I very nearly skipped this one when I saw it was Thomas Aquinas. I probably would not have expressed my reaction to this theologian as you have it was very refreshing to hear you say it all. Imagine being in isolation, as we are at present, and having only that book to read. Aaaggghhh🤪
From the little I know about later thinkers who were influenced by Aquinas, his most significant contribution was his work on the natural law and natural rights, which have been theorized previously by Aristotle and St. Augustine and went on to be elaborated by Grotius, Blackstone, and eventually Locke.
“How easy it would be to let him do as he wished” immediately followed by that bookmark. Really, Steve; that was fortuitous. It’s part of why I love this channel. Kind of knocks Plato out of the box, then. Right. Thank goodness.
I really enjoy your videos Steve, I really do. You are, by far, the most well-read person I have ever listened to. Your fascination for authors is fascinating and I will forever be grateful to you, for introducing me to Herodotus. Nonetheless, the thing that sticks out like a sore thumb though, is the way you talk about the whole of philosophy. As if it were only about sunsetness and "non-readability". But there's Augustine and Montaigne, whom you fail to identify as philosophers, although they clearly are, you thoroughly enjoy. Probably they are readable to you and therefore not philosophers. Perhaps you simply sympathize with their philosophy, their interpretation of being and beingness? How do we interprete the world? For a start we have at least art, religion and philosophy. Should one supersede the other? Well, you are very convinced that philosophy is the worst "tool" for said interpretation. Christianity i.e. taking an unbelievable number of unjustified axioms for granted? Absolutely fine. Aristotle logically reasoning his way through fourth century BC? No, that's just wordplay. Because poetry (in the aristotelian sense) is not just wordplay. How are you so blind to your own sophistry?
If all of philosophy read like Augustine and Montaigne (not to mention his beloved Hume), then Steve would probably be a lot more partial to the discipline of philosophy as a whole.
I once had a former co-worker who had an undergraduate degree in Philosophy and he was working on a Masters. He did not appreciate it when I advised him to hang out his shingle at work and be a Consulting Philosopher. . . "Help me, Josh! I'm having an existenstial crisis!"
1. On the one hand, I also dislike much of philosophy and perhaps most philosophers as philosophers. And I have no quarrel with you if you wish to say theologians are philosophers (of religion) and/or if you wish to say philosophers (of religion) are theologians. I think they're more or less exploring the same kinds of questions. And while I respect his intellect, I'm not a fan of Aquinas either. Anyway, I think many or perhaps most of philosophers are merely engaging in intellectual mast*rbation and not much more. Or the proverbial counting how many angels are dancing on a pin. So I think we're agreed in these respects. 2. On the other hand, I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater - even if it's not much of a baby to look at and even if it's mostly bathwater! I don't think philosophy as a discipline is entirely bunk. 3. To be fair, it depends what one means by philosophy. How one defines philosophy. Perhaps the following can serve as a decent starting point. Here's a basic definition of philosophy that I've heard from a world class philosopher, Alvin Plantinga: "Philosophy is thinking really hard about something." I think that's a decent definition of philosophy. At least a decent working definition one can build on. Coarsely grained, true, but a good enough starting point. 4. I think the problems can begin when that "thinking really hard" bit morphs into silly questions like "what is 'is after all?". Sure, I see where they're going, and philosophically speaking I'm sure there's a clever defense of such questions, but I think it's also often a large part of what gives philosophy such a bad name. Why philosophizing is frequently considered something negative if not outright derogatory. At some such point, we've missed the forest for the trees. 5. However, I think there are some good philosophers around who still "do" philosophy as it should be done. I can name some names if one is interested. In general I have in mind people who ask (and seek to answer or at least to explore the terrain of) some of the most fundamental kinds of questions that most of us have asked ourselves as children. Questions like what is the meaning of life, is there any meaning in life, why am I here, is there a God or gods of some kind, why is there so much seemingly senseless suffering and evil in this world, what is beauty, etc. 6. Granted, perhaps there are no answers to these questions. Perhaps it's even ultimately pointless to ask them. Nevertheless, even if so, we won't know there are no answers or that it's pointless to search for answers unless we seek to do so. And that's the proper work of philosophy more so than any other discipline, even science. 7. In any case, these are the kinds of questions most people ask at some point in their lives, even or perhaps especially when they're kids. Even the greatest writers like Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, etc. For better or worse, most of us outgrew these questions. In this respect, a philosopher could simply be said to be someone who never outgrew asking these fundamental questions of existence and reality. Like Antoine de Saint-Exupery's little prince. And it's in this sense that I'd defend philosophy and philosophers. 😊
Wasn't Thomas Aquinas not a disciple of Aristotle and does he not have the same pedantic style? I think technically all Catholic theologians / philosophers are Thomists.
