There is no philosophy. There are no philosophic discussions. They are the tradition and don't require you to bring you into the conversation. You have nothing at risk. You can share and agree/disagree with all kinds of opinions and you don't have to show up! A cowards way out!!
Come out from behind the curtain of tradition and stop whimpering about me not making things clear for you.
You are just being rethoric, there is nothing to be know in that direction, its too fundamental.
Maybe you should apologize, because your hijacking rants left a new member so befuddled that he ended up leaving the forum and getting banned. Your posts were all way off-topic, and are what we call in logic, collections of 'loosely associated statements', with little argumentation going on.
Dilys was quite courteous to even entertain your various rants for as long as he/she did, and imo, was certainly in the right, in this exchange.
He/she was a fool for leaving due to one member though.
The original poster asked for an explication of a passage, not for a hijacked debate between various philosophical perspectives upon it.
The answer should therefore be couched in what Aquinas meant when he used certain terms, not whether these terms were "correct." It certainly should not have disintegrated into a discussion of which Member was more "philosophical" in his approach to the topic.
Let's attempt to answer the question at hand, not propandise for a particular philosophical position.
I agree. I havent read the whole thing yet but I think I understand it, but, oddly, I dont quite understand what the OP is not understanding about it =)
Its been really long since the OP posted, and that was only one post. This gives me the impression he has abandoned the thread, though perhaps he is checking it in large time gaps and decided to not answer/ask about the first reply, for some reason.