Philosophy Dispelling Falsehoods about Thomism

[ATP]

If there's been more people like Archimedes, I wonder where things would be now...

I once read "Misja Ramzesa Wielkiego" sci- fi book/my translation - Mission of Ramzes the Great/ when Egyptians started science revolution in 1200 BC,and in 20th century their starship fought bad aliens far away in space/and helped good one/

 

[The Name of Love]

Contemplation was their problem.Unfortunatelly,Plato approach win,and even Archimedes played Plato follower.And you could learn only so much without experiments.Which Plato philosophy not used.

Okay, I must push back on this: contemplation isn't the problem. Pursuit of the truth should be the goal of human life, not simple mastery of nature, right?

 

[Scottty]

Okay, I must push back on this: contemplation isn't the problem. Pursuit of the truth should be the goal of human life, not simple mastery of nature, right?

I wouldn't agree with either of those being "the goal" of human life. Knowledge and power should be treated as means to an end, not ends in themselves.

 

[The Name of Love]

I wouldn't agree with either of those being "the goal" of human life. Knowledge and power should be treated as means to an end, not ends in themselves.

If our purpose in life is not the pursuit of the truth, then what is it?

 

[ATP]

Okay, I must push back on this: contemplation isn't the problem. Pursuit of the truth should be the goal of human life, not simple mastery of nature, right?

No,it is not problem as long as you remember about making experiments.If you only think,nothing would come from it.

 

[The Name of Love]

No,it is not problem as long as you remember about making experiments.If you only think,nothing would come from it.

What about making observations about the world like Aristotle advocated?

 

[ATP]

What about making observations about the world like Aristotle advocated?

Very good, and that is how - through Saint Thomas - we finally get science.Problem is, Greece chosed Plato.

 

[The Name of Love]

Very good, and that is how - through Saint Thomas - we finally get science.Problem is, Greece chosed Plato.

"Greece chose Plato."

And your proof of this is...?

 

[ATP]

"Greece chose Plato."

And your proof of this is...?

That Archimedes,who discovered science, still cosplayed as Plato supporter.Besides, as long as they had slavery,even with Aristotle they would not get science.

 

[The Name of Love]

That Archimedes,who discovered science, still cosplayed as Plato supporter.Besides, as long as they had slavery,even with Aristotle they would not get science.

Aristotle was a Plato supporter too though... That doesn't mean he agreed with Plato on everything.

 

[Scottty]

Only a few people stood up to Plato, apparently...

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one 'idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups. "I can see the cups on the table," said Diogenes, "but I can't see the 'cupness'".
"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend 'cupness'."
Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?" Plato nodded. "Where is the 'emptiness' which precedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes. Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the 'emptiness'".

 

[The Name of Love]

Only a few people stood up to Plato, apparently...

No, Plato > Diogenes, strictly speaking. Diogenes was an unkempt cynic who had no wisdom. Plato was a philosopher.

 

[Scottty]

No, Plato > Diogenes, strictly speaking. Diogenes was an unkempt cynic who had no wisdom. Plato was a philosopher.

Plato was the pupil of a man who's big thing was about how he knew nothing at all.

 

[The Name of Love]

Plato was the pupil of a man who's big thing was about how he knew nothing at all.

Good grief.

Quoting Plato's Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law by John Wild, in which he refutes the idea that Socrates was an "agnostic" or a philosophical skeptic.

In answer to this [charge that Socrates was an agnostic], we may point out that in the Apology, which [Karl] Popper accepts as an accurate historical account of the trial, Socrates clearly expresses several basic convictions of a positive nature. First, there is a divine being higher than man, possessing a wisdom compared to which human wisdom is as nothing; second, vice and injustice, evils of the soul, are worse than sickness and death, evils of the body, which implies that man is a composite of body an dsoul and that the soul is more important than the body; third, tending the soul is more important than tending the body; fourth, virtue depends primarily on knowledge; and fifth, it is not so evil to suffer injustice as to do it.

