PHILOSOPHY - Thomas Aquinas

[@mattschneider4473]

At my catholic school we always end a prayer with saying " St Thomas Aquinas pray for us". I can see why now.

[@DoReMi123acb]

+MattSchneider44 same with me. :)

[@ramirreyes6414]

Thumbs up for your school.

[@Ryzer]

that's dope

[@esentries]

I think every Catholic school does that. Bring from a Catholic school myself.

[@jakeisaac160]

Ours was "St. Bonaventure, pray for us"

[@ganondorfchampin]

I wouldn't quite call Aristotle an atheist, he did believe there had to be a first mover.

[@keukenkastje05]

I agree, Aristotle believed there had to be an 'unmoveable mover'. However, I think he saw it more like a natural force of 'good'. He simpley reasoned there had to be a first and called it God.

[@ganondorfchampin]

keukenkastje05 Many of the issues with the philosophy of God is there are many different defination of God. There are many proofs for the existence of God based on certain assumptions, but most of them mean next to nothing. Say if God was defined as what it exists, God must then obviously exist, but that says nothing about the nature of God. It's a common problem in any area of thought: the more certain someone can be about something, the list it means in practice. Anyway, the point I'm making is that Aristotle's defination of God seems to be the most common element of God, as the thing which caused everything else. Compared to the actual atheist philosophers, Aristotle seems to be very theistic.

[@keukenkastje05]

ganondorfchampin First of all let me thank you for your elaborate answer. Again, I have to agree with you on numerous things. Philosophy and religion, as well as God and proof of his existence is always a slippery slope. And, like you say, many theories are based on the sole assumption there has to be a God in the first place. Many historical philosophers worked on that premise. Which brings us nicely full circle to Thomas Aquinas. I also agree with you on the matter of Aristotle being a theist. I do realize I might formulated that poorly in my previous post or at least not clear enough. The point I tried to make is that there is a fundamental difference between the ‘god’ Aristotle describes as the ‘unmovable mover’ and the Christian God as accepted by Thomas Aquinas. Aristotle was purely concerned with attributing to god the metaphysical explanation of the efficient cause and progress of the universe itself. Aristotle's god is a metaphysical idea and acts only as an explanation of the universe and nothing more. Aristotle’s god doesn’t need to be worshiped. (For an easier read I’ve made a distinction between the monotheistic and metaphysical deity by writing God in capital ‘g’ and without.)

[@ganondorfchampin]

keukenkastje05 " Aristotle's god is a metaphysical idea and acts only as an explanation of the universe and nothing more. Aristotle’s god doesn’t need to be worshiped." That's a good point, the moral implication between Aristotle's and Aquinas's god are different.

[@rstevewarmorycom]

He also hated the Scientific Method. He was also wrong... a LOT!! He persecuted people who wanted to look for truth, he thought we could obtain truth just by thinking about it. He gave birth to the Inquisition much later.

[@jayfaisa6016]

I love Christian moral philosophy and intellectual tradition. Even those who are secular and atheist can learn from the works of C.S Lewis, Ignatius, Pope Benedict, or even Newton since he too was a Christian philosopher.

[@GthemanTM]

+JT Faisa I just finished reading _Screwtape Letters_, and found nothing worthwhile about it.

[@patrickcantwell8197]

+Thought Criminal Then you're either a poor reader or did not read it. CS Lewis' books are well received as some of the greatest of the 20th centuries.

[@ballshippin3809]

Don't forget De Caussade

[@GthemanTM]

Patrick Cantwell Ha. Even Lewis didn't like it...Tolkien didn't even like it being dedicated to him. He's a poor writer with unoriginal ideas and a garbage message. I'll stick to good literature, thanks.

[@patrickcantwell8197]

Modern atheist authors aren't even comparable to Lewis, Chesterton, or Tolkien however. "New Atheists" like Hawkings and Dawkins have been trashed by atheist philosophers for their downright stupid arguments in their books. Explain to me one way in which Lewis is a "poor writer".

[@saeedbaig4249]

A video on Aquinas that doesn't mention the 5 ways? Hmm...

[@AnupBhatt]

+Joffrey Lannister Dude what channel is the crash course ?? Leave a link for a brother, would you ?

[@MakeMeThinkAgain]

I found this refreshing. The problem with this series is that it doesn't link the various thinkers together as CrashCourse does. Which reminds me that I also haven't seen an episode on Copernicus or Galileo.

[@drees84]

This channel isn’t in the business of teaching Aquinas for his own sake (nor any other philosopher for that matter), it applies past works to the broader interests of The School of Life-teaching people to think about the(re) human condition by using secular reasoning. If you’re looking for general introductions the aforementioned Crash Course channel is a good one, or you can sign up at your local school for a course on Classical and Medieval philosophy. Philosophy departments are always happy to get new students; they don’t have many... ;)

[@otis2997]

wow you are right

[@i1bike]

Saeed Baig the channel tends to like communist idea more than anything so they do not mention important info about philosophers that would help us.

[@Joetheshow445]

God bless Saint Aquinas, what a brilliant man

[@Sol-In-Seoul]

Indeed. Too bad this video is filled with pompous liberal elitism.

[@lasagnajohn]

Kind of reminds me of Newton, held back by religious baggage. Or traumatized by religion, whichever you prefer.

[@threestars2164]

He was wrong about everything.

[@Baccanaso]

​@@threestars2164the video just proved you wrong goofy

[@CrusaderTube]

He’s already enjoying the blessedness of God in heaven

[@DoReMi123acb]

Well said. I had no idea how ground breaking his work was. These are the kind of people I greatly admire. As a Catholic myself, I have always held a more secular mindset and I am so happy to be validated by Saint Thomas Aquinas. Keep up the excellent work.

[@danieljackson3619]

+Human Resources I know you didn't ask me, and I don't have a particularly interesting story of why I too am a Catholic, but I do want to inform you of something I find very notable; I'm sure you are aware of Bertrand Russell, and his pupil Ludwig Wittgenstein. Ludwig Wittgenstein had a student by the name of Elizabeth Anscombe, who was an accomplished Analytic Philosopher. She converted to Catholicism in college, as did her husband who was also an Analytic Philosopher.

[@DoReMi123acb]

Human Resources hi. so sorry it took me so long. I had classes. I really like your question. For me, I wasn't always a catholic; at least not in my early childhood. I was born and raised in Nigeria. My father is a catholic and my mother is a pentecostal. I was raised pentecostal mostly because of my mother. However, my parents had some marriage issues later on during my adolescence phase and they briefly separated. My dad had custody of me and he introduced me to the sect. He also sent me to a Catholic boarding school that he attended in his youth. It was there that I then fully converted to Catholicism. I actually embraced it fully as I felt it was more in line with my own style of thinking (i.e more rational, bigger emphasis on charity and good works, open-mindedness and emphasis on personal improvement) and also more accommodative. I now consider myself as a progressively minded religious person which is why I really love this video. Thanks for the question and I hope I was able to answer it well.

[@DoReMi123acb]

Human Resources I see God as a deistic deity, mainly because we humans have free will and I also believe that Christianity urges us to not only have faith in God, but to uphold ethical uprightness and embrace reason and open-mindedness.

