Free Fedi Book Club discussion thread! 
Hello everyone, I hope you guys are well because today we're going to have a discussion hellthread
on G. K. Chesterton's book of St. Thomas Aquinas. Since you guys have been reading the book I will cut it short: this book is a short introduction on St. Thomas's life. But do not be deceived, this book doesn't only contain the life of St. Thomas but also Chesterton's critique agaist the modern world and his philosophy. This 94 pages book brings more than what you would expect from an an introduction.
To open the discussion, I will bring out questions. The first one is: Apart from being a biography of St. Aquinas, what other themes do you think were central to the book?
As always be civil or and enjoy the discussion #bookclub
Our beloved members: @Leyonhjelm @Tarperfume@refusal@biz @Intramuros_ @dicer @supersnekfriend @kagekokoro @goodperson @skells @clayvaulin @hrast.pl.cursed.observer @cully45 @arkana @Laurel @sim @kakkerel @7
Hello everyone, I hope you guys are well because today we're going to have a discussion hellthread
on G. K. Chesterton's book of St. Thomas Aquinas. Since you guys have been reading the book I will cut it short: this book is a short introduction on St. Thomas's life. But do not be deceived, this book doesn't only contain the life of St. Thomas but also Chesterton's critique agaist the modern world and his philosophy. This 94 pages book brings more than what you would expect from an an introduction.To open the discussion, I will bring out questions. The first one is: Apart from being a biography of St. Aquinas, what other themes do you think were central to the book?
As always be civil or and enjoy the discussion #bookclub
Our beloved members: @Leyonhjelm @Tarperfume@refusal@biz @Intramuros_ @dicer @supersnekfriend @kagekokoro @goodperson @skells @clayvaulin @hrast.pl.cursed.observer @cully45 @arkana @Laurel @sim @kakkerel @7
@MK2boogaloo @7 @Intramuros_ @Leyonhjelm @Arkana @clayvaulin @cully45 @Dicer @GoodPerson @Kagekokoro @kakkerel @sim @skells @SuperSnekFriend
#bookclub
Hmm, there is not much participation this time. Possibly because the subject material was in itself a bit meta.
Come on bookfriends post something about it, no matter how far you got. I myself got about 70% in and have to say that I read it a lot faster and I was less focused than I read Thucydides. Some books you'll find magnificent, they'll peak your interest and some others you'll find boring and and drop them. Sometimes they are gonna be books from the same author.
I did for instance find this particular book of Chesterton a bit too meta and going off a lot into unrelated directions. Especially when compared with Chesterton's "What's wrong with the world" where he was far more succinct and focused on the subject matter.
It felt more like an exercise in writing, its subject being "St. Aquinas and the evolution of philosophy".
#bookclub
Hmm, there is not much participation this time. Possibly because the subject material was in itself a bit meta.
Come on bookfriends post something about it, no matter how far you got. I myself got about 70% in and have to say that I read it a lot faster and I was less focused than I read Thucydides. Some books you'll find magnificent, they'll peak your interest and some others you'll find boring and and drop them. Sometimes they are gonna be books from the same author.
I did for instance find this particular book of Chesterton a bit too meta and going off a lot into unrelated directions. Especially when compared with Chesterton's "What's wrong with the world" where he was far more succinct and focused on the subject matter.
It felt more like an exercise in writing, its subject being "St. Aquinas and the evolution of philosophy".
@laurel
I found the angle interesting from the get-go. Contrasting him with St Francis and St Dominic was a pretty good idea.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @kakkerel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
I found the angle interesting from the get-go. Contrasting him with St Francis and St Dominic was a pretty good idea.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @kakkerel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
@Leyonhjelm @7 @Arkana @Dicer @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Kagekokoro @MK2boogaloo @SuperSnekFriend @clayvaulin @cully45 @kakkerel @sim @skells
It was, but it implied at least some level of acquaintance with their work, of which I had none. I also didn't know a lot about St. Aquinas to begin with and a biography is meant to help you with that. But it's more difficult for this to happen when it's presented in relation to other things you know little about.
Otoh I have read both Plato and Aristotle and I'm very interested in philosophy overall so it was easier for me to understand that part of the book. Still I think it requires a lot of prerequisites from the reader.
It was, but it implied at least some level of acquaintance with their work, of which I had none. I also didn't know a lot about St. Aquinas to begin with and a biography is meant to help you with that. But it's more difficult for this to happen when it's presented in relation to other things you know little about.
Otoh I have read both Plato and Aristotle and I'm very interested in philosophy overall so it was easier for me to understand that part of the book. Still I think it requires a lot of prerequisites from the reader.
@laurel
It would have been nice to know more about them, I agree. I also agree that it's difficult to write a biography of a man whose life was not about himself.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @kakkerel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
It would have been nice to know more about them, I agree. I also agree that it's difficult to write a biography of a man whose life was not about himself.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @kakkerel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
@Leyonhjelm @laurel @7 @Arkana @Dicer @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Kagekokoro @SuperSnekFriend @clayvaulin @cully45 @kakkerel @sim @skells I have a hot take, hear me out. I disagree with the Aristotelian approach of St. Thomas, his revolution brought a change to western world from a Platonic philosophy to Aristotelian. This means that men were trying to understood the world by rationalizing stuff. This rationalization brought people to think that they only need their minds to comprehend stuff and forgot that there exist an ideal world behind this illusionary one. So the philosophy of St. Thomas might be the ones leading us to the destruction of the mythical way of viewing the world, as it was before him.
What do you guys think?
What do you guys think?
Follow
@MK2boogaloo @Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @GoodPerson @sim @Leyonhjelm it would seem that you're restating the idea of the Good, a la Plato, and arguing that St. Thomas moved philosophy away from that.
I'd say that without making a case for *why* we need a mythical way of viewing the world, you're simply asserting Platonism over Thomism
