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?
@MK2boogaloo
I think there's value to be found in both sides of the coin but that the coin isn't a coin without both sides. The value (outside of numismatic curios) is in the coin itself and the faces only verify what it is. In days gone by, it used to be that the metal itself was what was of value and even the faces themselves weren't proof enough, as enterprising people would shave the edges of coins to melt as metal, which had intrinsic value.
Not to get too deep into the analogy of course, The point is, the faces of a coin are a way to show what the coin is, but the coin itself is where the value is.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
I think there's value to be found in both sides of the coin but that the coin isn't a coin without both sides. The value (outside of numismatic curios) is in the coin itself and the faces only verify what it is. In days gone by, it used to be that the metal itself was what was of value and even the faces themselves weren't proof enough, as enterprising people would shave the edges of coins to melt as metal, which had intrinsic value.
Not to get too deep into the analogy of course, The point is, the faces of a coin are a way to show what the coin is, but the coin itself is where the value is.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
Follow
@Leyonhjelm @GoodPerson @Dicer @Kagekokoro @laurel @Intramuros_ @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @Arkana @kakkerel @sim @SuperSnekFriend @7 @cully45 true, and from the text, Thomas didn't argue away religion, he demarcated the boundary between it and science.
He gave reality it's reality back, where Platonists attempted to take it away in favour of the pure myth, religion or good
@skells @Leyonhjelm @GoodPerson @Dicer @Kagekokoro @laurel @Intramuros_ @clayvaulin @Arkana @kakkerel @sim @SuperSnekFriend @7 @cully45 I see it in this way, the Platonics wanted to keep the faith in the mythical way since it will keep the grandeur of mythical era of Christianity. Since reality is the translation of out consciousness that made what we're seeing. The separation of reality from religion was paving the way for the Enlightenment to finally separate everything from religion.
@MK2boogaloo
The problem with the enlightenment is people were very focused on explaining things away rather than explaining them. I can't tell how much of this was an attempt to justify Luther and how much of it was an attempt to justify loose Deist standards.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
The problem with the enlightenment is people were very focused on explaining things away rather than explaining them. I can't tell how much of this was an attempt to justify Luther and how much of it was an attempt to justify loose Deist standards.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
@MK2boogaloo
To clarify, I do recognize that natural philosophers were interested in explaining things, but in the process, there was a strong tendency by those who would explain things away to use these explanations to deny God's hand in them.
@7 @Arkana @Dicer @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Kagekokoro @SuperSnekFriend @clayvaulin @cully45 @kakkerel @laurel @sim @skells
To clarify, I do recognize that natural philosophers were interested in explaining things, but in the process, there was a strong tendency by those who would explain things away to use these explanations to deny God's hand in them.
@7 @Arkana @Dicer @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Kagekokoro @SuperSnekFriend @clayvaulin @cully45 @kakkerel @laurel @sim @skells
@Leyonhjelm @7 @Arkana @Dicer @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Kagekokoro @SuperSnekFriend @clayvaulin @cully45 @kakkerel @laurel @sim @skells yes, Chesterton said this too in this book. In his view St. Thomas was a real reformer while Luther was actually a reactionary who wanted to return to something from long ago, although in a different manner
@MK2boogaloo
The interesting thing about Luther is he didn't just want to raise his issues and have them resolved. He demanded the authority to determine the fix and left in a huff when he wasn't given that power. Most of the serious complaints he had were legitimate, and supposedly were addressed.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
The interesting thing about Luther is he didn't just want to raise his issues and have them resolved. He demanded the authority to determine the fix and left in a huff when he wasn't given that power. Most of the serious complaints he had were legitimate, and supposedly were addressed.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
@Leyonhjelm @7 @Arkana @Dicer @GoodPerson @Intramuros_ @Kagekokoro @SuperSnekFriend @clayvaulin @cully45 @kakkerel @laurel @sim @skells I agree, the Reformation in my opinion was too much or an overreaction as described by Chesterton here. I wonder what would St. Thomas think of the Reformation.
@MK2boogaloo
I think every significant religious mind of the first 1500 years of Christianity was screaming at Luther, aghast at his actions. Even the Orthodox bishops never would have endorsed the kind of schism Luther brought on Christendom. The Orthodox break with Rome may have been big, but it didn't divide nations and local communities against themselves internally the way Luther did.
Of course some of the biggest problems with it is, it takes away the voices who would call for redress of problems, and encourages people to walk away rather than fixing the church. We've seen the same in our lifetime where large denominations divide against themselves yet again and then waste the efforts of Christendom on fights over who gets the building and other such unfortunate wasted energy.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
I think every significant religious mind of the first 1500 years of Christianity was screaming at Luther, aghast at his actions. Even the Orthodox bishops never would have endorsed the kind of schism Luther brought on Christendom. The Orthodox break with Rome may have been big, but it didn't divide nations and local communities against themselves internally the way Luther did.
Of course some of the biggest problems with it is, it takes away the voices who would call for redress of problems, and encourages people to walk away rather than fixing the church. We've seen the same in our lifetime where large denominations divide against themselves yet again and then waste the efforts of Christendom on fights over who gets the building and other such unfortunate wasted energy.
@Kagekokoro @7 @cully45 @Arkana @clayvaulin @kakkerel @laurel @Dicer @Intramuros_ @SuperSnekFriend @skells @GoodPerson @sim
I think there are a number of ways to draw people into faith but once you get there, it's important to build up as many pillars as possible to build it up. Different people respond to different initial stimulus
@GoodPerson @Dicer @Kagekokoro @laurel @Intramuros_ @MK2boogaloo @clayvaulin @Arkana @kakkerel @sim @SuperSnekFriend @7 @cully45