[@DoReMi123acb]

Human Resources oh, I chose deism not Theism. Deism embraces reason, which is why I cite the existence of free will. Also, yes. Critical thought is the foundation for open-mindedness. I am aware of many of the issues Christianity has with regards to open-mindedness. However, I believe that it all depends on the individual. For example, most Nigerians are very friendly towards each other despite religious differences. Christians and Muslims even go so far as sharing food and drink during respective religious festivals. I myself have stances that go against "standards" of Catholicism e.g I fully support LGBTQ rights. Basically, my own believe in Christianity is held by 3 main tiers: faith in God, goodwill towards fellow human beings and charity. It is all a matter of personal interpretation to me.

[@DoReMi123acb]

Human Resources Aye, you too. :)

[@Odood19]

Thomas of Aquin did that which distinguishes good philosophers from _great_ philosophers. He helped push a civilization (the western-xian world) in a more productive direction. He is one of the founding fathers of scholasticism, which became one of the most effective methods of teaching.

[@bolivar1789]

I love this quote: "If all you have is a hammer , everything looks like a nail". There is nothing more beautiful and meaningful than a " dedicated life". But here is a problem: When you dedicate your entire life to one field, if you don't remain open and curious enough, you may shut down all the other possibilities and come to believe that what you are doing is the "only" key to all that matters. So that's why you have the militant scientist who thinks you can apply only to science dealing with any possible issue in life, you have the religious fundamentalist who can't even see the climate change because it isn't written in his holy book, you have the neurologist who looks down on the psychoanalyst, because he thinks " why to talk to people for years" if there is a pill for every suffering, you have the classical piano teacher who wouldn't let his student to play a pop song, because that's not music after all.... These may be brilliant people in their fields, but as they deepen on their subjects, what they learn open their eyes to certain things and blinds them for others... Take Richard Dawkins who is an excellent scientist from whom we can learn a lot. But here is what bothers me: In one of those atheists versus religious people events, if someone from the audience, just a normal, ordinary person who happens to be a believer dares to ask him a question, he looks at him with so much contempt. I mean he answers in such arrogant manners as if he would want to say: " Me, Professor Richard Dawkins from Oxford, do I really have to talk to people like you?". But if you think about it, how can an "intellectual" have the luxury to be " so surprised" by those questions? I have no trouble with God being a delusion, but isn't this also a delusion to believe that if you make people feel themselves stupid enough, eventually they will be so inspired and motivated by you as to change their entire view on life? I would rather read Alain de Botton's ( the founder of this channel) book Religion for Atheists and learn something very important about our species: where does this need to believe come from? How can we replace it as atheists? How could the institution of religion survive for thousands of years? Is there anything we can learn from the way religious communities are organised? So Alain is just more curious than Dawkins in this case. He goes much deeper into the topic rather than calling all religious folks stupid. I am sure this is a great example of what Aquinas meant. Dalai Lama is a great example too. Despite being a religious leader he is extremely interested in science. He financially supports many scientists and this is what he says: “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” Or take Natalie Batalha: she is a very famous astrophysicist who works for NASA. She had found a couple of exoplanets herself. But it seems that science is not the only tool for her to understand us and the universe. She is very much into literature too. She talks a lot about novels and poems too... In an interview I have heard, she compared dark energy with love. They both are not yet explained but they move everything. Isn't that beautiful? So we should aspire to be more like this. I mean we can all be much more than a hammer and manage to see much more forms in the world than just nails. Curiosity, openness and modesty can get us there. Thank you for this wonderful lesson! I very much liked the saint philosopher!

[@merlynschutterle7242]

+Lua Veli Thanks for the effort and time you spent on your post. While I am not religious at all, I often play at cowboy churches. So why do I do that? Because I look out at the faces and see the joy in them. Anytime I can help folks feel happy, it doesn't have to be true.

[@Izwat]

+Lua Veli "These may be brilliant people in their fields, but as they deepen on their subjects, what they learn open their eyes to certain things and blinds them for others..." indeed you need to learn that we all are living on a spinning rock. Where we all are living for what we think is worth living for while we are alive. If this made no sense to you then just go your marry way and eat sht sleep your problems away while your alive on this spinning rock and if it did make sense to you just ask your self why dose the food you eat tastes good sometimes and sometimes it doesn't and why do you feel sorry for others and happy for yourself sometimes but sometimes not hahahaha.

[@bolivar1789]

+Merlyn Schutterle Hello there! Thank you very much for reading and for your message. How beautiful.. I have never been to a cowboy church unfortunately, but I can imagine what you have just described. There is nothing more beautiful than offering something valuable to people. I have played in churches too, just twice. But for funerals unfortunately... Could you recommend me a couple of good albums with Cowboy Songs, Ballads etc.? Thank you so much in advance. All the best!

[@merlynschutterle7242]

+Lua Veli For good old cowboy songs, try Riders in the Sky,(Spotify) Don Edwards, Micheal Martin Murphy, Sons of the Pioneers. They are about as good as it gets. Enjoy them!

[@bolivar1789]

+Merlyn Schutterle Sounds like a treasure! Thank you very much. I'll listen to all of them. Best wishes!

[@JudgeSabo]

The distinction between natural and eternal law is off base here. Aquinas did not consider these separate things. Rather, natural law is a part of the eternal law. In fact, Aquinas believed in four kinds of law: eternal law, divine law, natural law, and human law. Eternal law is God's ordering of the universe, and all law is ultimately founded in this. Divine law consists of the direct commandments of God communicated in scripture. Natural law is our use of reason to properly conform with our nature and the eternal law. Human law is the laws of governments, which is subject to natural law. It's also pretty disingenuous to just push Aquinas' only contribution as his emphasis on reason. Reason is definitely central for Aquinas, pointing that out is hardly the only thing he ever did.

[@veero25]

+Jack Ryder well it's a short video and they did mention he wrote a lot. Since it seems you know his works...how Thomas distinguished the eternal laws from the natural ones? I mean, if he met a person who claimed to have seen Jesus, would he believe him? on what basis? better: with which understanding of the universe and/or set of laws would Thomas use to believe or disbelieve what he heard? Because if some or all eternal laws are beyond our comprehension (understanding?), then being skeptical of this person and not believing him/her, would than contradict the possibility that there's a eternal law that explains this person's vision. -If Thomas believes this person, with no knowledge of such law/s, then he wouldn't he believe basically anyone/anything? Or, he wouldn't but he would be forced to stick to a certain set of theological ideas to evaluate claims regarding eternal laws. And we all know they all come from human voices (expept for revelations, but this brings us back at step 1, so let's avoid or it's get circular). Which, before him (and just like him) are good at describing natural aspects, but not much at knowing what's beyond that. -If he doesn't believe this person, then he's probably evaluating its claims using the natural laws. But that would be close-minded, since Thomas does not know all eternal laws that could explain why his analysis based on natural laws, make him skeptical of this person's claim. I hope you understand my question.

