Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Aristotle  (Read 8011 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cathman7

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 815
  • Reputation: +883/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: Aristotle
« Reply #60 on: May 31, 2018, 01:31:50 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • The superior forms the inferior.  Isn't "bloody protestant" just another name for +Williamson?  According to his english sarcasm it is.  
    Are you a Protestant? 

    Offline cathman7

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 815
    • Reputation: +883/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #61 on: May 31, 2018, 01:34:25 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Aeterni Patris, Leo XIII

    Quote
    17. Among the Scholastic Doctors, the chief and master of all towers Thomas Aquinas, who, as Cajetan observes, because "he most venerated the ancient doctors of the Church, in a certain way seems to have inherited the intellect of all."(34) The doctrines of those illustrious men, like the scattered members of a body, Thomas collected together and cemented, distributed in wonderful order, and so increased with important additions that he is rightly and deservedly esteemed the special bulwark and glory of the Catholic faith. With his spirit at once humble and swift, his memory ready and tenacious, his life spotless throughout, a lover of truth for its own sake, richly endowed with human and divine science, like the sun he heated the world with the warmth of his virtues and filled it with the splendor of his teaching. Philosophy has no part which he did not touch finely at once and thoroughly; on the laws of reasoning, on God and incorporeal substances, on man and other sensible things, on human actions and their principles, he reasoned in such a manner that in him there is wanting neither a full array of questions, nor an apt disposal of the various parts, nor the best method of proceeding, nor soundness of principles or strength of argument, nor clearness and elegance of style, nor a facility for explaining what is abstruse.

    18. Moreover, the Angelic Doctor pushed his philosophic inquiry into the reasons and principles of things, which because they are most comprehensive and contain in their bosom, so to say, the seeds of almost infinite truths, were to be unfolded in good time by later masters and with a goodly yield. And as he also used this philosophic method in the refutation of error, he won this title to distinction for himself: that, single-handed, he victoriously combated the errors of former times, and supplied invincible arms to put those to rout which might in after-times spring up. Again, clearly distinguishing, as is fitting, reason from faith, while happily associating the one with the other, he both preserved the rights and had regard for the dignity of each; so much so, indeed, that reason, borne on the wings of Thomas to itshuman height, can scarcely rise higher, while faith could scarcely expect more or stronger aids from reason than those which she has already obtained through Thomas.


    Offline cathman7

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 815
    • Reputation: +883/-23
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #62 on: May 31, 2018, 01:39:21 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Foundations of Thomistic Philosophy, Sertillanges

    Offline Mithrandylan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4623
    • Reputation: +5367/-479
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #63 on: May 31, 2018, 02:35:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Obscurus,

    That's a very beautiful and apt way to put it-- "metaphysical poet." With being as the muse. I'll be looking into getting a copy of that book .thanks!
    "Be kind; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church... And, above all, be scrupulously truthful. To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation. We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit". (Vermeersch, 1913).

    Offline Jaynek

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4170
    • Reputation: +2318/-1232
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #64 on: May 31, 2018, 02:53:35 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Obscurus,

    That's a very beautiful and apt way to put it-- "metaphysical poet." With being as the muse. I'll be looking into getting a copy of that book .thanks!

    It is interesting to see this expression since I was thinking today about St. Thomas as a poet in its conventional sense, as the author of hymns to the Blessed Sacrament.  In that sense too, he is a great poet.  He meditates on a divine mystery with theological precision, at the same time creating a thing of beauty.


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #65 on: May 31, 2018, 03:39:48 PM »
  • Thanks!2
  • No Thanks!1
  • Sertillanges said:
    Quote
    And Thomistic philosophy is remarkably suited to such treatment, for in St. Thomas, clearness and technical precision are joined to the broad outlook, if I may use the expression, of the intelligent man in the street.
    Well, Obscurous, what should Pestiferous Gallnut (PG) study?  I mean there must be something for him, isn't there?  Not everyone is an intelligent man in the street.  Poor PG.  Boo hoo.

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +457/-476
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #66 on: June 01, 2018, 10:52:46 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!3
  • Back to the subject of nicknames.  I do not have to create a nickname for aquinas.  He has one, and it is the dumb ox.  And, I think I know where that nickname comes from.  That nickname is most likely in my opinion a reference to the greek mythical monster minotaur.  The minotaur was a half man half ox creature.  It had the body of a man but the head of a bull.  And, the minotaur was trapped at the center of the Labyrinth, which was an elaborate maze-like structure designed by the architect Daedalus.  

    I believe this reference to be the case because the difference between Aristotelian conclusions and Christian thought was so different and opposed to each other that it would require such labyrinthine thought in order to bring the two together.  In fact, there was even a nickname for the scholastic logicians that immediately preceded aquinas(one of which aquinas regarded as "the master").  And, that nickname was "labyrinth".

    Walter of St. Victor penned Contra quatuor labyrinthos Franciae (Against the Four Labyrinths of France), which was a critique/condemnation directed at the four major masters of early scholastic thought: Abelard, Gilbert de la Porrée, Peter Lombard, and Peter of Poitiers. It is a bitter attack on the dialectical method in theology, and condemns the use of logic in the elucidation of the mysteries of faith.  Walter was indignant at the thought of treating the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation "with scholastic levity".

    If the preceding scholastic logicians before aquinas were compared to/labelled as labyrinths, which is the structure built to hold the minotaur(a dumb ox), we have as a result sufficient reason to suspect that the dumb ox label applied to aquinas refers to just that.    

    Daedalus, who had built the labyrinth to hold the minotaur, had so cunningly made it that he could barely escape it after he built it.  It seems that aquinas had grasped the labyrinth of his thought prior to his death, indicated by the fact that he considered his works "straw" and refused to continue writing after that vision.  

