S
ServusDei1
Guest
Too many so-called Thomists here don’t understand the fundamentals of the Aristotelian Corpus nor do they know how to apply metaphysics. Has anyone else noted this?
- Status
B
Brendea
Guest
I’m sorry you lost me at the word Too
S
ServusDei1
Guest
I’m just a little concerned when my fellow Thomists don’t know the difference between essential and accidental causation. These are base errors. Not that everyone does it, but I wish people were more informed.
B
Brendea
Guest
I understand the frustration. I really do.
R
RandomAlias
Guest
It escaped my notice. And my noting.
Last edited:
C
CRM_Brother
Guest
Amen!:raising_hand_man:
W
Wozza
Guest
It drives me up the wall as well. Plus they sometimes say ‘should of’ instead of ‘should have’. Kids, eh?
A
ahs
Guest
It’s just the nature of online anonymity. “I read some posts from a guy who is a philosopher, and even read a few paragraphs from the Summa; so I now feel educated enough to claim to espouse, and be proficient in, Thomistic yada-yada-yada”. I’m exaggerating, of course, but this probably is not far from the truth.
L
Lee1
Guest
Maybe better to enlighten than criticise.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
No, I haven’t noticed that. But perhaps because i have no idea what you are talking about. It is out of my realm of understanding. I do like Lee1’s suggestion though.
T
tafan2
Guest
Well, a lot of us are not trained philosophers, have never had a college philosophy class. Yet at some point in time, learned that the Summa was a great resource. We have read Chesterton’s and other books on the Angelic Doctor. We do not know our metaphysics that well, we have to struggle to get through some of Edward Fesser’s best blog posts, but we eventually get the gist of it. So to you guys in the ivory towers, we are just “so-called” Thomists. Some of us, admittedly, over stretch our knowledge in some of our posts. Some of us “so-called Thomists” even recognize the things you point out in some vague fashion, but we don’t know how to correct them accurately. Sorry, perhaps it would be best if only people with philosophy degrees from Notre Dame paid any attention to Thomism. I am sure that would work out better, no one would know (or care) about what any of you are talking about.
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
What exactly are you talking about here? Can you give a concrete example how whatever your referring to here has been applied incorrectly by some poster here on CAF?
If your referring to an order of efficient causes vs. an order of accidental causes, this does not come up very often, in fact, rarely it seems in discussions or threads concerning Thomism or some aspect of Thomism at least that I’m aware of on CAF.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
If you are going to make an accusation, please do give examples.
- Status