@Edmund Burke I was using "disciple" in the student of style sense - Aristotle as we have his books are quite tedious. I understand he was seeing the classical world through a very messy vision of neoplatonism etc. I evidently misunderstood the Catholic Churches statements on Thomist doctrines in the early 20th century. We might be confusing the descriptive nature of Catholic theology / philosophy and the prescriptions that have been laid on it by various authorities.
When you said that this particular Penguin was a dud, I was afraid that what you were going to say was that you'd prefer a 1000+ page Penguin of the ENTIRE Summa Theologica! Imagine my relief that this Penguin was just a dud because you don't like the writer!
The University is going over a rough spot on finances. . . The Maths Department can get by on paper, pencils and erasers. . . Philosophy Department won't need the erasers. . .
I would absolutely enjoy reading Aquinas, comprehensively annotated by one Steve Donoghue. Just imagine the footnotes!
St Thomas will expound on his philosophy. Steve has asked for a millenia for rebuttal.
Don't give Steve the Infinity Gauntlet. He'd become the Thanos of the Western Canon. Snap! and down goes Aquinas and Aristotle. 😁
Hah! Don't be alarmed by my Thanosian rhetoric! Unlike the rank & file of YA Twitter, I don't actually want to ban ANY books!
I very nearly skipped this one when I saw it was Thomas Aquinas. I probably would not have expressed my reaction to this theologian as you have it was very refreshing to hear you say it all. Imagine being in isolation, as we are at present, and having only that book to read. Aaaggghhh🤪
Ha!! I had missed this one. “St. Thomas is just word-play!!”. You are fantastic and I love you.
From the little I know about later thinkers who were influenced by Aquinas, his most significant contribution was his work on the natural law and natural rights, which have been theorized previously by Aristotle and St. Augustine and went on to be elaborated by Grotius, Blackstone, and eventually Locke.
“How easy it would be to let him do as he wished” immediately followed by that bookmark.
Really, Steve; that was fortuitous. It’s part of why I love this channel.
Kind of knocks Plato out of the box, then. Right. Thank goodness.
Good Lord! those excerpts... No finer sleeping pill, poor St Tommy.
A page or two will put you out for sure.
I really enjoy your videos Steve, I really do. You are, by far, the most well-read person I have ever listened to. Your fascination for authors is fascinating and I will forever be grateful to you, for introducing me to Herodotus. Nonetheless, the thing that sticks out like a sore thumb though, is the way you talk about the whole of philosophy. As if it were only about sunsetness and "non-readability". But there's Augustine and Montaigne, whom you fail to identify as philosophers, although they clearly are, you thoroughly enjoy. Probably they are readable to you and therefore not philosophers. Perhaps you simply sympathize with their philosophy, their interpretation of being and beingness? How do we interprete the world? For a start we have at least art, religion and philosophy. Should one supersede the other? Well, you are very convinced that philosophy is the worst "tool" for said interpretation. Christianity i.e. taking an unbelievable number of unjustified axioms for granted? Absolutely fine. Aristotle logically reasoning his way through fourth century BC? No, that's just wordplay. Because poetry (in the aristotelian sense) is not just wordplay. How are you so blind to your own sophistry?
Yes, this is Steve's major blind spot. Science, logic, ethics and psychology all started within philosophy but somehow nobody's told Steve that yet.
If all of philosophy read like Augustine and Montaigne (not to mention his beloved Hume), then Steve would probably be a lot more partial to the discipline of philosophy as a whole.