[@JudgeSabo]

***** That's the thing though, natural law isn't a method of study. It's not some criterion Aquinas used to evaluate truth claims, it's a theory of ethics.The video implying otherwise is part of why it's so bad. Eternal law is God's direct rulership over the universe. It's not just ethics, but all order ultimately is derived from God. It is God's providence over creation, willing not only the good of man but of the entire universe. By the eternal law, God is not only responsible for ethical laws, but things like the laws of physics. Rational creatures (i.e. men and angels) are in a special position, because we have been given some degree of providence over ourselves and others. Natural law is our "participation" in the eternal law. The natural law then is the dictates of reason for us to act towards what is good according to our nature. For example, some things are good and bad for a squirrel. They should have four legs, a tail, be healthy, hide nuts, things like that. They don't really comprehend these things though, they act instinctively. Humans on the other hand have reason and can contemplate these things. Reason directing us to act for the good of our nature is the natural law. Aquinas also recognizes "human law", which is the law of governments, which comes about as an extension of natural law, and "divine law", which is law from God's revelation, as seen in scripture. The natural law is "secular", unlike divine law, since anyone can understand it as a rational creature. Men get it by studying their own nature, so anyone can do it. This is why basic rules of morality like "don't murder" or "don't steal" will be shared across cultures, even to those who have never heard of Christianity. So Aquinas isn't really dealing here with questions of "how do we know a source is trustworthy". That's an entirely separate question, one that I don't think I've seen Aquinas wrestle with much actually, except maybe point to miracles as a sign of legitimacy. He mostly takes it for granted in the Summa Theologica that Christianity is true. Maybe he deals with it more in the Summa Contra Gentiles, but I can't recall it. He definitely thought that there could ultimately be no contradiction between reason and faith though, so when dealing with people who did not accept the authority of Christianity or the Bible, he thought we should simply answer their objections rather than emphasize the authority.

[@veero25]

Jack Ryder thanks for your detailed reply. Still, you kind of evaded my question therefore didn't answer it. I mean, I can just sit and write my own descriptions and mechanisms of reality (based on a certain religion but not necessarily), and if they are general and unfalsifiable enough, they may sound as a valid a way of understand the reality I'm writing about. At that point, even if I'm not interested on working on a an deriving epistemology from this, it still has to be considered. I got what you mean. Natural, human and divine laws are sub sets of eternal laws. But Thomas did not know completely how the eternal laws interact towards the other laws. so how will he believe him? he can use natural laws do determine it, using his knowledge of natural laws. If he perceives this person as a crazy dangerous person, he might call for the authorities who will enforce man's laws. Cool. But when faced with an unverifiable claim, how does Thomas face this problem? Does he just believe because "hey, faith is valid as well!" does he just try to "feel" whether he believes this person or not? one way or the other, reason or psychology will conduct the path to the answer. But that's where thomas stops (as far as I know. that's why I'm asking). maybe because that would have meant questioning something he clearly believed in?

[@richardhawkins2647]

+Jack Ryder My thought hearing this would be that if he was a Christian with no reason to doubt the bible but actually place this as a higher law. Would he think that you could use human reason as long as it didn't contradict the bible? That is a very different concept to trying to reconcile biblical faith with scientific reason today, which the video kind of implies he was doing. For example, creation vs evolution. Would he say human reason needs to work out how scientific discovery fits with the bible? Or would he say, "Forget the bible, we've reasoned something better?"

[@JudgeSabo]

***** I'm sorry you were not satisfied with my answer, but if that's the case frankly I'm not sure what your question is supposed to be. Aquinas analysis of law really has nothing whatsoever to do with determining whether a person is crazy or not. That's a historical question while his analysis is ethical and metaphysical. That's two completely different areas of study.

[@andrewporter1868]

"He opened the [Catholic] mind to the insights of all of humanity." False. He opened the pagan and atheistic mind to the insights of all of religion. St. Thomas Aquinas is called Saint for a reason. He was not here to serve man, but to serve God. He wrote for God. He did not write to the Catholic Church to be more like the world. He wrote so that the world might become more Catholic.

[@ONFIREYO]

Hey man it goes both ways. You can't just take one and completely disregard the other. I'm a christian myself and almost every other christian I know interprets every word of the bible literally.

[@j.k.6865]

Exactly this. The Catholic doctrines did not change, it's the world that understood Catholicism more thanks to Aquinas.

[@ONFIREYO]

@@j.k.6865 You can't say "Exactly this." And then go on to disagree with what I said. I don't support catholisicm but you can't say he didn't influence the church at all.

[@walta369]

@@ONFIREYO As a Christian I view the bible that it is ment to be a book centered on faith and morals rather than explicitly explaining science and other related subjects. With this view reading the bible in some places can be taken less literally and many think the same. The 6 days of creation for example. Some Jews and Christians believe the 6 days don't represent actually 24 hour segments.

[@ONFIREYO]

@@walta369 That's how I see it!

[@erichvazquez3758]

The Marriage of Reason and Faith has been one greatest achievements in human history as God blessed this union for the excellence of man itself. The myth that science is opposed to religion is one the greatest tragedies of our modern day. Even in a philosophical sense the two can't contradict each other because they are two completely different branches, one of the Philosophy of Science and the other of Philosophy of Religion. The former comes from epistemology and the latter comes from metaphysics. If science is against religion then how come the Pope has a Masters Degree in Chemistry? The only way science would contradict religion is if both assume the God is a being among the cosmos but yet that is not who God is, God according to St.Thomas is the essence of being itself having God go beyond the Space-Time continuum and transcend all of the dimensions of the Universe.

[@bogdanlevi7483]

Of course, there has to be a union of faith and reason because God is not only 'supernatural' (He exceeds and defies the laws of nature that apply to us humans and the created universe), but also "Logos" according to the Gospel by John, that is The Abosolute Wisdom and Knowledge and Reason that permeats all things.

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

"The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding - in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross." - Friedrich Nietzsche

[@warriorshedge6772]

Or just become a taoist

[@nicolamustard7232]

​@@TheGuiltsOfUs Get over yourself. Good for you. A quote from Nietzsche who, although insightful, deeply misunderstood Christianity in a fundamental way. 👏🏼

[@HumanbeingonfloatingEarth]

If ever I know of someone struggling in life , I always steer them to The School of Life. Comforting , reassuring , informative ,non-judgemental ,inclusive of our human weaknesses. Very grateful. You have ,more than once thrown water on the fire inside me.

[@jamesegan7686]

This video is really really inaccurate. Wow. Generally you guys have insightful and accurate takes on philosophy, but I can tell you've spent almost no time studying Aquinas, and are desperately trying to put a secular spin on him. Like your explanation of natural law... wow. Very inaccurate, at best that's what some later Thomistic philosophers did with Thomas' philosophy as a way to interact with Enlightenment thinkers. I'm sure the goal of this video, like many of your videos, was to fit Thomas in with the particular interests of your channel (and that's no bad thing), but you could have done so much better. You should really understand Thomas as presenting and expansive unity of knowledge with a theological center. The division between faith and reason, religion and science was not present during Thomas' time and in many ways that division is the result of the reaction to Thomas' writing. I encourage you to look more deeply into Thomas. Even if you're not religious, so much of Western thought and history is a reaction to Thomas and the Medieval scholars and studying their ideas can only aid you in getting a better picture of everything.

[@abrahamguillen7659]

Ima keep it real with you chief; ain't nobody reading that shit

[@tiffanyd.8660]

You seem pretty knowledgable about Aquinas. What book or books would you suggest for a beginner to read on Thomas Aquinas? I've been reading an edited version of Summa Theologica

[@ercaner_buzbey]

Could not agree more.

