Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308798762' post='2257520']I believe that it's a little vain to decide if you don't understand a passage by one of the world's greatest thinkers, that it has to be incoherent.[/quote]I didn't say I didn't understand. Excuse the double negative... So strawman. But I like you're mentality, "if you disagree, you don't understand." Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polsky215 Posted June 23, 2011 Author Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1308750666' post='2257242']<br />Provable? Yep. How....<br /><br />St. Thomas Aquinas proves and says it better than I can...<br /><br /><a href='http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1075.htm' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>Summa Theologica I:I:75 art. 1-7</a><br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Thanks Silvershinx... something like that, very interesting ill have to go to bed and not get to sleep trying to figure it out... by the way, i do think that reading the Summa in a theology class, like the bible, needs to be done with a catholic expert not an atheist who has presupposed that its wrong. There are some books that only members of the same religion with invested interest ought to teach to people. For example i think that the koran ought to be taught first by a muslim. So to get to my point, having read the summa in a secular theology class is really not sufficient to say you've read it and condemn it... just my opinion. Edited June 23, 2011 by Polsky215 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308799120' post='2257523'] I didn't say I didn't understand. Excuse the double negative... So strawman. But I like you're mentality, "if you disagree, you don't understand." [/quote] You're having a hard time understanding my sentences and they are a lot simpler than Aquinas. Mr. Catholiccat I reject the idea that one of the smartest theologians ever is writing incoherent sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308802147' post='2257548']You're having a hard time understanding my sentences and they are a lot simpler than Aquinas. [/quote]No... I'm not. But please pretend whatever you like. If you choose to answer my posts, rather than finding half-witty retorts, please be welcome. [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308802147' post='2257548']Mr. Catholiccat I reject the idea that one of the smartest theologians ever is writing incoherent sentences.[/quote]In my personal opinion, theologians are not worth much. But just so we are clear, what did Aquanis supposedly call his work on his death bed? Do you know? Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308802585' post='2257553'] No... I'm not. But please pretend whatever you like. If you choose to answer my posts, rather than finding half-witty retorts, please be welcome. In my personal opinion, theologians are not worth much. But just so we are clear, what did Aquanis supposedly call his work on his death bed? Do you know? [/quote] I prefer to call his work what the Church considers it. And the Church considers Summa Theologica to be one of the most profound theological writings ever. To suggest that even one sentence is poorly crafted or "incoherent" is quite honestly ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308802874' post='2257555']I prefer to call his work what the Church considers it. And the Church considers Summa Theologica to be one of the most profound theological writings ever. To suggest that even one sentence is poorly crafted or "incoherent" is quite honestly ridiculous.[/quote]I'm an atheist, I don't care what you're church considers it. But I like how you're defense of the summa is very familiar to Muslims defending the Quran. So you're blind faith, inability to address my posts, or failure demonstrate a soul... is quite honestly ridiculous. At least in context... To answer my own question. He called his work straw. So the greatest and irreproachable work of theology the church has to offer is... straw. Am I surprised? No. Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308699772' post='2257066'] Just to clarify: so you would say that the soul necessarily needs mind/brain dualism in order to exist? [/quote] Neither Catholicism nor Islam are dependent on substance or property dualism in their conceptions of the soul. At least by my reading of the Aquinas and Ghazali. Remember that dualism for formulated hundreds of years after both religions came into existance and became philosophically sophisticated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308803083' post='2257559'] I'm an atheist, I don't care what you're church considers it. But I like how you're defense of the summa is very familiar to Muslims defending the Quran. So you're blind faith, inability to address my posts, or failure demonstrate a soul... is quite honestly ridiculous. At least in context... To answer my own question. He called his work straw. So the greatest and irreproachable work of theology the church has to offer is... straw. Am I surprised? No. [/quote] I don't care if you're an atheist, Catholic, muslim or Amway rep. I have yet to even come close to supporting the validity of Aquinas's arguments.