/lit/ - Literature

>>10984013
>Summa Theologica represents less than 10% of his total output

>>10984013
>browsing and shitposting on /lit/ after reading the whole thing

>>10984013
St Thomas literally made a concise version of his own Summa. Its like 200 something pages i think

>>10984106
He called it the Summa Cuckologica, cause only a cuck doesn't go for the real thing.

>>10984013
>to even have a hope of understanding at least some of it you'll need to read all the philosopher's and their works he attempts to synthesize

>>10984119
That's literally just Aristotle, though. So you need to read Plato. And the Presocratics. Also the Bible, and the Church Fathers. Some neoplatonician philosophy would help you understand Augustine. You'll need a lot of Augustine. Then some Arabs. Averroes mostly. You should then be ready.

539 pages

https://archive.org/details/catechismofsumma00pg

>>10984152
thanks

>>10984013
No, read it and weep you pleb.

Summa Contra Gentiles

Literally no one here has read it. Prove me wrong.

>>10984378
The only people who would read the entire thing are priests since it covers such a wide variety of topics that it would only be relevant in its entirety to them. A philosopher wouldn't have a reason to care about his views on angels or the trinity and a theologian wouldn't be especially interested in his views on immigration or natural law. If you're not a Christian there's not much of a reason to see what he as to say about Mary or the resurrection.

>>10984013
The Bible

>>10984609
>The only people who would read the entire thing are priests

>>10984609
Daily reminder that Joyce read Aquinas and sperged out to his pleb friends that read Neetche

The ebook makes for a fantastic "stop and go" book that you can pick up whenever you have 10 or 15 minutes to spare.

>>10984119
This is such bullshit. I don't know why people are always saying this because Aquinas is actually a fairly straightforward writer once you get some basic Aristotelian concepts down.

>>10984013
Contra gentiles

>>10984116
xDDDDDD

>>10985543
You know remember that the Summas was originally written to be a basic introduction to metaphysics meant to help new students become accustomed to the Scholastic/Aristotelian method and nothing more.

Aquinas died with regret at having spent so much time on the fucking thing. His mind was literally so far ascended that what is now considered one of the most important philosophical texts in Western Tradition was thought by its own author to be pleb-tier garbage.

Now let it sink in that you haven't even read the whole Summa and furthermore, what you have read you don't fully comprehend.

Now realize you are a brainlet.

Now put faith in the Lord and dedicate you life to contemplating his vast mysteries.

>>10988712
You're regurgitating dumb shit you've heard and half understood.

>>10984013
the contra gentiles

>>10984378
>>10984609
my professor has read it

>spending 3,500 pages just to say "Aristoteles was the best!"

people meme, but when i have a philisophical question, the first thing i do is google to see if St. Aquinas wrote about it in the Summa

and usually his answer makes perfect sense

>>10989126
Any example?

>>10989224
>Does God exist?
>Yes.

>>10989224
>Are fetuses humans?
>No

>>10989224
Not that poster, but I ended up doing this for the nature of the soul and of the trinity. (Separate times)
>>10989270
But then you actually read it instead of looking for a yes/no answer and find out it's a yes from conception given how cells work.

>>10984013
you realize the period after aquinas was considered the first major lull of philosophy for a reason right. get one of those shitty hackett books that group together sections based on topics youre interested in ("Aquinas' Political Writings" or whatever) and go from there. But you could also just not read it and save yourself a fucking eye sore.

what are the prerequisites for the summa?
>Aristotle
>bible
>augustine
is that all?

>>10990156
basically. really dont even need augustine.

>>10984013
hOmEsTuCk

>catholic

lmfao

>>10990155
>the first major lull of philosophy for a reason right.
What does this even mean?

>>10990185
Is he espousing heresy if I'm orthodox though, I don't think it matters that much if it makes sense, what he says.

>>10990155
>>10991391
I mean, yeah, the Black Death and a third of Europe dying interrupted philosophy for a while. Not sure what it has to do with his thought, though.

>>10990156
Why do you have to read them first?

>>10984378
I've reddit.

>>10991391
>what is history of philosophy
Look into scholasticism, and why Descartes was so important. Aquinas fucked up the game lmao

The Summa is extremely concise. It's just that it's meant to be used as a kind of theological encyclopedia / reference tool, not a treatise that you read through once all the way through.

Try Summa Contra Gentiles.

>>10990156
There aren't prerequisites really. Aristotle would help just to help you grasp the terminology and style, but really you can go straight in. He wrote it to be as straightfoward as possible.

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEnte&Essentia.htm

>>10992720
Descartes was a moron. Both Spinoza and Leibniz that had formal philosophical training were heavily influenced by scholastics

>>10984013
dont be a brainlet
read the whole thing

>been putting off reading Ignatius' epistles for days
I'll start tomorrow, I swear

>>10992768
You realize they both were heavily influenced by Descartes too, right? You just keep showing your lack of rudimentary knowledge of history.

>>10993167
Descartes said a dumb shit and they were influenced as a reaction against his autism

>Falling for the Scholastic meme.

Just read some of his reasoning and you've heard it all. Its all just dumb circular logic

>>10988712
Or Aquinas was just a neurotic monk and it's not terribly significant whether he felt regret at one point in time or not.

>>10993469
>apophatism
>panentheism
>true/chad in any way
The absolute state of schismatics

>>10993433
I want you to understand that Leibniz and Spinoza would never had philosophized if it weren't for Descartes. Ergo, you are a faggot.