Angels must be similar to electricity, which is also unseen.
"Jim, you don't ask the Almighty for his I.D." -Dr. Leonard H. McCoy
Gawd, I love my viewers ...
I once had a former co-worker who had an undergraduate degree in Philosophy and he was working on a Masters. He did not appreciate it when I advised him to hang out his shingle at work and be a Consulting Philosopher. . . "Help me, Josh! I'm having an existenstial crisis!"
1. On the one hand, I also dislike much of philosophy and perhaps most philosophers as philosophers. And I have no quarrel with you if you wish to say theologians are philosophers (of religion) and/or if you wish to say philosophers (of religion) are theologians. I think they're more or less exploring the same kinds of questions. And while I respect his intellect, I'm not a fan of Aquinas either. Anyway, I think many or perhaps most of philosophers are merely engaging in intellectual mast*rbation and not much more. Or the proverbial counting how many angels are dancing on a pin. So I think we're agreed in these respects.
2. On the other hand, I wouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater - even if it's not much of a baby to look at and even if it's mostly bathwater! I don't think philosophy as a discipline is entirely bunk.
3. To be fair, it depends what one means by philosophy. How one defines philosophy.
Perhaps the following can serve as a decent starting point. Here's a basic definition of philosophy that I've heard from a world class philosopher, Alvin Plantinga: "Philosophy is thinking really hard about something."
I think that's a decent definition of philosophy. At least a decent working definition one can build on. Coarsely grained, true, but a good enough starting point.
4. I think the problems can begin when that "thinking really hard" bit morphs into silly questions like "what is 'is after all?". Sure, I see where they're going, and philosophically speaking I'm sure there's a clever defense of such questions, but I think it's also often a large part of what gives philosophy such a bad name. Why philosophizing is frequently considered something negative if not outright derogatory. At some such point, we've missed the forest for the trees.
5. However, I think there are some good philosophers around who still "do" philosophy as it should be done. I can name some names if one is interested.
In general I have in mind people who ask (and seek to answer or at least to explore the terrain of) some of the most fundamental kinds of questions that most of us have asked ourselves as children. Questions like what is the meaning of life, is there any meaning in life, why am I here, is there a God or gods of some kind, why is there so much seemingly senseless suffering and evil in this world, what is beauty, etc.
6. Granted, perhaps there are no answers to these questions. Perhaps it's even ultimately pointless to ask them. Nevertheless, even if so, we won't know there are no answers or that it's pointless to search for answers unless we seek to do so. And that's the proper work of philosophy more so than any other discipline, even science.
7. In any case, these are the kinds of questions most people ask at some point in their lives, even or perhaps especially when they're kids. Even the greatest writers like Homer, Shakespeare, Dante, etc.
For better or worse, most of us outgrew these questions. In this respect, a philosopher could simply be said to be someone who never outgrew asking these fundamental questions of existence and reality. Like Antoine de Saint-Exupery's little prince.
And it's in this sense that I'd defend philosophy and philosophers. 😊
Wasn't Thomas Aquinas not a disciple of Aristotle and does he not have the same pedantic style?
I think technically all Catholic theologians / philosophers are Thomists.
@Edmund Burke
I was using "disciple" in the student of style sense - Aristotle as we have his books are quite tedious.
I understand he was seeing the classical world through a very messy vision of neoplatonism etc.
I evidently misunderstood the Catholic Churches statements on Thomist doctrines in the early 20th century. We might be confusing the descriptive nature of Catholic theology / philosophy and the prescriptions that have been laid on it by various authorities.
When you said that this particular Penguin was a dud, I was afraid that what you were going to say was that you'd prefer a 1000+ page Penguin of the ENTIRE Summa Theologica! Imagine my relief that this Penguin was just a dud because you don't like the writer!
This was a poor video be show he means his five ways
I’m sorry I dosed off during the reading, what? How about we watch Wim Wenders instead?
I'm not gunna lie, I didn't follow half of what was read.
The University is going over a rough spot on finances. . . The Maths Department can get by on paper, pencils and erasers. . . Philosophy Department won't need the erasers. . .
You shouldn't laugh about things you don't have any knowledge of.