[@ercaner_buzbey]

@2222222222 222 noone is discouraging anything just pointing out a dogmatic standpoint that not every thinker is in "nature should be atheist and secular.", Plato, Aristo, Stoics and a lot of philosophers all have turned their eye on religion, because people don't hear any cold voiced logic that is avoid of emotion. You should also think that is your action was based on knowledge and logic or on pure emotion and full trust to the content represented here. What we learnt from outside source Aquinas was not so secular as suggested here. If it is a trick to lead people like you faith, it is a bad route, if this is just way to generalize every thinker to be secular is just an absurd action that must be corrected in the name of knowledge and logic.

[@michelgabe1629]

This Video is about what we can learn from old, White, male philosophers today, in the 21. century, it is not even trying to be a full scientificly acurate Analysis of Philosophers. This is the School of life, and I am sorry to bring this to you science moralists, but science can absolutly make no Claim on what the fck we are supposed to do, they can't even tell you why what they are doing, seeking secure truth and Knowledge, is a good Thing. So you have to Interpret Knowledge and mix it with reasonable ideas about what we should do, to even be able to use or apply Knowledge in the first place (J.L. Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (New York: Penguin Books, 1977, basiacly he says there are no objective values, but humans can figure them out on their own). If you want to learn how to live on your own then go ahead and read all 200 books of this uneducated man(no offense) and then try to answer the Question, why this has any relevance for you today. What i will give you is, that they should maybe put that into the title: 21. century Interpretation of aquinas, or something like that. I can also say Nothing about actual wrong factual Claims of aquinas or if he would agree with what has been said, but i read alot of kant and hume, and their Videos on them were quite acurate so it is plausible to Think the same.

[@aahlstrom93]

I am a Catholic Christian and love to read the Summa Theologica. Easy to read, bitesize, Catholic philosophy.

[@SuperGreatSphinx]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica

[@DrBRAVO69420]

I second this, I completed it in a single evening. Highly recommended.

[@maxwilk196]

I mean, I love the Summa as any ideal Catholic would, but calling it 'easy to read' is difficult to say...

[@SmarzyClip]

@@DrBRAVO69420in one evening?! Do you read at the speed of light? cause it is a book of over 1400 pages.

[@smithandscholar9660]

Aquinas covered sooooo many topics. I'm unaware of another philosopher who thought about topics so in depth in such a condensed period of time.

[@musicandcoffee2853]

Today is the feast day for Aquinas. He was a great thinker, philosopher, and theologian.

[@mariafoteini]

You are close to 1 million subscribers! i am so happy for you! I was waiting for your channel to get more attention months now! Congratulations! You truly deserve it!

[@peppemiola4576]

+The School of Life I have studied Aquinas at school, mostly about "Just War." These clips are great and very original unlike all of those cheap reaction videos. Keep up the good work you deserve the million subs!

[@lynnsat9755]

+Zeno Of Citium yes please!!

[@michaelschmitt2427]

+Мария Казазаки My sentiments exactly. These lessons broaden my horizons so much.

[@anarchy5282]

they just got 2 mil today

[@papashanko6877]

Maria Kazazaki

[@pgoconn]

I was unaware Thomas Aquinas liked Pokemon. You learn something new everyday.

[@jmiquelmb]

He was also the first to understand IV and EV stats, and to use them to breed perfect pokemons. His most important contribution, if you ask me

[@rurusiddi]

can you explain the correlation between pokemon and Thomas Aquinas?

[@mattgorak8189]

@@rurusiddi 00:46 left top corner

[@Krshwunk]

As a Thomistic philosopher, I must say you got a couple things wrong, but for the most part, I'm really glad you made this video. I don't think enough people are giving you credit for it. Thank you.

[@Whitebeardtheking9]

What did he get wrong may I ask?

[@Krshwunk]

​@@Whitebeardtheking9 Main thing that stood out ... the video should have compared/contrasted Natural Law and Divine Law ... not Natural Law vs. Eternal Law. The Eternal Law includes everything God wants in general. The part of the Eternal Law that can be understood through reason is called Natural Law. The part that can be understood through divine revelation is called Divine Law. That's what Aquinas would say, but the video technically jumbled the terminology a bit. Not terrible though. Still a very good presentation.

[@Whitebeardtheking9]

@@Krshwunk fair enough. Thanks for reaching out.

[@Krshwunk]

@@Whitebeardtheking9 Anything else?

[@holdingsteadfast]

​@@Krshwunkany books you can recommend on his that's accessible to a lay person? One that's not skimping on his works at all but simple enough for an ordinary guy to understand.

[@valsmith7993]

the reason I have a Bible and particle physics book on my bedside.

[@icecream_philosopher]

you're awesome

[@sameaston9587]

I'm gonna pull a Dwight Schrute and say burning books alone isn't sustainable enough for a proper fire. Better to use the heaver book as a bludgeon tool, knock out a large animal, and use it's fat to create a sustainable fire. Perfect activity for first dates.

[@willsonbasyal7883]

you fuckin stupid bruh, or even worse, ignorant!

[@baronofbahlingen9662]

Cameron Williams Find someone else’s ear to buzz in

[@johndeoliveira8476]

@@willsonbasyal7883 you're the problem if close mindedness. Such hatred over someone's beliefs just shows how useless you're. Grow up learn to tolerant other view.

[@richardedward123]

We covered Aquinas in religion class my final year of Catholic high school. We certainly didn't learn this! Wow! Thanks SOL.

[@nurselicrac9243]

because this video is irrelevant

[@paulschuebel5487]

*inaccurate. Insanely so

[@maaniekgupta2787]

this channel is seriously a blessing in these difficult and uncertain times.

[@jayjayd]

I think one of the best features of this channel is how old ideas are related in a new meaninful (and practical) way. Thank you very much for sharing knolwedge and wisdom.

[@keraatkins7833]

by far one of my favorite philosophers. we need more people like this guy in this day and age.

[@alextomich]

What about Osama bin Laden? Him and the boys at the al-Qaeda club had some pretty radical ideas, no?

[@keraatkins7833]

+Krizzly they are radical for violence and wouldn't dare use reason to solve things. Aquinas is different he uses reason as tool to better society as whole.

[@Kolchak_Enjoyer]

@@alextomich that is noob

[@tbillyjoeroth]

People don't care enough these days. Who would listen to a modern-day philosopher?? Most European Catholics are non-practicing.

[@AnupBhatt]

I used to think about all these things that you talk about in the videos on this channel. I felt a sense of loneliness as the world around me was largely subdued by impulsiveness, rather than thoughtfulness. This channel is an oasis of sorts for my inner well being.

[@virvisquevir3320]

Nine quotes from Thomas Aquinas: "The things that we love tell us what we are.” “Love takes up where knowledge leaves off.” “Love draws us more to things than knowledge does since good is found by going to the thing, whereas the true is found when the thing comes to us." "If the highest aim of a captain would be to preserve his ship, he would never leave port.” “Good can exist without evil; evil cannot exist without good.” "Love must precede hatred; nothing is hated save through being contrary to a suitable thing which is loved, hence it is that every hatred is caused by love.” “Fear is such a powerful emotion for humans that when we allow it to take us over, it drives compassion right out of our hearts.” "Justice without mercy is cruelty; mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution." “Knowledge depends on the mode of the knower; for what is known is in the knower according to the measure of his mode."

