Even Catholic types rarely do systematics anymore

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43567529)

He did some great work for his time but engineers don’t go to magicians nowadays for help putting bridges up so …

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43567797)

*Surveys the state of the West in 2021*

*Pushes up thick horn-rimmed glasses, drops trou and prepares to accept the mount from fancy ivory wall dildo in plush wood-paneled study*

"Suffice to say, the concept of 'religious belief' doesn't -- unghhhhhhhh -- really, uh, hold much practical importance anymore in our modern world..."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43569067)

But that’s not what my point was. My point is that theology and philosophy are now recognized to be different disciplines (to the extent they theology can be called a discipline.) It’s fools and the naive and the gullible and psychopaths who can’t read theology disguised as philosophy and recognize it as such.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43571170)

ignore theology at your own peril.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43571590)

Also, the West hasn't lost any "theology." either -- it has simply (((replaced))) the old scaffolding with new scaffolding, to the delight of a few and the dismay of many. When Fauci declares that he speaks "for Science," that's unmistakably the language of a new form of theology and only an idiot who rapes children could miss it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43573386)

Ljl

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43573512)

No, that was a few months ago. We've (((evolved))) even further since then:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/videos/fauci-under-fire-declares-i-represent-science

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43575724)

Now I can't remember one word of it. Can't remember one idea Aquinas put forth. All I remember was that he seemed really lovey-dovey about certain things, and while his logic was sound it seemed like it was all being deployed post hoc. This is probably a retard take.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43567580)

claim, evidence in support

correct counter claim, evidence in support

seems like it would appeal to lolyer types

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43567779)

his genius, imo, was bridging aristotle (also not an atheist) and the faith, not faith and reason. That wouldnt even occur as a major problem for centuries and the "atheists are smarter" meme would have made thomas laugh his fat ass off

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43568577)

His name comes up a lot in very conservative educational circles as someone who should be more in the public school canon, but obviously that's misplaced. (that first amendment is pesky!) In secular schools, he's acknowledged as a catholic church leader, and some of his ideas (described here as yes "elementary") are referenced accordingly. But it's an odd or backward person who goes to his work now and reads it as deep thinking for any but theological purposes (which yes is pretty much accepted as nonsense by advanced thinkers presently).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43569166)

Counterpoint: You violently rape your adopted Asian son, and then brag about it to a bunch of total strangers online, and apparently see nothing wrong with any of that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43569174)

Enlighten us: how did the enlightenment refute virtue ethics and neo-scholasticism, rendering Aquinas irrelevant to the discipline? Please engage seriously with the works of Philippa Foot, Judith Jarvis Thompson, Anscombe, and ofc MacIntyre.

Alternatively -- if virtue ethics is too small a task for your intellect -- explain how Aristotelianism has been wholly refuted; you should engage with the work of every notable contemporary Aristotelian philosopher (of which there are dozens, perhaps hundreds).

Until you have an answer here, don't ever fucking post in another philosophy thread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43569229)

And your response is an unanswerable mishmash intended to show off and name drop to your boart followers more than anything else. Really all your response does is show the world that you are not capable of telling the difference between theology and philosophy in a written text.

And I think the metanarrative in your bizarre attacks on me both here and elsewhere is sort of summed up here.

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4978296&mc=229&forum_id=2#43555819

I wish I had said it more artfully there but it gets my point across.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43569258)

Theology is either foundational to moral philosophy, or a highly important subset (depending on your grasp of epistemology and whether you would like to give a secular account of morality that doesn't simply reduce to preference expressed through force). Again, I'll wait.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43569290)

The above just isn't correct. Sorry. And it's pointless to argue with someone who is going to tell me all morality derives from the Christian God, either in concept or His Divine Authority. It's doubly pointless when arguing with a psychopathic person who doesn't think about morality like the rest of the thinking world.

And again, my assessment is correct.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43569299)

We need to implement a captcha to post, except instead it's a spatial reasoning IQ question, in order to weed out your kind.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43569339)

Computer to SP: "I WANTED YOU TO SLIDE YOUR PIECE INTO THE OPENING TO PROVE YOU'RE A MAN -- BUT NOT LIKE THAT, NOT WITH HIM!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43569384)

When this became problematic was when thinkers introduced ideas that reject Aristotelian logic in some way. By the time that started happening Thomas Aquinas had been det for 350 years, and the church was fully LOCKED IN on Aristotle.

One of the things that came from this is the notion of progress. The church lost the battle there. Aristotle and the Greeks in general seem to think time was more or less cyclical and that we would be forever have to learn the same lessons over and over again. Galileo and others introduced the notion that scientific discoveries proceeded in linear order from old to new, and that we would keep progressing in linear trajectory toward a more and more "scientific" world where make new discoveries based on a foundational set of knowledge that gets preserved and taught as canon.

