Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Thomas Aquinas

19:54 / 09.10.04

I'm currently reading Thomas Aquinas and, frankly, finding it difficult. Don't know whether this should be here or in Books, but thought here would probably be better since it's philosophy...

Essentially, I'm asking if anyone has any hints on how to read him -I'm on the Selected Writings, and so reading his works in chronological order, which I'm not necessarily sure is the best way. I'm also not entirely sure what he means when he uses the words form and essence; would reading some more Aristotle (I'm quite familiar with his political, less with his philosophical work) help, or should I go back and read On Being And Essence again and stop being so pathetic about it?

Alternatively, if you know anything else which might mean I understand what I'm reading better, please let me know!

13:25 / 10.10.04

First of all, Aristotle is a good background for Aquinas. What would also help is a bit of reading(nothing too extensive, just a simple overview will suffice) about some of the contemporary Catholic views at the time he was alive which will help to put him in context.

Also, re; Form and Essence. The difference is, if I recall correctly, the Form could be thought of as the collected physical aggregates, i.e., the blood, bones and physical matter that is typing what you are looking at now. The Essence, well, that's a bit trickier. The Essence, again, from my interpretation, is the total collected properties in that it includes the mind/soul/what have you. Keep in mind, though, that not all entities, according to Aquinas, have an essence, though all, by necessity, have a form.

James

10:28 / 12.10.04

Thanks for that, the form / essence thing seems a lot clearer -in that case, can matter be taken to mean (loosely at least) the things that we do, or that which drives what we do? There's one point where Aquinas says that 'form is act, and matter is potency' -which seems to imply that the things we do are in form, but I thought that the word potential might, in that context mean that matter referred to how close we are to divine perfection. When he talks about being and doing being one in God (he says it with a more varied vocabulary than I do, but I don't have the book with me) I took that to mean that God doesn't strive towards divine perfection, but is divine perfection, so form and matter are necessarily the same thing. Which would (I think) make sense in terms of the statements I've quoted (please tell me if it doesn't) but I have this idea I just latched on to those two statements because they seemed less obscure than the ones surrounding them.