[@edelweissmundo8550]

k

[@idnyftw]

Thomas Aquinas, Patron Saint of Nerds

[@aloysiusyanuardi4923]

+Jim Tiberius LOL

[@soslothful]

Is he to much for you?

[@MADARA66613]

Kinda precise. His fellow monks used to call him “mute cow” because he was fat and silent

[@Obscurum]

+Marcos lol you're triggered atheist?

[@Skadi609]

@@MADARA66613 He was also called the "Angelic doctor"

[@marcelloruiz2888]

All it boils down to is that science and religion do not refute each other but in fact prove each other

[@sambrown9052]

he sure does sound quite... reasonable.

[@cosmicplebe310]

+Sam Brown philosophy mate

[@megaman1808]

this might be my favourite episode yet

[@FelipeCruzMelo]

Such ignorance about Christian intellectual tradition...

[@MultiCappie]

Yeah, much better to focus on the christian intellectual tradition that scraped Hypatia's skin off with oyster shells for being an educated female. And then co-opting that horror to fabricate saint catherine of Alexandria as if the perpetrators were pagan and a christian were the victim? And then Canonise the criminal? That would much more properly frame the christian contributions to intellectual tradition. Or how about how it's highest leaders defend, obfuscate, and ignore the anal raping of children at its schools? "Christian intellectual tradition." lol. christians defending christianity (5 ways) is no contribution whatsoever to real intellect. It is the opposite.

[@X-AEA-12]

That's a borderline oxymoron phrase. "Christian intellectual tradition". Christian "thought" has been playing catch up to real philosophers from its onset.

[@bradspitt3896]

@@X-AEA-12 What is a "real philosopher?"

[@LittleMushroomGuy]

@@X-AEA-12 Just say that you are an uneducated fool and dont waste peoples time.

[@LittleMushroomGuy]

@@MultiCappie Oh lets ignore centuries of christian philosophy, the basis for modern european and western philosophy, becouse of a propaganda piece from the 18th century? Also you should really burry your face somewhere for posting strawmen arguments on a video about philosophy...

[@nathanlancaster3770]

My confirmation saint! St Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!

[@hasanscreed1]

It would be really interesting if you make videos about Ibn Khaldoun, Averroes, Avicenna and Al-Khwarizmi. Keep up the good work School of life, enjoying every single video of yours :)

[@kylelamar6024]

Amazing ive never heard of any of these guys and ive read from derrida, to plato, to seneca, to anne fyrd, to kant, to schopenhauer. Its amazing that ive studied philosophy for almost 2 years now andi still know very, very little

[@timsvea5980]

I love studying Aquinas! Once you get used to the terminology, and past historical anachronisms, it is both easily understood and helps to make sense of things. Thanks, Thomas!

[@LittleMushroomGuy]

Congratulations on creating maybe one of the worst representations of "Aquinas" philosophy

[@prometheusrex1]

Right. "The School of Life" channel actually puts out a lot of shit content. This guy is NOT an expert and shouldn't be trusted to accurately represent.

[@Saber23]

prometheusrex1 don’t blame the guy he’s just the narrator it’s the morons behind the script that don’t know anything, like seriously are these people lazy to the point where they’ll misrepresent one of the greatest philosophers of all time? It’s ridiculous 🤦‍♂️

[@aesop1451]

@OrganicOrganist I think the problem is that 'The School of Life' presented Saint Thomas Aquinas' biggest contribution to philosophy as trying to reconcile faith and reason instead of his five cosmological arguments for the existence of God. If you look throughout history you'll see that their were pagan Greek, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, etcetera religious philosophers. The faith/reason "contradiction" didn't exist for Christians because studying the natural world was seen as studying God's Creation. The channel is feeding people pop philosophy by stripping it down and giving them feel-good, politically correct, and acceptable ideas. The whole channel feels like a self-improvement book for Millennials.

[@internetenjoyer1044]

@@aesop1451 not sure about politically correct; suggesting Christianity avoided the mistakes of Islam by allowing for reason is a pretty chancy claim in the current political climate lol.

[@emeanmachine6652]

Literally physically cringed at this video it was so shitty lmao

[@SuperGreatSphinx]

"The study of truth requires a considerable effort - which is why few are willing to undertake it out of love of knowledge - despite the fact that God has implanted a natural appetite for such knowledge in the minds of men." ― Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles

[@gramursowanfaborden5820]

...

I like your avatar.

2:35 shows worlds' greatest thinkers marx present*

[@fred15228]

Mikail Elchanovanich okay Freemason

[@PennyDreadful1]

TheGuess2D Marx wasn't an intellectual slouch.

[@johnpierce9075]

They just said organize an economy, not run.

[@arielmucciolo2830]

São Tomás de Aquino era (e continua sendo) uma pessoa de fé com a mente mais aberta do que muitos "inteligentinhos" ateus...

[@cazwalt9013]

Since catholicism is about love and atheism is the religion of anti-religion

[@drkmwinters]

Have you considered making videos about Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir, Judith Butler or Hannah Arendt?

[@petercahill6696]

+Luigi Virgola Bringing women into the mix, oh how awful.

[@queerspirit2995]

I definitely respect ppl who try to find a middle ground between reason and their own spiritual/emotional expressions.

[@christopherjones2669]

Paul says to Corinthians " we have the mind of Christ" ; the mind helps us get thru this life, yet heart gets us to heaven, and zero humans could ever invent the commandments, to think of others, marry, be honest, share your light, go 24 hours with no food or water, and do this last one monthly, stay close to community, forgive, do not steal, etc no human invention. Proof all around there is God.

[@brandonn.2876]

you guys should try your hand in the humanist philosophy of ubuntu, I am who I am because of who we all are. A philosophy of south african origin that places heavy focus on communal growth and development.

[@brandonn.2876]

I use ubuntu for my VMs alot, but I found the founding principle behind the software pretty interesting.

[@tarcisioenglishlearner5143]

Thank you for this advice. I love this African philosophy!!!

[@krhom70]

Kudos to your channel. People kept getting upset with your channel for only covering Atheist and Humanist philosophers, and never covering pious ones such as Aquinas. You responded by to the critics and gave them coverage on something they wanted.

[@ThomasRiver69]

Ironic how his name is Thomas and he strived to bridge a gap between faith and reason. I'm quite Doubtful he should be named something else.

[@upabove4478]

Because Thomas the Apostle was the one that doubted Jesus's ressurection in the new testament perhaps? As in that Thomas deny that a person can just come back to life because worldly law and Jesus's preach is waay different, but this Thomas did the opposite and bridged knowledge and bible's teaching. Not saying I agree, there is no obligation for people named Cain to kill their brother.

[@heliomoonwave]

Because he isn't a doubting Thomas

[@raimethefumeknight2062]

I thought it was a Thomas the tank engine reference lol

[@SevenDeMagnus]

Hi. One of my favorites. St. Thomas Aquinas pray for us. God bless, Proverbs 31

[@ronzack4572]

The greatest philosopher who ever lived: anyone who left the incredible philosophical and theological legacy that he did--quite literally the foundation of all Western Civilization to come after him--and then say at the end of this life: "All that I have written seems like straw"....and then stop writing, well, you just can't top that.

