7 Answers

  1. There is no mistake in the first sentence, but there is a significant addition to it: either it must be based on the tradition of previous philosophers. Thomas Aquinas drew on the philosophy of Aristotle, largely rethinking it, however. After all, then the study of Aristotle's” Metaphysics ” and a number of his other works were prohibited by papal decrees. However, Thomas Aquinas used Aristotelian logic to develop the so-called proofs of the existence of God. In general, theology then used elements of both Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, because it was necessary to use some methods to deduce from the sacred texts answers to questions that were not covered in them, and there was not much other methodology at that time.

  2. Yes, any philosophical judgment (but not reasoning) is built rationally and meaningfully. Although, a lot of things here depend on how to understand the terms “rational” and “meaningful”. In order to judge something, a person must “turn on the brain “(reason/ration) and think about it (comprehend).

    And Thomas is considered a philosopher because philosophers at that time and up to the present time are conformists. Thomas is not really a philosopher, but a philotheosophist, i.e. a lover of divine wisdom or a lover of speculating about divine wisdom. A true philosopher – lover of human wisdom is a phylogomosophist.

  3. Everything is correct, and there is no mistake: the works of Thomas Aquinas are indeed constructed rationally and meaningfully. Maybe you are confused by the fact that the content of the works was religious? In any form of social consciousness, including religion, there are different aspects: theoretical and practical, rational and emotional, necessary and accidental, objective and subjective. Any teaching-since it is a teaching – is based on the rational, and Aquinas is certainly a powerful rational theorist of theology. After all, there are not so many philosophers in religion: mostly all saints and sufferers-so there is both irrational and rational in religion too. Even when it comes to a mystical method of cognition that is said to “transcend reason,” the system of judgments about mystical cognition itself is still rational and at least meaningful (that is, it is not a stream of delirium, but a coherent chain of judgments).

    1. The fact that any moral philosopher tries to build his reasoning rationally and meaningfully is understandable. However, there is no guarantee that he will not make mistakes in it. After all, he is only a human being and all the cognitive distortions characteristic of a person can work in him.
    2. Reasoning is based on some initial assumptions/conditions, and they must also correlate with objective reality. Unfortunately, not all the premises are true, and certainly not always (or rather never) the ideas of philosophers about reality are true. This does not mean that everything they write is nonsense. No, a few grains of truth will surely be found in their writings. A chicken (rooster) as they say, one grain at a time, it's just a pity that the sidewalk (brain) shits.
  4. Most likely, you are using rationality in your question in the sense of Descartes, who, although a devout Catholic, was still not a thomist. Aquinas, like virtually the entire theological tradition before the Negev, did not oppose reason to faith. On the contrary, the principle of all reflection for them was “faith seeking understanding.” That is, neither faith was irrational, nor reason was thought to be ” pure.” Philosophy was not opposed to theology, but flowed into it like a river into the ocean.

  5. Descartes 'very rationalism on the principle of” I think-therefore I exist ” is an example of philosophical reflection, which is based on the only thing that a scientist could not doubt – the ability to think and self-reflection makes him think that he is.

    But that's just his idea. Because there are other reasons that give the right to think so: I have free will-therefore I exist, I feel pain-therefore I exist, I see-therefore I exist. No less meaningful and rational statements.

    It turns out that any system, since it is built on the principle of logical reasoning and internal non – contradiction, is rational.

    In fact, if he had said ,” I think, therefore green! ” we would not have taken it as part of a university program. Although if he could prove this claim, why not?

    It turns out that philosophy, like the love of wisdom, is all that makes sense within one system. That is why outright schizophrenics are also considered philosophers.

    There is no contradiction in your question. Rather, you don't understand why Thomas was placed in this category, since he wrote about God, and not society. In this case, it should be remembered that both Copernicus and Newton wrote about God (recognizing Him and marveling at His creation). And they wrote quite rationally.

  6. Judging by your question, you think Thomas is irrational. It is interesting.

    If you even glimpse Thomas's biographies (Chesterton, Gilson-you can find them on the Internet in the library of Yakov Krotov) or even just an article about Thomas in Wikipedia, then you will – at least-find that Thomas was a “systematizer”.

    All the more so if you take it upon yourself to read it in detail: even if you don't understand much about it, you will be impressed by the form – a steady sequence of thoughts from the general to the particular, thoroughness and “absolute” calmness when analyzing details.

    If I understand you correctly at all, then it turns out that your opinion about Thomas ' “irrationality” is not universal and generally accepted.

    Why is that?

    Perhaps because rationality seems “self-evident” to you, and the kind that you or people in your social circle are used to. But is this attitude rational?

    The theme of “rationality ” and” rationality ” has a historical dimension. What Descartes means by rationality does not coincide with the rationality of Thomas, and probably does not coincide much with the” mind ” (nus) of Aristotle. And these changes in values are also not random, of course.


    Thomas is rational. Thomas the philosopher.

    But still. Not all philosophical reasoning is rational and meaningful. Example: Nietzsche, whose utterance is often constructed as leading to nonsense, to laughter, to contradiction.

Leave a Reply