If we are to trust the Apology as historically accurate, then Plato's philosophy was pretty much an elaboration of what Socrates believed. So no, his "big thing" wasn't that he knew nothing at all.

 

[worm that walks]

Aquinas undermined himself by tacking on Platonic notions of the soul and the heavens as opposed to embracing a pure Aristotelian ontology.

 

[The Name of Love]

Aquinas undermined himself by tacking on Platonic notions of the soul and the heavens as opposed to embracing a pure Aristotelian ontology.

Want to elaborate on that, chief?

 

[Scottty]

I was going to offer a "hot take" on Plato myself, but I'd like to see where this goes.

@worm that walks were you just doing a drive-by soundbite, or would you like to elaborate a bit about the Platonic conception of souls?

 

[The Name of Love]

I was going to offer a "hot take" on Plato myself, but I'd like to see where this goes.

Oh boy.

Yeah, everyone has a hot take on Plato, especially in the modern day. While I am not a Platonist myself, Aristotelianism and Thomism are indebted in large part to Platonism, and much of Plato's philosophy is painfully misunderstood. If you want a good book that debunks most of the myths, I recommend Plato's Modern Enemies and the Theory of Natural Law by John Wild. He shows how most of the people who have demonized Plato are either just flat-out making shit up or have some rather insane presuppositions (like moral nihilism). For instance, one of the critiques of Plato is that he's a dogmatist who wanted to limit all freedom. This came from a Marxist who thought that anyone that believed in objective morals was a dogmatist, but somehow, people believed him and mindless repeated the line that "Plato was a dogmatist." And of course, Karl Popper is just the worst. This blog sums him up quite nicely.

 

[worm that walks]

I was going to offer a "hot take" on Plato myself, but I'd like to see where this goes.

@worm that walks were you just doing a drive-by soundbite, or would you like to elaborate a bit about the Platonic conception of souls?

The Catholics had absorbed the Platonic soul into their theology, so it was an element Aquinas had to take as a given.

That's why Aquinas claims the soul of a person is indestructible can survive without the matter it informs and is the site of all rational and sensible powers of a person, not any bodily organ. Because if the rational and sensible powers were located in the brain, like makes sense, then the rational soul couldn't be conscious after death to receive the beatific vision or to endure purgatory or its foretaste of Hell awaiting the final judgment.

So he revives Aristotle but drops a big wad of Platonism right into the middle of it to avoid deviating from doctrine.

 

[The Name of Love]

The Catholics had absorbed the Platonic soul into their theology, so it was an element Aquinas had to take as a given.

That's why Aquinas claims the soul of a person is indestructible can survive without the matter it informs and is the site of all rational and sensible powers of a person, not any bodily organ. Because if the rational and sensible powers were located in the brain, like makes sense, then the rational soul couldn't be conscious after death to receive the beatific vision or to endure purgatory or its foretaste of Hell awaiting the final judgment.

So he revives Aristotle but drops a big wad of Platonism right into the middle of it to avoid deviating from doctrine.

First, it's ambiguous whether or not Aristotle believed in the immortality of the soul, so it may not necessarily contradict Aristotle's position. Second, many professional philosophers such as Edward Feser and David S. Oderberg have argued that the immortality of the soul does not necessarily contradict hylemorphism. Third, you don't actually explain why the "Platonic" additions undermine Aquinas' overall Aristotelianism.

Let us imagine the place where St. Thomas was in: there are serious philosophical arguments for hylemorphism, and there are serious arguments for the immortality of the soul. If a man were to find both sorts of arguments convincing, then you should acknowledge that he could have good philosophical reasons for thinking that there must be some way to reconcile the two theses. That's the position St. Thomas found himself in.

I'd like to hear your actual reasoning as to how the immateriality of the soul contradicts Aristotelian ontology. I mean, not every philosopher can see the full ramifications of their own philosophy. Perhaps Aristotle could've agreed with St. Thomas on this point, had they ever gotten around to talking with one another.