Thomas Aquinas

  • Thread starter Thread starter Redeemerslove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redeemerslove

Guest
“[T]hose who are opposed to everything with the intent of being disagreeable, and care for nobody, are said to be peevish and quarrelsome.”(Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas)
Click to expand...
I was looking for a definition of quarreling, and I came up with the definition above. Thomas is great, unlike the Catechism. He defines his terms succinctly, so that there is no misunderstanding. 🙂

Assumming connotative meaning is a bad act the Church does not need to follow.
 
I think that he means that it is not okay to be arguementative just for the sake of being arguementative. Debate is intended to expose the Truth, not for ego-gratification.
 
40.png
Apologia100:
I think that he means that it is not okay to be argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. Debate is intended to expose the Truth, not for ego-gratification.
Click to expand...
I agree, but in another section he stated that quarreling was a sin. But with Thomas you get a definition of quarreling. With the Catechism sometimes I just scratch my head. 😉
 
Hmm. . . I think that St. Thomas’s description fits me at times. . . :whistle:
 
40.png
Redeemerslove:
I was looking for a definition of quarreling, and I came up with the definition above. Thomas is great, unlike the Catechism. He defines his terms succinctly, so that there is no misunderstanding. 🙂
Click to expand...
uh … that was Aristotle’s definition that you gave … 😉
 
40.png
squirt:
uh … that was Aristotle’s definition that you gave … 😉
Click to expand...
Doesn’t Saint Thomas often use Aristotle’s methods in defining an answer to a particular question?

I was way in over my head trying to take Thomist philosophy during my freshmen college class. :o
 
40.png
AmandaPS:
Doesn’t Saint Thomas often use Aristotle’s methods in defining an answer to a particular question?

I was way in over my head trying to take Thomist philosophy during my freshmen college class. :o
Click to expand...
St. Thomas was greatly influenced by Aristotle and wrote several books with commentary about Aristotle and his works. Thomistic philosophy is, if defined concisely, a union between Aristotle and the Catholic Faith.
 
40.png
AmandaPS:
Doesn’t Saint Thomas often use Aristotle’s methods in defining an answer to a particular question?

I was way in over my head trying to take Thomist philosophy during my freshmen college class. :o
Click to expand...
Yup. And you have to be a bit careful reading St Thomas, as he often writes in a disputational style that sets out different sides to an argument. Some of the stuff he writes is what he DISagrees with.

Chesterton refers to what St Thomas does as a ‘baptism of Aristotle.’

Maybe one of these days I’ll actually get a chance to take a philosophy class. But then again, maybe not. This working for a living sucks up a lot of time.
 
40.png
squirt:
Yup. And you have to be a bit careful reading St Thomas, as he often writes in a disputational style that sets out different sides to an argument. Some of the stuff he writes is what he DISagrees with.

Chesterton refers to what St Thomas does as a ‘baptism of Aristotle.’

Maybe one of these days I’ll actually get a chance to take a philosophy class. But then again, maybe not. This working for a living sucks up a lot of time.
Click to expand...
I’m not even going to try to tackle the rest of his works until my head stops spinning. 🙂 I was completely lost in the Summa for Summertime thread. Right now, I’m taking it slow and easy through his Summa Theologica. I actually like it since all the objections are clearly listed and so are his replies. Sometimes though, I wonder if it could be condensed into even fewer words.
 
Maybe you should read A Tour of the Summa by Msgr. Paul J. Glenn published by Tan books, if you haven’t already.
 
Tanais posted this: “St. Thomas was greatly influenced by Aristotle and wrote several books with commentary about Aristotle and his works. Thomistic philosophy is, if defined concisely, a union between Aristotle and the Catholic Faith.”__________________
Not really. While St.Thomas “used” Aristotle, he also “used” almost every other philosopher’s work known to the scholastics at the time. He definitely incorporated more of Aristotles accurate philosophical insights, and methods, into his own philosophy. But St. Thomas’ philosophy really stands alone from Aristotle - even if upon Aristotle’s shoulders. Where they agree is in analysis, a very logical analysis, of observed facts from reality.
BTW, the best introduction to St. Thomas is by G.K. Chesterton! But I suggest reading *‘Orthodoxy’, ‘Everlasting Man’ and ‘St. Francis’ *[also by GKC] - in that order - first. They’re easy, fun, and GREAT summer reads!
 
40.png
AmandaPS:
Doesn’t Saint Thomas often use Aristotle’s methods in defining an answer to a particular question?

I was way in over my head trying to take Thomist philosophy during my freshmen college class. :o
Click to expand...
Yes. Aristotle was completely neglected in Thomas’s time, and he used Aristoles “sense-experience” and empiricalism, to formulate his answers.

Thomas didn’t rely upon pie in the sky ideals, he rather used sense-experience, and naturalistic methods, to formulate an answer. At least that’s what I remember.
 
40.png
Redeemerslove:
Yes, but Thomas proferred it.
Click to expand...
If I were going to be peevish and quarrelsome, I’d say that it isn’t even a definition. The listed characteristics are said to describe somebody who is both peevish and quarrelsome, but does not indicate which pertain purely to ‘quarrelsome’. In the absence of the intersection of peevishness and quarrelosity, what would be left from the ‘definition’ that can properly attributed to ‘quarrelsome.’ And who says that those who say they are peevish and quarrelsome are even correct? Who are they?

How’s that for peevish quarrelsomeness? :whacky:

(FWIW… this was written in a spirit of humour, eh.)
 
40.png
squirt:
If I were going to be peevish and quarrelsome, I’d say that it isn’t even a definition. The listed characteristics are said to describe somebody who is both peevish and quarrelsome, but does not indicate which pertain purely to ‘quarrelsome’. In the absence of the intersection of peevishness and quarrelosity, what would be left from the ‘definition’ that can properly attributed to ‘quarrelsome.’ And who says that those who say they are peevish and quarrelsome are even correct? Who are they?

How’s that for peevish quarrelsomeness? :whacky:

(FWIW… this was written in a spirit of humour, eh.)
Click to expand...
Fine.😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top