(though it doesn't take much for me to do so) I do not care if you put much stock in any theologians. But Aquinas isn't your run of the mill theologians. Much of the doctrines and teachings in our Church are based on Aquinas and Augustine. My point with you is that with that kind of street cred, no one has the right to call his writings incoherent rambling. Disagree with him? sure! Disrespect him? You look like an arse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308803694' post='2257573']I don't care if you're an atheist, Catholic, muslim or Amway rep. I have yet to even come close to supporting the validity of Aquinas's arguments. I do not care if you put much stock in any theologians. But Aquinas isn't your run of the mill theologians. Much of the doctrines and teachings in our Church are based on Aquinas and Augustine. My point with you is that with that kind of street cred, no one has the right to call his writings incoherent rambling. Disagree with him? sure! Disrespect him? You look like an arse[/quote]So you are making an appeal to authority, an informal logic fallacy. Why is it that you can't defend his position? Why can't you address my posts? Why can't you admit that Aquanis isn't always the best... Aquanis argued that notorious heretics should be put to death. So will you be getting the stake ready or would you agree that respect isn't always warranted? But... I hate to break it to you, there are plenty of Catholic theologians and philosophers who have said worse of Aquanis. I guess their just arses too... everyone is arses that disagree with you. Right? Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308803912' post='2257578'] So you are making an appeal to authority, an informal logic fallacy. Why is it that you can't defend his position? Why can't you address my posts? Why can't you admit that Aquanis isn't always the best... Aquanis argued that notorious heretics should be put to death. So will you be getting the stake ready or would you agree that respect isn't always warranted? But... I hate to break it to you, there are plenty of Catholic theologians and philosophers who have said worse of Aquanis. I guess their just arses too... everyone is arses that disagree with you. Right? [/quote] Give me one quote from a legitimate theologian or philosopher who called Aquinas's writing "incoherent ramblings" just one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1308804044' post='2257585']Give me one quote from a legitimate theologian or philosopher who called Aquinas's writing "incoherent ramblings" just one[/quote]I said they said worse... I didn't say they said that. But why would I expect you to follow the discussion? Are you done with this illogical and strawman tantrum? Edited June 23, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 Just to add...even Aristotle was considered to be a great thinker and he's been proved to be wrong after centuries of unquestioned following of his philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xSilverPhinx Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1308803146' post='2257560'] Neither Catholicism nor Islam are dependent on substance or property dualism in their conceptions of the soul. At least by my reading of the Aquinas and Ghazali. Remember that dualism for formulated hundreds of years after both religions came into existance and became philosophically sophisticated. [/quote] Strange, because reading the bit that Cam42 added it looks like dualism to me or that the "soul" would be some sort of "essence of life" (trading a vague term for another vague idea). Funny thing about memory which was also mentioned earlier in this thread, because without that we wouldn't have a sense of continuation of our existence. The soul would be consciousness or unconscious awareness? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308804496' post='2257593']Just to add...even Aristotle was considered to be a great thinker and he's been proved to be wrong after centuries of unquestioned following of his philosophy.[/quote]Thank you. But as I suggested before. If it can be shown that this passage clearly and orderly demonstrates the existence of souls, I will concede it is coherent. However, considering that people are refusing or unable to do so, suggests otherwise. Because as I suggested prior in this discussion, I am open to the idea of a "[i]soul[/i]"... So its a shame... on them that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 [quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' timestamp='1308804091' post='2257588'] I said they said worse... I didn't say they said that. But why would I expect you to follow the discussion? Are you done with this illogical and strawman tantrum? [/quote] Well for it to be a strawman would mean that I was misrepresenting your opinion You stated [quote]No... any rational person will see that its an incoherent string of words that doesn't even approach demonstrating a soul. Next you will tell me aquanis proves that we should execute notorious heretics, please go ahead with that argument... [/quote] You dismissed Aquinas outright because you felt that he wrote "an incoherent string of words" No strawman My point is a good one. People may disagree with Aquinas. But only a fool calls him incoherent. Now show me where you disagree with Aquinas and I'll be happy to give you all the tutelage you need to understand him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now