Talk:Thomas Aquinas

Quote from the Supplements to the Summa

 * Even as in the blessed in heaven there will be most perfect charity, so in the damned there will be the most perfect hate. Wherefore as the saints will rejoice in all goods, so will the damned grieve for all goods. Consequently the sight of the happiness of the saints will give them very great pain; hence it is written (Isaiah 26:11): "Let the envious people see and be confounded, and let fire devour Thy enemies." Therefore they will wish all the good were damned.
 * Supplement, Q98, Article 4

If I remember correctly, this part of the Summa was not actually written by Thomas (as he died before its completion), and was instead written by editors/his students later. The Summa is his work, but should we consider this part of his work? Gideon.judges7 (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It was apparently Regnald of Piperno who complied that Supplement to the Third Part, after Aquinas's death, but perhaps we shouldn't say that Reginald wrote it all by himself, as most of its material comes from Aquinas's own "Commentary on the Sentences". I might add an explanatory note to the article clarifying this, if no one objects, in the next couple of days. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. 107.219.55.160 20:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Quote from Commentary on Aristotle

 * If... the motion of the earth were circular, it would be violent and contrary to nature, and could not be eternal, since ... nothing violent is eternal .... It follows, therefore, that the earth is not moved with a circular motion.
 * Commentaria in libros Aristotelis de caelo et mundo

This is a quotation of Thomas, but as it is a commentary on Aristotle, there isn't much that is different between him and Thomas (something like it is a slight rewording of an Aristotle quote).

Here is Aristotle: "Everything which has a function exists for its function. The activity of God is immortality, i.e. eternal life. Therefore the movement of that which is divine must be eternal. But such is the heaven, viz. a divine body, and for that reason to it is given the circular body whose nature it is to move always in a circle. Why, then, is not the whole body of the heaven of the same character as that part? Because there must be something at rest at the centre of the revolving body; and of that body no part can be at rest, either elsewhere or at the centre. It could do so only if the body's natural movement were towards the centre. But the circular movement is natural, since otherwise it could not be eternal: for nothing unnatural is eternal. The unnatural is subsequent to the natural, being a derangement of the natural which occurs in the course of its generation. Earth then has to exist; for it is earth which is at rest at the centre. (At present we may take this for granted: it shall be explained later.)...Further, it is inconceivable that a movable body should be eternal, if its movement cannot be regarded as naturally eternal: and these bodies we know to possess movement."

Here is the complete Thomas quote: "The motion of the heaven could not be eternal: because it cannot take place unless there is something at rest in the center, and if the state of rest of that of it which was in the center were violent, it would follow that it [the rest] could not be eternal, and consequently neither could the heaven's motion be eternal. For nothing contrary to nature is eternal — since what is contrary to nature is subsequent to what is according to nature. This is plain from the fact that in the generation of anything, whatever is outside nature is a kind of "excess," i.e., a corruption and defect of that which is according to nature (for example, monstrosities are certain corruptions and defects of a natural thing). But corruptions and defect are naturally posterior, just as privation is subsequent to possession. Now it is not possible that something naturally prior should never exist, and that what is naturally apt to be later, should always exist. Consequently, it is plain that what is violent cannot be eternal. But that which is at rest in the center, is eternally at rest, just as the heaven is eternally in motion. What is left, therefore, is that there must be something naturally at rest in the center, if the motion of the heaven is circular and eternal. But it is the earth that is naturally at rest in the center, as will be proved later. Therefore, if the heaven is moved circularly and eternally, then earth must exist. And this is what was proposed to be proved."

http://dhspriory.org/thomas/DeCoelo.htm#2-4

Essentially, aside from using the word Violent instead of Unnatural, there is very little difference in the two (Thomas simply expands a bit on the other). And, if you read the entire text, the only point he really seems to disagree with Aristotle on in this particular text is that Thomas believed the angels were responsible for keeping the planets and stars in motion (essentially, only having "An object at rest tends to stay at rest", and not having "an object in motion stays in motion", the role of keeping the stars in motion was given to the angels in Medieval Cosmology.)

This all being said, I am not sure we should have this particular quote of Thomas here. If we find the direct quote in the commentary on De Coelo about Thomas' thoughts on the angels (no time to look right now), it seems like it would fit better (as it is peculiar/unique to Aquinas, and not just a restatement.)

-My two cents (not sure about exact policy, will leave it up to other editors to make any decisions on that) Gideon.judges7 (talk) 13:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The quote seems notable, and worth including. It's possible to add a note making the comparison with Aristotle more explicit. (Please see a similar case here, where a note was added explaining that the quote "Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education" was actually Russell's outline of Helvetius's thoughts.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

In Unsourced: "Man cannot live without joy; therefore when he is deprived of true spiritual joys it is necessary that he become addicted to carnal pleasures."
According to this book, (58th endnote), the above quote actually is from (Summa Theologica, II-II, question 35, article 4, reply 2), "Gilby translation."


 * Now sourced, thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced

 * Abuse does not rule out use.


 * Beware the man of one book.


 * One cannot use an evil action with reference to a good intention.


 * Sorrow can be alleviated by good sleep, a bath and a glass of wine.


 * Sure, for all our blindness; secure, for all our helplessness; strong, for all our weakness; gaily in love, for all the pressures on our hearts.


 * The most hopeful people in the world are the young and the drunk. The first because they have little experience of failure, and the second because they have succeeded in drowning theirs.


 * The reason, however, why the philosopher may be likened to the poet is this: both are concerned with the marvellous.


 * Reported conversation between God and Thomas while writing the Summa's Treatise on the Eucharist:
 * Bene scripsisti de me, Thoma. Quam ergo mercedem accipies? (You have written well of me, Thomas. What will you accept as a reward?)
 * Nil nisi te, Domine! (Nothing but you, Lord!)


 * Passion seeks to reach the loved one in intimacy.


 * To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.

est ego or 'sum ego'
Anima mea non est ego. Unless someone can prove it's 'sum ego' rather than 'est ego', we'll go with "est". FatalSubjectivities (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)