>>10993495
Aquinas never regretted writing the Summa, that guy doesn't what the hell he's talking about. Aquinas likely suffered a stroke or was dealing with a lot of stress from overwork towards the end of his life and when his secretary urged him to return to work Aquinas supposedly said "I cannot, because all that I have written seems like straw to me." The person you replied to is taking this as evidence of regret or even a rejection of his writings but there's no reason to accept it. Aquinas's position is that God is fundamentally incomprehensible and what he means by straw is that all his talk can never truly represent him as he is. There's also a tradition that before Aquinas had his accident he had an epiphany and was about to start working on something that would make the Summa look "like straw."

>>10984127
>it's jus Aristotle, Plato, the Presocratics, the Bible, the Church Fathers, Neoplatonian philosophy, Augustine, and Islamic philosophers!
h-heh, th-thanks should be easy, no sweat

>>10994096

L I G H T
I
G
H
T

W O R K
O
R
K

>>10994096
I don't think any of the people saying you have to read all that even read Aquinas let alone know what they're talking about. Aquinas's arguments stand on their own and his writing style is really simple. You may have some trouble understanding some language or concepts to begin with but it's no different in that regard than guys like Aristotle and it's nothing a good commentary or guide can't cure.

just read edward feser, op

>>10984131
Is it good though?

>>10994179
Yeah

was not aquinas a scientist as well? who cares about his theological thoughts explicitly

I love Aquinas. Atheists who think they've refuted Aquinas might just be terminally braindead.

>>10984013

His arguments basically cannot be refuted.

>>10984131
>it could have been called "Some of the Summa" or even just "Summa' the Summa"

>>10990185
>>10991489
>>10993469
>schismatics

>>10995394
>Applying pagan philosophy in order to try to understand the Holy Incomprehensible Mysteries.
>Not a heresy.

>>10996441

Luther was against this as well. I still think Orthodoxy has more in common with High-Anglicans / High-Lutherans then they do with Roman Catholics.

My Vicar is always telling us to explore the Orthodox faith as well as Anglicanism.

>>10995153
>Some of the Summa

>itt people pretend to have read aquinas

>>10996586
I haven't read Aquinas, so there is no reason for me to post ITT.

>>10996586
The posers telling people to read the entire corpus of the Church Fathers are hilarious. I bet they haven't even read the Apostolic Fathers.

It's reference work. You aren't supposed to read the whole thing.

>>10996586
While you're pretending that reading Aquinas is some crazy accomplishment.

>>10996441
>rebelling against the Bishop of Rome, Successor to Saint Peter
>not a schismatic

>>10984106
Is there a non meme answer to this?

>>10996833
I have no idea what the hell you're asking

>>10996842
I wanted to be spoonfed this
goo gl/images/KNsN5F

I think images are broken

>>10996847
I don't understand what you want. A summary?

>>10996847
Why is 4chan die

>>10996851
No, a link to a concise version compiled by Thomas himself, not some hack job by a faggot like
>>10984131

>>10996859
It's called the Summa Contra Gentiles

>>10984021
>Buy Penguin's Selected Writings of Aquinas
>Summa is only a quarter of the book

>>10984631
based umberto

>>10996862
>doesn't link

>>10998548
did someone break your hands anon? did the Creator make you without them?

https://www.google.com/search?q=shorter+summa

>>10998593
>the google search isn't 'Summa Contra Gentiles'

Try again and link it here please, I really want to read this book.

>>10984119
>>10984119
A.G. Sertillanges stated that the Latin used by St.Thomas was so limited in its vocabulary and the turns of speech so often recur and are so free from the features that make Latin difficult.

>>10998602
no. shorter summa is for brainlets. it's literally an FAQ of what lay people obsessed with magic and angels and miracles want to know. you really should read the whole thing, and Aristotle.

>>10998613
hahaha, wow.... are you stupid?

>>10998632
yes

>>10995051
Yeah because it's really hard to refute a 13th century theologian as a 21st century atheist despite having a better understanding about the world and universe thanks to the progress of science as well as access to better philosophers past his time period
>inb4 tips fedora xD

>>10998636
I thought so because all I wanted was a link to where the so called 'shorter summa' could be found. To my knowledge this document doesn't even exist, so I will bid you ado.

>>10998669
*adieu, brainlet.

form of "a Dieu," short for I commend you to God.

I will indeed stay with God while you roam the wilderness of ignorance, unable to google things for yourself.

>>10998666
Besides the satan trips, I think this post highlights some of the criminal errors that people make on a day-to-day basis. I mean honestly, you truly believe that everything anyone has done has been progress? In everything? Maybe, just maybe, our expansion into the future of time has not been so great, as great as you think. Maybe we, as a society, are making some key philosophical errors that might need to be amended. If you admit that some of what we've done isn't perfect, then you must admit that the causal chain of theological/philosophical logic that led up to the present century is not perfect either.

You're one of those Darwinists who will go around parading whatever next news article namedrops 'Darwinism' as a 'social Darwinist' movement or a 'psycho-evolutionist' perspective on the human condition. Absolutely sickening.

This is what Aristotle was talking about when he said some people only reason with and through the material reality instead of the immaterial.

>>10984013
>good god the madman, is there something more concise i could read?
An abridged edition, for cunts

>>10996586
do you mean reading any aquinas or reading ALL of aquinas, because it's not like he is a difficult read but yeah, prolific.

>>10984013
>summa theologica
>there's no summary

>>10984013
>tfw TQ was BTFO by a humble youtuber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA&t

>>10998792
>reading metaphysics with the peanut-brain of a materialist.
what an embarrassing video

>>10998804
>basing your metaphysics on a material event
lol christfags