[@SuperGreatSphinx]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw

[@TheGuiltsOfUs]

"The very word "Christianity" is a misunderstanding - in truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross." - Friedrich Nietzsche

[@CAnon-mg1xm]

Sir Saint Thomas Aquinas saw with utter clarity that "all truths are one, since all truths finally come from the one God who is truth itself. Therefore there can never be a conflict between the truths of science and the truth of faith". Catholics don't see a division between faith and sciences. So they are not plagued by this question.

[@nemesis962074]

Would you guys be interested in doing videos regarding philosophy of the Americas, I belive you could find great ideas especially in Mesoamerica, for example the works of Nezahualcoyotl

[@JamesPeach]

Great idea.

[@differous01]

+Seth Perry ~ Interesting. Nezahualcoyotl (the fasting Coyote) did stop human sacrifice in his own city, but still built a temple to Huitzilopochtli, the deity to whom human sacrifices were made. That's a tricky god to reconcile with humanism. Presumably he is still bloodthirsty, so is he: 1. fasting (at the moment) or 2. sated with some kind of transubstantiation (like wine into blood)?

[@Sailrjup12nh]

Many Catholics really look up to St. Thomas Aquinas. Showed how important knowledge and learning was even in understanding our own religion better. He didn’t bar or lessen the importance of great minds nor matter their religion.

[@weirdzfully]

1:22 "He opened the Christian mind..." Yes quite literally

[@---.-----]

He actually opened the pagan and atheist mind and converted many people. That's what the Summa Theolica and the Summa Contra Gentiles is about. He was a great thinker, but not the first catholic thinker.

[@weirdzfully]

Damn I was making witty ass comments 4 years ago. Dafuq happened to me.

[@breatheeasily4013]

@@weirdzfully You fell from the top.

[@weirdzfully]

@@breatheeasily4013 Sadly, I became an adult and my soul and dreams were crushed the cruelties of life taking away what little humor I had left in me. But yes I guess you can say that as well.

[@breatheeasily4013]

@@weirdzfully Your dreams live on as long as you dream.

[@ilikevidzz]

The philosophy videos of The School of Life are the best ones.

[@aymanraouf8010]

Thank you. You've done a great job to mirror Averroes with Thomas Aquinas. Hope to see an Averroes video

[@okbrostartcoping5835]

@A. Molavi ur point?

[@benkindberg5992]

my confirmation saint! Thomas Aquinas is great!

[@creatoremterrae7933]

St Thomas Aquinas please pray for me to live a life worthy to be in heaven 🙏

[@sergeantslaughter5695]

I'm so happy you made a video on Thomas Aquinas!!!!

[@sergeantslaughter5695]

@Claire Khaw Gotcha

[@architectgilbertperez6664]

St. Thomas, patron saint of teachers, please pray for us.

[@DragynLady]

Really appreciate this positive and well-rounded take on Aquinas coming from a world-renowned atheist! Gives me hope that meaningful dialogue is possible!

[@evilcam]

Woot, philosophy video! I am glad Aquinas is coming back into favor in the academic and intellectual spheres of influence. He was THE SHIT to basically every European intellectual from the time of his death to the Renaissance, but when the clergy fell out of favor during the Enlightenment, so did he. Largely because he wrote so much about theology and how to reconcile it using deductive logic (which I think was a failure, and hurt his credibility in secular eyes). However, now that some time has passed, we can see some of his ideas have applications outside of theology, and he is being given credit for them. I don't care for most of his theological treatise either, but I love that we got the formalized notion of causality and this necessary distinction between Natural Philosophy and theology out of it. Both are important ideas, and while he was not the first to talk about them, he did set up a Europe, and now by extension rest of the world, to use reason whenever we run into a problem. More importantly, he codified why that is important, and even though his contemporaries did not need reason to think about the way their world worked as a matter of faith, most of them learned that it was far and away the best tool they have to think about anything. In what I think is a similar dilemma to what Thales and Parmenides and other pre-Socratics figured out, and helped their world understand. They did not necessarily need reason to explain their universe either, because "gods did it" worked just as well for most of them as it did for Aquinas' contemporaries, but that they did it anyway. So did Aquinas, following their lead directly, and now so do we.

[@vitocorleone3764]

+evilcam Idk if anyone else read it, but that was a welly written and very thought out comment. Well done =)

[@ieatgremlins]

Thank you so much for making this.

[@jacfalcon]

I'm sad that the only relevance this channel sees in the first 1,000 years of Christianity is from those the Western tradition of Christianity has prioritized. The East never really struggled with this battle between Faith and Reason, and thus never needed Aquinas's dualism to resolve it. I would love to see a video on, say, Athenasius or Chrysostom.

[@Lutheranjenkins]

Hello fellow Twitterer

[@vasilias2230]

Umnm, the west never struggled either dude. Aquinas didn't Invent this Idea for us

[@murrayaronson3753]

I remember Edwin Newman interviewing Ayn Rand on television's OPEN MIND years ago. Newman asked Ayn Rand about her favorite philosophers and thinkers. She answered that St Thomas Aquinas was her favorite. Newman was surprised as Ayn Rand was an atheist and she explained that was because of Aquinas's emphasis on the importance of reason.

[@murrayaronson3753]

On that same program Ayn Rand used the word "epistemology." How often does that happen nowadays on television? One ought to remember that sometime in the mid-60s Merv Griffin, yes Merv Griffin, interviewed on TV for about an hour Bertrand, Lord Russell. I'd like to see that again.

[@eliasunalan5244]

this speaker is incredible !

[@univiceversa]

I got to know him as Tomas D'Aquino, and you could say that his namesake was a good summary of his method, translated to english, his name sounds like " taken not from here", which simply put, is the reconginition that "i know this place that i am, but i also acknowledge there are other places that i dont know"... i did that "namesake" for all the philosophers, and its a bit spooky how well it worked for me(bilingually)and loved how this approach irked those seeking sophistication over simplicity. Loosely:Kant, defined by what he cant do, Heidegger, the paradox of digging to a higher place, Aristotle, you are the the sum total, Socrates, neat, limited space boxes for shipping, and on and on.....

[@MsReemable]

Please do one on Averroes 🙏🏼

[@mekman4]

The strained manufactured competition between an allegory and evolution is ridiculous, both have lessons neither cross paths both run parallel, left brain and right. Thanks!

[@NoNameNo.5]

Patron Saint of Students* John Baptist De La Salle is the patron of Teachers

[@2610paul]

Thank you so much !!!!

[@omyxtom]

I agree that the background of a person shouldn't stop one from listening to that person's ideas. It's also important for the opposite of Aquinas' original message be heard. That atheists should hear out religious ideas and be able to apply them without having to convert. So, I can be an atheist and still agree with Jesus that certain rules can be broken at certain times; such as when he had his deciples work on the sabbath, and told the Pharisees that breaking this rule was fine because of its intentions. We mustn't ignore the long history of thought behind religions just because we disagree with their main message.

[@academicned6236]

Well said!

[@juliannevillecorrea]

thank you !

[@mrskeltal105]

"Some of the greatest thinkers" Puts Karl Marx in the frame

[@kevinbeck8836]

Regardless of your particular views on Marx he is one of modernity's most influential thinkers.

Kevin Beck I agree but he’s elevated to such heights by the Jews who have a stranglehold on government, popular culture and academia.

