Thomistic Epistemology (Aquinas 101)

[@mariao62]

We have political Sophists now. Thank God for the Dominicans teaching us to think about, and to live, the Truth.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Cheers!

[@mariao62]

@@ThomisticInstitute Cheers to you too! I'm in formation to be a Lay Dominican. You guys are relentless recruiters! :D

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@mariao62 Great to hear!

[@eugengolubic2186]

Dominicans rule! Benedictins, Franciscians and Jezuits are not what they were.

[@eugengolubic2186]

@@mariao62 i was thinking about becoming a lay dominican, but we will see. God only knows.

[@PInk77W1]

“To seek all pleasure in the physical order, Is an offense against reason.” St Thomas

[@dustash1578]

It's so well said that relativism and scepticism are forms of despair. Thank you for the video.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

This understanding should be at the bedrock of every society.

[@johnward5102]

Q. Couldn't this post have been done better? A. No, it could not. Clear, concise, and comprehensive (at a certain level) it answered my query (Thoma Aquinas epistemology) perfectly. Thank you so very much. Keep up the good work as long as you can, and God be with you.

[@christiea772]

I’m impressed by the quality of the videos. The content, the video quality (sound,image) and the easiness of the presenters (it usually takes years to non professionals to be at ease in front of a camera ).

[@Noblesix_.]

Even as an atheist I happen to really appreciate thomistic epistemology, sure I may have my disagreements with the man but he brought about a whole new age of reason to medieval Europe. It's also simple and easy to understand to the layman as philosophy should be.

[@andresarpi1143]

These videos are amazing. Thank you all!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure!

[@johnalombardi2951]

Christie A, Glad you enjoyed the videos, and the professional engineering work. The official name of the Dominican Order is the Order of Preachers, and the priests have a minimum of seven years of training after they complete their bachelors' degrees. Their rigorous education includes public speaking, and preaching. They are equally at home in front of cameras, in the church pulpit, or on a city street corner.

[@mathewsbanda2749]

Role of Intellect in Acquiring Knowledge

[@neliborba101]

This is intelligence speaking about God and man. If the youth were instructed in this way, there would be less godless people. Only under God there is Order and Peace, based on His Truth. Thank you.🕊⭐🕊

[@RK-tr4xk]

Great video. This series is a real blessing.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks! Cheers!

[@kristindreko1998]

Thank you for this video! May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you!

[@nickn1782]

This is a good presentation of Thomistic epistemology. I would like to see more on Thomistic theory of knowledge.

[@batnayanineveh6082]

Thank you so much for the treasure found in these short videos.

[@siegfried.7649]

I have a question. How does Thomistic epistemology apply to immaterial essences? In the video, there are numerous examples of how we can be certain of the essences of many material things, like dogs, cats, birds, and trees. We use our senses to identify the core characteristics of these substances, we then use our intelligibility to derive higher truths from our sensory knowledge, and finally, we use our rationality to weave together all of these 'data' and create a more comprehensive understanding of reality. (Please, correct me if something's incorrect in that little summary I just wrote) However, how exactly would we apply that process to immaterial things such as justice, beauty, and goodness? Our senses may be able to show us a just act, a beautiful landscape or a good deed, but they can never show us justice, beauty or goodness themselves. So how then can we be certain that our knowledge of these immaterial things correct if we cannot use our senses to verify it? Is there another means by which we can acquire knowledge of immaterial things or are we only reduced to our sensory, intelligible and rational capacities? Sorry if this question is too long and unclear. I hope it isn't too hard for you to understand. Anyways, thank you for this video and all the good work that you've been doing lately. God bless!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

So, the type of reasoning that you describe is proper to metaphysics. In our consideration of reality, St. Thomas argues, the first thing that falls into the intellect is being. Once we have this notion of being (whether by making a judgment of separation or proving the existence of some being beyond the scope of natural philosophy), we're ready to do metaphysics. In metaphysics, we consider those things (immaterial essences) that cut across all the categories . . . things that we find in substances and accidents alike. Here, it would be proper to consider being, unity, truth, goodness, beauty, etc. What is happening here is dependent upon the process described in this video, but it operates effectively at the level of subsequent judgments and reasoning.

[@stefangebhard7074]

One form of ‘immaterial essence’ would be ‘thought’. In the case of Descartes, he reversed the metaphysical structure of Aquinas by implicating ‘being’ secondary, putting ‘thought’ first. But by doing so, he created a dualism between mind and body-separating the two. The consequence of that approach disintegrated objective principles and objective truths, uprooting the Thomist-Aristotelian framework, thereby paving the way of future philosophical thinkers like Kant and Hegel, of whom perhaps did more harm than good for the future of philosophical and theological understanding. Any proper understanding of ‘immaterial essences’, as it relates conceptually to metaphysics, must begin with ‘being’ as the starting point. And from personal experience, even as it relates to having a stable understanding of bridging divine revelations, or (‘immaterial essences’) and intellectual reason together, Thomism provides that single conceptual framework. Contrasted to Descartes, Aquinas starts with ‘being’, ‘then’ moves to thought as his metaphysical understanding. I hope this helps to some degree.