None of this is present in Aquinas as far as I can tell. He's giving the church these tools of logic so that it isn't bothered by cognitive dissonance between what the bible tells us and what our brains tell us about reality. He's not tampering with the church's authority to determine what constitutes "the good." The church's position was that if you were doing science, there had to be a good reason.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#46384902)

To answer OP: I like to read him on individual topics that I am thinking about or interested in. So if I am interested in the concept of praying for the dead, or the Proof from Motion, Ill just pull up that part and read it. You get a lot more out of him that way than reading him cover to cover.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570677)

And yes it’s still read, as a theological work (for whatever that’s worth). Don’t think I said otherwise. Is the only way you can respond substantively is to say I said something I didn’t actually say?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570754)

Any work on natural law morality and virtue ethics is a direct link back to him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570776)

And that’s theology.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570789)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570797)

you are out of your depth like an infant at the bottom of the Marianas Trench

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570908)

Ty, sometimes it's tough when letters are silent (like a terrified child who has been bound and gagged before being raped).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570799)

this must be the training he's quite proud of

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570802)

Haha yeah I always aim to help clarify and elucidate, like a modern-day St. Thomas Aquinas

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570814)

"Haha, yeah"

*backs away*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570838)

I'm legitimately not sure what's more retarded: your inexplicable belief in your own philosophical genius when you clearly don't know the first thing about any of this shit, or your hilarious belief that I am "Upset Jew".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570865)

Well the Catholic Church certainly seems to think he is one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570859)

The Catholic Church seems to think what?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570886)

As for being smug, I dont think I am. I can’t help that Hegemon’s and your take is wrong. Should I act like you are right when you aren’t? Would that gratify you? Is that what you like?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43570902)

Now don’t come back and bother me more on this as I’ve said it several times now and given my detractors on here plenty of time and opportunity to come at me and I’m not going to stay itt more except to defend myself as necessary.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43571205)

your failure to engage with a single warrant in this thread while somehow thinking you've delivered a rebuttal is one of the strongest self-indictments I've ever seen.

The religious conservative movement that uses Aquinas as its face pales in comparison to the one I back, in which Schmitt is raised to an equal authority

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43571252)

And I think I’ve been abundantly clear.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43571283)

What you and Hegemon don’t understand and most real philosophers (not theologians) do is that Virtue or the right good or whatever is never going to be an ultimate destination, only a direction. It doesn’t exist as a destination. Anywhere. Not in heaven. Not in some Platonic realm.

And even the Direction isn’t set by God either (until there’s evidence that this is so and there isnt.). Instead it’s a complex synthesis of merits, utilitarian group calculations, ad hoc shared agreed consensus, evolved fairness calculus, risk benefit assessments and the like that gives us a good if ragged approximation of agreement, and the direction tunes itself by this ever forging dynamic in like manner as we proceed forward. You might have a wish for more certainty, for the golden ring to be already made up and polished, but nothing Nothing is certain the way we crave.

That’s reality. Math does not and will never exactly represent the universe, right? The universe itself is ragged. You gonna hack off bits of the steps of the Great Pyramid to make it conform to your theory?

And to go further, really the heart of things: it’s dangerous to say there’s a final destination or that it’s directed by God. As well as untrue, at least as the observation shows to date. That’s a great way to get people killed, smash shit up, lose all relational I-thou or whatever you want to call it, dehumanize on the way to this fake mirage of a destination when it’s really just the foam on the water as opposed to a hard marble line. That’s reality. Telos makes Nazis. Telos makes fundamentalists. Telos is a step backwards. It’s an inaccurate map of reality.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43571299)

But counterpoint: You literally look like a clown and fuck little boys up the ass.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43571575)

This is literally a Jewish talking point: Ortho Rabbis molest children at far higher rates than Catholic Priests. I don't want to hear another word about Catholic Pedo Priests so long as Ortho Rapist Rabbis continue to go largely unremarked upon in MSM / culture at large (hmmmmmm oddest thing) and are literally given safe haven in Israel when they flee there to escape punishment for their disgusting sex crimes against minors.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43576635)

Lol at your argument that teleology is dangerous. We all know the sort of horrifying actions your flawed sense of morality has led you to commit, so spare me the pearl clutching

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43572008)

Again, you’re a charlatan.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43572680)

Also don't call me a charlatan.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43572700)

Here's the key quote:

"I answer that, A law, properly speaking, regards first and foremost the order to the common good. Now to order anything to the common good, belongs either to the whole people, or to someone who is the viceregent of the whole people. And therefore the making of a law belongs either to the whole people or to a public personage who has care of the whole people: since in all other matters the directing of anything to the end concerns him to whom the end belongs."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#43585631)

https://nickbostrom.com/papers/mountethics.pdf

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#45633508)

I DO suggest you read the link in its entirety. If you aren't capable you aren't capable, but I've led the horse to water in any event. That is all.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4980043&forum_id=2#45633530)