    Pious tradition holds that aquinas simply had to genuflect in purgatory before entering heaven.  However, if his scholastic thought is truly labyrinthine, and straw as aquinas finally saw it, then the simple genuflection may be the farthest thing from the truth.  Being that I doubt the infallibility of canonization, at least renaissance onwards(I have posted and expanded on this this belief in a past thread), then aquinas may to the contrary be in need of prayers, of which I will not deny him(that is right, I like his hymns and masses(?) too).   What were in fact the last words of aquinas?  I don't know, but I do recall reading aquinas post vision praying "O God, forget me not".  







    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +457/-476
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #67 on: June 01, 2018, 10:52:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Correction


    Offline Clemens Maria

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2246
    • Reputation: +1485/-605
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #68 on: June 01, 2018, 12:11:17 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • condemns the use of logic in the elucidation of the mysteries of faith.
    That explains a lot about you.  But back to the topic of nicknames.  Your avatar seems to be a subconscious admission that you have been known as the Dumb Box of Rocks.  And since your last words were, "O God, forget me not".  "Correction", it is clear that you are not happy with your works.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47057
    • Reputation: +27888/-5198
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #69 on: June 01, 2018, 12:12:02 PM »
  • Thanks!3
  • No Thanks!0
  • Back to the subject of nicknames.  I do not have to create a nickname for aquinas.  He has one, and it is the dumb ox.

    What an utterly irreverent dirtbag.

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +457/-476
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #70 on: June 01, 2018, 12:13:39 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!4
  • I know it is hard follow up a post like my last, but I will attempt to.  

    This is from aquinas selected writings by penguin classics.

    "The whole aim of philosophy, as it was begun by the greeks, is to achieve wisdom; wisdom is knowledge of the first principles and causes(i've heard that enough); but the first principles and causes are divine.  Philosophy by definition strives towards knowledge of the divine, and if it is successful, ends in theology."

    If the first principles and causes can be empirically known(truths which can be known by anyone employing his natural capacity to think about the world around us), then that would make the empirically known "divine".  That is in other words idolatry, and no different from the idolatry modern culture has for science, and in turn technological advance/the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.  

    If that(such philosophy) can possibly end in a theology by use of such means, how is it that such a theology is not likely tainted by empirical taste and appetite, which in this school of thought is synonymous with "the divine"?  In other words, that means a theological end that is theosophy.  That means that man is God.  That means antichrist.  And, that is basically the ideology that has flooded christendom from the university's founding(the hotbed of this logic) onwards.  

    Can it all be traced back to aristotle in christendom?  It sure looks that way.  

    Instead of philosophy and theology complimenting, or being a "servant and friend" of each other, like it was in the monastery and in christendom prior to aristotle's introduction, they are sent off to extremes in opposite directions, only to be bridged by minotaur regardless of whether it be church or state.  One becomes a slave, and one becomes a master or vice versa endlessly repeating until we walk away from this structure.  As for destroying the laybrinth, that is the job of those who find themselves within it. 


    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47057
    • Reputation: +27888/-5198
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #71 on: June 01, 2018, 12:14:34 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Walter of St. Victor penned Contra quatuor labyrinthos Franciae (Against the Four Labyrinths of France), which was a critique/condemnation directed at the four major masters of early scholastic thought: Abelard, Gilbert de la Porrée, Peter Lombard, and Peter of Poitiers. It is a bitter attack on the dialectical method in theology, and condemns the use of logic in the elucidation of the mysteries of faith.  Walter was indignant at the thought of treating the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation "with scholastic levity".

    And yet the Church has embraced scholasticism.

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47057
    • Reputation: +27888/-5198
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #72 on: June 01, 2018, 12:16:20 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • If the first principles and causes can be empirically known(truths which can be known by anyone employing his natural capacity to think about the world around us), then that would make the empirically known "divine". 

    Uhm, Vatican I teaches quite clearly that these first causes CAN be known with certainty through natural reason.  So now you bumble and stumble directly into heresy.

    Offline PG

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1734
    • Reputation: +457/-476
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #73 on: June 01, 2018, 12:16:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • That explains a lot about you.  But back to the topic of nicknames.  Your avatar seems to be a subconscious admission that you have been known as the Dumb Box of Rocks.  And since your last words were, "O God, forget me not".  "Correction", it is clear that you are not happy with your works.
    Actually, the correction is a result of me reversing my decision to separate that big post into two.  I like happy endings.  And, i didn't want to invite people to downthumb me more than popular opinion suggests they do.  

    Offline Ladislaus

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 47057
    • Reputation: +27888/-5198
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Aristotle
    « Reply #74 on: June 01, 2018, 12:18:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I know it is hard follow up a post like my last, but I will attempt to.  

    This is from aquinas selected writings by penguin classics.

    "The whole aim of philosophy, as it was begun by the greeks, is to achieve wisdom; wisdom is knowledge of the first principles and causes(i've heard that enough); but the first principles and causes are divine.  Philosophy by definition strives towards knowledge of the divine, and if it is successful, ends in theology."

    If the first principles and causes can be empirically known(truths which can be known by anyone employing his natural capacity to think about the world around us), then that would make the empirically known "divine".  That is in other words idolatry, and no different from the idolatry modern culture has for science, and in turn technological advance/the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr.  

    If that(such philosophy) can possibly end in a theology by use of such means, how is it that such a theology is not likely tainted by empirical taste and appetite, which in this school of thought is synonymous with "the divine"?  In other words, that means a theological end that is theosophy.

    Motives of credibility known through natural reason are pre-ambles to faith and, with God's grace, lead to it.  That is what SAINT Thomas Aquinas was teaching, and it's what Vatican I taught.