul, something they could not perceive and had no way to investigate.

You’ve made the right choices, for you. I’m not offended. You could also hammer a nail into your head and I would not be offended.

Bolding added.

Actually, if you ever bothered to read the very first article of the first question of the Summa, you would know that St. Thomas Aquinas was not ignorant about the earth as a sphere.

ST Ia a.1 q.1 ad 2

Sciences are differentiated according to the various means through which knowledge is obtained. For the astronomer and the physicist both may prove the same conclusion: that the earth, for instance, is round: the astronomer by means of mathematics (i.e. abstracting from matter), but the physicist by means of matter itself. Hence there is no reason why those things which may be learned from philosophical science, so far as they can be known by natural reason, may not also be taught us by another science so far as they fall within revelation. Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy.

Following your method of disqualifying these philosophers, Aristotle and Aquinas, (i.e. “things that they could actually perceive and investigate”), we could also disqualify you!

 

[greylorn]

Bolding added.

Actually, if you ever bothered to read the very first article of the first question of the Summa, you would know that St. Thomas Aquinas was not ignorant about the earth as a sphere.

ST Ia a.1 q.1 ad 2

Following your method of disqualifying these philosophers, Aristotle and Aquinas, (i.e. “things that they could actually perceive and investigate”), we could also disqualify you!

Your above post (#42) was constructed in such a way as to attribute the entire obscure 2nd quoted section to me. Whether deliberate or inadvertent, that is downright tacky. Kindly do not do that again to me or any other CAF poster.

 

[EphelDuath]

No, that quote-block is from the text that’s cited an linked directly above it. I immediately saw that and so would most people, I would think.

But now that this misunderstanding is cleared up, would you respond to the substance of his post?

 

[agapasme]

No, that quote-block is from the text that’s cited an linked directly above it. I immediately saw that and so would most people, I would think.

EphelDuath is correct. The link above the quoted paragraph is the source of the paragraph.