[@rekjo5410]

@ Wouldn't be against their interest to promote an author that defended the abolition of private property and the dictatorship of the proletariat when they (acording to you) already control de government, wealth and culture? It appears that you have fallen victim to the conspiracy theories of 'Cultural Marxism' or, as the Nazis called it 'Jewish Bolshevism'. Those interpretations are based on misunderstandings of marxism, leninism and are heavily influenced by anti-semitism. Those claims are ignorant at best and dangerous in most cases.

[@hochmeisterulrichoffrankfu8207]

@@rekjo5410 There is a clear attack on traditional and religious institutions, a push for far-left ideals from politicians and an evident left wing bias on most internet platforms, who try their best to shut down any dissent by marking it as "hate speech". What was and still IS nothing more than a conspiracy theory is the "russian collussion" theory largely presented by most media platforms before the Mueller report, for example. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's real, go listen to Yuri Bezmenov.

[@hochmeisterulrichoffrankfu8207]

@@rekjo5410 And also, the communist theory is just that - theory. The abolition of hierarchical structures and the deconstruction of capitalism is impossible in practice. Hence why it's always turned out to be a dystopian nightmare in every country it's been tried.

[@jamesmcavoy8896]

this guys voice is so relaxing

[@Jack-me7kl]

You say "greatest thinkers" but then I see Marx's face. That one is, at the very least, arguable.

[@brdaniandarkness1444]

He is one of the greatest thinkers, although you dont agree with him, you cant take away his credit and influence.

[@McChadwickable]

I feel I've waited years for this vid- Thank you!

[@Borzogo]

Well, he got the 'natural law' section right.

[@GreatKhanMatt]

+FNA and how do you know his eternal law wasnt right?

[@xenophon5354]

+MattyBlue99 It's not that he "knows" that the eternal law is false, it's that the evidence for it being true is scarce, and at best highly suspect. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Matters of spirituality, in my opinion, should be just as subject to skepticism as anything else.

[@Borzogo]

MattyBlue99 Because the burden of proof is with the faith people. As far as I know God is not proven.

[@GreatKhanMatt]

FNA the fact it isnt proven does not mean however thats is been proven false. whether is true or not doesnt really matter in regard to philosphy, as the contributions christian thought has given us are beyond spectacular.

[@xenophon5354]

MattyBlue99 Point being, when something is unfalsifiable (like the existence of god), it is in every way unscientific and can hardly be addressed rationally. The attribute of "not proven wrong" isn't positive. As an example, if I were to say, "there are millions of small, purple elephants flying about in the atmosphere that cannot be detected in any way," would the fact that you cannot prove me wrong lend credence to my assertion? Of course not, so why should it lend credence to religious matters?

[@tracesprite6078]

These little summaries of the lives and choices of various thinkers are so interesting.

[@ercaner_buzbey]

First the natural law is not secular in itself in the eyes of Saint Thomas. He was suggesting that even throught eyes of an unbeliever if looked carefully one can attain the true moral code of God, or better conceptions of science. As believer he can not give any room other than what God's will, if not, he would be disqualifiying God for the titles of omnipotence and omniscient. Well, your assumption about Muslim thinkers getting dogmatic is a mistake. Reason behind their stangnation was just the overconfidence of prosperity they aquire before that made them blind to the new possilibilites in God's creation. Neither rulers nor the Muslim Thinker (Like AlGazali is always assumed one of the biggest dogmatic) were totally dogmatic in the first place. It was just that Muslim of that time as society and whole was pretty fed up with the luxuries of modernity of that time and felt that even in a system that looks like ideal they have still problems with sharia's implications and how to do it proper and just. That stance of ignorance and satisfaction made them stagnant, their belief on how they perfected themselves even when they know they did not, and their pitiful attemps on persuading themselves with an ideology of "they did everything they could". That ideology blinded them. In the infinite possibilities of existance as long as existance exists, we can not consume all of them not just even the good possibilities in the first place. What happened was that they got tired, the burden of carrying humanity was a heavylifting for them for so long (more than 800 hundred years) they simply too tired to carry more. They were a dying society, and that was the real reason of their stagnation. One with reality perception knows that people don't get moved by new ideas, they are moved by actions and emotions, and they were lacking these totally. The mistakes of the politicians and rulers made society this way, while it was that Muslim society's crime to leave their rulers to themselves so the could have the ability to make those mistakes. Now today you, westerners making the same mistakes as we did, saying "logic is enough, faith is irrelevant". By saying that you totally shut a get to a hell of a lot possibilities. By labelling people who tries to talk about Islamic values you just ridicule them in a very sarcastic way. What is worse is you are doing it worse for "seemingly"(!) your religion "Chistianity". You ridicule Bible and the old testament, bad mouth about the describtion of God in Bible, hate the idea of fate (while totally fine with the notion of hard determinism). You know the same pattern in logic was in action for the rulers of the Muslim world at that time as well. They thought they could know everything with just by their mind, and tried to discredit even the Quran itself, while all they achieve in the process. They did more bloodshed that could ever done in the history of Islam till that time in the name of logic by the name of "Mutezilah". They were supposed to be protecter of logic but they were so full with theirs they could not stand even to simply coexist with others' ideas on the matter. Congratulations(!) because you are taking the same road of arrogance to the final destination of ignorance. I nearly forgot the Mutezilah's biggest gift to any kind of thinker. You see most people blame AlGazali for his critical view on scientists and their oversized confidence. Mutezilah ruling class legislated an idea and idea that razing the distinction between good old mistake and intentional evil, "sin". To their eyes anyone who made mistakes is a sinner, which means even the Prophets themselves were sinners in their eyes because they made mistakes According to examined historical data we use so far. But they did not stop there, to made sure anyone after them would not invent or think anything they said: "Anyone who makes a mistake is a sinner and sinners no matter how small their sin was will go to hell without any chance of getting out." because you know, people with new ideas were giving them hard times. People who were trying to promote science and free thinking by their actions were simply too annoying to them they made sure no one after their reign could think and say anything without fear of going to hell. Do you know what that means. That means planting a time bomb into every Muslims mind. A bomb which will become more destructive that every second before its' imminent explosion. Till the modern ages and the till the raise of Western powers that bomb stayed firm, can you imagine how destructive it became for Muslims? Our biggest problem was not stagnation itself our implied fear to what will happen after it thanks to Mutazilah who happens to be the Guardian of logic(!!!!) well they guard their own logic at least, didn't they? Can you not see how your so called exstemist Taliban was USA first ally in Afghanistan against USSR. Can you not see how they are trying to educate their folk without any help from you? Did you ever see a man who carries blackboards on their back from village to village to teach? I feel no sincerety from you, or objectivity on logic, what seems to me that all you care about is your point of view.

[@gabrielonibudo5566]

this is facts

[@l2tappylester]

So true

[@ANGEL-eh6pd]

My argument is very similar to his. I saw the Blessed, Vrgin Mary when I was 8. I never knew of his visions also. And I know of Angel's too. Thank you for this new information. I do not feel alone anymore. Blessings

[@---.-----]

This video is absurdly inaccurate. They portrayed most of his concepts wrongly, and painted him as a secularist who tried to make the Church more like the world, instead of making the world more like the Church.

[@rhoharane]

Thumbs up for Christian Bale.

[@jakeduprez4490]

Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!!!!!!

[@derlinclaire1778]

Saint Thomas Aquinas was my conformational saint,friends.

