St. Thomas Aquinas

[pyranima]

Neo-scholasticism is the wrong. i notice people still talk in terms of thomas terms we need to think existentially.

[Nathan]

Neo-scholasticism is the right.

[Didymus]

Why cant we still use Thomistic terms? I see no need to enter a realm of subjectivism, when the objectivism of moderate realism has withstood for so many years. Its the same world we live in.

Aquinas is the man

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='pyranima' post='1190353' date='Feb 9 2007, 10:51 PM']
Neo-scholasticism is the wrong. i notice people still talk in terms of thomas terms we need to think existentially.
[/quote]
Ha-ha. I agree that neo-scholasticism (in the formal sense) leaves much to be desired, but there is more to Thomism than just that. There is existential Thomism and jazz like that if that's really your bag.
Both Existentialism and Thomism are broad terms these days. There are forms of Existentialism that I would call utterly stupid as there are forms of Thomism that I would consider to be naive and silly, but I wouldn't be so bold as to say that 'Existentialism', in some broad sense, is simply 'wrong', or that 'Thomism', across the board, is 'wrong'.
In my opinion every philosophical system is by nature limited and flawed, but more often than not there is truth to be found.

I also disagree that Thomistic categories should be thrown out the window and that we ought to adopt a strict existential philosophy. Sartre himself seemed to think that Marxism was superior later in his life. But of course I'm not suggesting that we all become Marxists, I am simply trying to say that to strictly absolutize any philosophical paradigm would probably be a presumptuous move.

[Didymus]

Is this why you started the 'God is' thread? :