Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Prima pars, q. 16-17 - Introduction to Philosophy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 เม.ย. 2013
- Get Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae - amzn.to/2ITcKYQ
Support my work here - / sadler or here - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
Take classes with me - reasonio.teachable.com/
In this video from my Spring 2013 Introduction to Philosophy class at Marist College, we examine Thomas Aquinas' discussions about Truth and Falsity (though not getting much into the latter) in Summa Theologiae, Prima Pars, questions 16 and 17. We discuss the relationships between truth, being, and goodness, and Thomas' insistence that truth is primarily in the intellect, either the human intellect or the divine intellect. Towards the end, one of my student asks a broader-based, very important question about what happens when we take God out of the picture in this scheme.
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here: www.paypal.me/ReasonIO
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me - especially on Thomas Aquinas' thought and works - click here: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
You can find the copy of the text I am using for this sequence on Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae here - amzn.to/2ITcKYQ
My videos are used by students, lifelong learners, other professors, and professionals to learn more about topics, texts, and thinkers in philosophy, religious studies, literature, social-political theory, critical thinking, and communications. These include college and university classes, British A-levels preparation, and Indian civil service (IAS) examination preparation
(Amazon links are associate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases)
#Aquinas #Thomism #God
![[TH] 2024 PMWC x EWC Main Tournament Day 1 | PUBG MOBILE WORLD CUP x ESPORTS WORLD CUP](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/f5Coja1zCzo/mqdefault.jpg)
Well, the text itself is the Summa Theologiae -- the particular edition is one readily available on the New Advent site (translated by the Dominican friars. Not always the best, but handy enough)
very helpful!
new Intro to Philosophy video
Thank you
That's good to know
You're welcome
I tend to be kind of creative. When I improv on the piano, I don't really hear it first, and then try to reproduce what I imagine. Its more like I'm running through chord progressions, and then I stumble into something that sounds cool, and then I write from there. It sometimes takes awhile. For instance, I wrote this riff a few years ago, the whole worlds smiling on me, its what a, Bb Ab Eb riff, I didn't know what to do with it. Well last week, I wanted to work on some blues in D, then I tossed in an F second inversion/D root, to a Bb/G root, and It produced kind of a genesis effect. The chords reminded me of the first riff, except one had Ab, the other an A, (and an Eb to an E, so a C minor scale, not sure what mode it would be Bb tonic so a locrian inversion of a cminor, I got it, a eb myxilodian scale ), to a d minor scale) close enough, of course, then I had to make a transition between the two, so it would work, so I put in a bridge with an A G riff, then an A Bb to take me into the chorus. I've been very happy with it, I toss my synth on for a guitar solo, its kind of got a guns and roses feel. That's how I tend to write. Not the other way around. (of course there is a ton of musical theory involved, I don't think about it though)
I know this is a lot of rambling, I just wanted to show you how music is actually written. At least in my experience. I love very off sounds and syncopation, that's what makes the delta blues.
There is another subtext here. I'm a Pythagorean, music is math. That is how I ultimately perceive metaphysics. I will twist arguments in ways you might not expect. You mentioned truth as hearing something, and then reproducing it. I heard the same harmony with Heidegger. It was different, yet somehow the same. Heidegger said that reproducing an art was art. yes and no. I think to the symposium. anyone can play Beethoven and sound brilliant. Playing jazz improv is different, I know both. Of course I know many improv musicians that can't play Beethoven, they are both arts. and so they are both truths. going back to the arguments of Aquinas.
"Heidegger said that reproducing an art was art" - No, he didn't say something that categorical. Some reproducing art can be art.
Pecking order pun when talking about ducks.
Dr. Sadler, What text are you lecturing from? We plowed through Augustine, Aquinas, & Anslem in like the last two weeks of our semester of medieval philosophy... It was waaaaay to quick. I am trying to go back and iron out the wrinkles in my understanding... Thanks!
AH I see you have the text info in the name of the lecture... Thanks!
good discussion..can you enlighten me more on question 16 article 5 and 7?I appreciate your response.
Sure. If you'd like to book my time for a tutorial session, here's my page for that - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
In terms of the cause being greater than the effect.
Would a decent counterexample be like the game of mousetrap where a simple drop of a ball spurs on an orchestra much more complex?
5:30 is the timestamp
An even more thorough example now that I think about it is like Chaos Theory in mathematics where as long as you have the correct constraints/equations a small perturbation from a certain set of initial conditions could create very different and very complex solutions
So I think of it like the effect/solution is greater than the cause/equation+initial conditions
No, because the ball drop is not the sole operative cause there