[@brandonmoses6856]

Thank you very much Sir. I wouldn't doubt you are a very good regius professor.

[@YosafatNugraha]

School of life, we're always talking about ideas that came from old philosophers, ideas that are centuries. Are there any new ideas that we can relate to in our current present days? Ideas that came from observations of our society nowadays?

[@vejito11]

You really missed point buddy.

[@RaphnelV]

How about "The Moral Landscape"?

[@YosafatNugraha]

Marcus Bækgaard just wondering, even though I know that we can still relate those ideas to present days, but I'm just wondering, maybe philosophers like Alain de Botton, modern day philosopher have his own ideas that are complementary or even different than the others :)

[@mrMonku00]

+Yosafat Nugraha (/results?search_query=school+of+live+Alain+de+Botton) first like 6 are his ideas. Just google it

[@YosafatNugraha]

+A AA thank you :)

[@alexanderhall6036]

This guy the newest person on the list of my favorite people ever.

[@TheTariqibnziyad]

WOW they mentioned an Islamic philosopher, quiet an effort for the channel, they still don't mention that Averroes was a big influence for Aquinas, he was the fist to have the idea of the reconciliation between religion with reason, or to use reason to understand faith, since they are interrelated. but they explained really simplistically the causes of the decline of philosophy in the Islamic world.

[@TheTariqibnziyad]

***** its sad, i feel like they are trying to avoid Islamic (or everyone who lived in Islamic land) philosophy, which is one of the richest of human history, and it set most of themes for the enlightenment age (maybe it was weak only in politics)

[@zakdelange6936]

+Ibnziyad Tariq This is a very short video about Christianity. I understand why it wasn't included. But I am interested and I hope that sometime they cover Averroes more in another video!

[@AnupBhatt]

+Ibnziyad Tariq Also, as a fan of AlTair from the Assassins Creed Universe, and a fan of pre-islamic Middle East, I have no hate for the people. Only a strong hatred for the mentally imprisoning ideology that is islam...

[@TheTariqibnziyad]

Anup Bhatt I happen to know that Saudi Arabia and ISIS are a tiny percentage of Muslims and are certainty not the founders of its ideas. and if Muslims where in a certain period of time close-minded, so was everybody in the agrarian age, fearing new ideas, but its not what Islam wanted them to be like, Islam wants us to explore the creation of god through its creation. and please, please stop with the "we are afraid from muslims" thing, because we already have atheists, homosexuals, people insulting Allah, the prophet, in freaking arabic, and people like Adanan Ibrahim or Tariq Ramadan who are seriously criticizing the traditional Islam, and are the greatest threat to ISIS and fundamentalist in general, and they are just fine. and yes they where already pronounced apostles by Saudi Arabia fundamentalist. we are not putting our selves in the victim spot, we are already victims of an indiscriminate propaganda against 1.5 billion people, and what you have said just proves that, Media are setting a view of Islam, and this view is ridiculed by the facts, like having Muslim scholars and inventors all over Islamic history, and a contemporary evolving movement of reformation, but don't get me wrong, the Media aren't lying, they are just focusing on something and ignoring the other.

[@lucasdafsilva]

+Ibnziyad Tariq yeah, you are suffering because of your own religion that allows terrorist attitude, like mohammad did when he engaged military activities in his time. You are indeed suffering but what you dont want to accept is why you are suffering. Learn history. This video is not so accurate but you will see that muslim theology/ philosophy didnt allow the progress of the scientific method . See what aquinas said about islam. Open your eyes my fellow human being.

[@pjcanta8171]

My fav saint

[@untanglephilosophy]

Fun Aquinas Fact: I was reading Bertrand Russell the other day and apparently one of Aquinas's arguments against incest was "if the love of husband and wife were combined with that of brother and sister, mutual attraction would be so strong as to cause unduly frequent intercourse".

[@hyperdrivepics]

Woah, you guys did your research! I did two reports on Thomas Aquinas in school and I still learned new stuff about him here.

[@EnchiladaBoulevard]

Thanks!

[@ML-yi6xe]

Hi! THank you so much for this series- do you think you might do one on Dante soon?

[@qwertyqwertz2802]

I wish you would cover the negative aspects of these thinkers in your videos as well as the positive. Your videos are a good jumping off point, but it seems like they're designed to paint all of these guys in a good light. It would be interesting to see the conflict between Aristotle's contributions to natural philosophy as well as the ways in which he set science back. It would be interesting to see the conflict between Aquinas's contribution to the preservation of reason as well as the ways in which he allowed the church to retain its hold on politics. It would be interesting to see the ways in which Sartre popularized existentialism and counterculturalism while also examining some of the baseless aspects of his phenomenology.

[@stefan-cosmin.ionescu807]

+TheSchool of Life How about a video of Leibniz? He is the only important rationalist missing from your puzzle.

[@ACShotRun]

A-mazing video! I've always liked Aquinas' story. For example, during his time researching Aristotle he was pressured by the Church to stop doing so, since Catholicism borrowed ideas (tun dun disss) from Plato that Aristotle wasn't a fan of. The Church was afraid of what Thomas would find/write. And then he delivered this massive and incredible work about how reason and religion could coexist and etc etc. Aquinas's ideas helped with the development of the Scholasticism and, therefor, with the opening of the catholic world to scientific knowledge and practice, etc etc.

[@danieljackson3619]

Indeed, and do you know why the church was more into Platonism than Aristotelianism? Because St. Augustine was a Platonist/Neo-platonist, and his philosophy and theology largely dominated Catholicism before Aquinas came along. And when Aquinas finally stepped out on his own, he indeed had to confront Augustinianism, as well as Latin Averroism.

[@chrisw5139]

Aquinas was by no means the first to assimilate Hellenistic and Islamic philosophy into a Christian framework. What of his teacher, Albert the Great?

[@권정욱-m4f]

고등학교 윤리와 사상, 생활과 윤리 교과 내용을 공부한 후 자연법 사상에 대해 흥미가 있어서 추가적으로 탐구하는 중에 이 영상이 제게 유익한 정보를 제공한 것 같습니다. 감사합니다.

[@lindsayhengehold5341]

Love St. Thomas & his Summa Theologica

[@PTK-JLN]

One of the best KZbin channels , bravo !

[@ohaithereimjake]

I demand a video on Hume!

[@doncarr9435]

Well, I don’t think this was made for you philosophy enthusiast, but rather me, a person with the attention span of a squirrel and little knowledge of St. Aquinas. It’s hard to summarize all of his works in six minutes, and going beyond that stresses my concentration. Now it’s up to me if I wish to pursue the subject. Thanks for the intro, school of life.

[@wadson990]

Ludwig Von Mises plis!

[@PwntsRocksU]

+Wadson Carlos far right conservative pls..... not

[@wadson990]

PwntsRocksU oO'

[@Hereticalable]

+PwntsRocksU Let's see them all, not just the people we think we agree with. Being educated means you can entertain ideas without accepting them.

[@PwntsRocksU]

Hereticalable I guess, but there are more important people to make videos on before him..

[@Hereticalable]

PwntsRocksU If you think there are 'more important' people you can make your own videos on them. And by what measure are they more important? Did the video also claim that he is more important than the others? Is there a ranking system?

[@British_loyalist]

I cant stress enough how good your channel is.

[@JBlackjackp]

It's quite clear that you do not understand St.Thomas