Summa Theologica Q.75 Art. 4

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 20 Nov, 2009 01:29 pm
Dasein;104545 wrote:

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.

Pangloss;104675 wrote:
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.

jgweed;104629 wrote:
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.
Forum Adminstrator
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.
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 08:36 pm
@click here,
click here;101120 wrote:
Whether the soul is man?

Pulled from the article:

I'm not sure I exactly understand what he is saying. I can't figure out exactly what he is intending by 'form' and 'matter'.

Though maybe someone could help me understand that part as well as the rest of the article better?

Aquinas is saying the same thing the theologian John Paul II and Christopher West, and Ralph McInerny suggest, which is that the nature of the human person cannot be collapsed into the soul alone, but must be understood as both the Body and Soul. For Aristotle, form and matter are infused realities, you cannot have one without the other. Thus, Man cannot be man without a body, nor can he be man without a soul. Thus, the existence of man is found in the very infusion between form and matter.

---------- Post added 01-31-2010 at 09:39 PM ----------

Dasein;104506 wrote:
You can't fully address what you are trying to address in these postings by taking pieces and parts, combining them together, and trying to understand them.

Who you are is not a definable thing or a collection of definable things. You are not a definable thing called a being, the cogito sum, or the animal rationale. You are be-ing. Be-ing is what you are doing while you are trying to understand the collection of definable things. Be-ing is a phenomenon which needs to be revealed by addressing Be-ing and not covered up by the tradition. Be-ing transcends the tradition. You will never know who you are by defining and understanding (?) the tradition. The tradition is what you are talking about in these posts and has nothing to do with who you are. First, you need to uncover who you are (the phenomenon, Be-ing) and then you will "understand" Aristotle. It doesn't happen the other way around. You will NEVER know who you are by playing patty-cake with the tradition.

The tradition doesn't define be-ing!!! Be-ing transcends the tradition. Who you are transcends the tradition. You are not the tradition that has been handed down to us. There is no box to "think outside of". "Pull your head out" - - - of the tradition!!!


This is full of equivocations. Your definition of Be-ing differs from the definition of Aristotle and Aquinas. Aristotle admited that being = pure "act." So there is certainly some overlap, but I suspect that your emphasizing a phenominological or existential aspect, versus an "ontological" meaning of the term "being."

Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/24/2022 at 10:00:29