[@celinehosea]

According to Aquinas, universal notions are features that are immanent to external objective reality, and the process of knowledge is a long and arduous penetration through particular objects to their universal essences. Hope that helps!

[@cassianoleme1890]

What a beautifully made video, truly moving. Thank you so much for putting it together.

[@jeremysmith7176]

What your saying about the enlightenment's separation of reason from God seems to illuminate much of the contemporary discussions on God and is sticking with me. Are there any good book or podcast you guys would recommend to explore this topic more deeply.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

A good introduction to philosophy of mind from with the Thomistic tradition is Jim Madden's Mind, Matter, and Nature. Ed Feser also has an introductory text on Philosophy of Mind. These don't get directly to questions of epistemology, but they provide excellent background. As for epistemology from within Thomistic anthropology, Henry Koren's A Philosophy of Animate Nature and Brennan's Thomistic Psychology are both excellent.

[@toninobelimussi296]

The simple and straightforward approach of the greatest mind of all times is despised and ignored, whereas every crazy brand of relativistic epistemology, however confused and demented, is deeply revered. Our world is slowly coming to a disastrous end indeed.

[@clintonlefort2004]

These instructive videos are really helpful. Is it possible to have one of the Dominican Friars make a video about the way and purpose St. Thomas uses Objections and Replies to the Objections in his arguments in the Summa Theologica?

[@goeb16]

Was Pilate a sort of Sophist, then? “What is truth?” ...too bad he didn’t realize he was staring at The Truth right in front of him

[@ConciseCabbage]

goeb16 - Quid est veritas? 👉 Est vir qui adest.

[@Math_oma]

Pilate was the first post-modernist.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

That's a great observation!

[@DawsonBennettDawsonTv]

@@Math_oma Mathoma!

This is just AMAZING! Thanks!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

You're welcome!

[@mattnd20]

These videos are so helpful! What is the best book you would suggest for a Catholic wanting to develop a Thomistic worldview?

[@fr.gregorypine5137]

A good intro to his philosophy is Aquinas by Ed Feser. A good intro to his theology is Aquinas 101 by Francis Selman.

[@dannyallen2894]

Also try The Human Person: A Beginner’s Thomistic Psychology by Steven J Jensen

[@martam4142]

Excellent introductory videos. Came here thanks to Edward Feser! :)

[@michaelmoore6334]

Where in the Summa, does Aquinas discuss misunderstanding - where, say, a student fails to understand what is being taught - and how to "enlighten" someone in these circumstances?

[@MT-2020]

Spot on on relativism and skepticism... and its newborn, CRT... Despair and Darkness... excellent video... Thnkx

[@CandleRay-Annie]

Wonderful explanation, Thank you Father

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Our pleasure! Thank you for watching, and may the Lord bless you!

[@chonesman123]

Great channel. I love everything you post. Do you have any videos about Aquinas and his relationship with hermeticism? If not, could you make a video about it?

[@javanpoly4901]

This channel and speakers are refreshing! Life and all it's questions need exposition. Not a: 'because the bible tells me so' knee jerk response...

[@GenXer82]

Regarding Enlightenment Philosophy, you mentioned "deny any essential connection between reason and God and suppress the awareness of our constant metaphysical and moral dependency on God in the project of coming to know and understand the truth." Could you please explain what this means? Thank you!

[@mattisonhale6227]

Enlightenment thinkers - most famously Voltaire, but even professed theists like Descartes - essentially redefined reason. They desired to separate or "purify" reason from faith. For example: Descartes's famous thought experiment was, "Is there any belief I hold that could not be the product of an evil demon?" This sledgehammer of skepticism was used to demolish all that could not be securely "known" by "pure reason." The "humanism" of the Enlightenment thinks of reason as a distinctly human ability, totally independent from faith or God, whereas scholastic philosophers like St. Thomas noted that without God, reason itself would be useless because the world would be irrational. In a word, Thomism teaches that reason is not self-justifying. Source: I teach history, philosophy, and theology in a Catholic high school. :)

[@titomontes9670]

Sin, especially lust, blinds our intellects and weakens our will. Those who are relativists or skeptics are usually those who need to eliminate truth in order to either justify their sins or ameliorate their conscience of their sinful disorders. Never trust an impure man’s philosophy.

[@martam4142]

So true.

[@modernistsgotohell8911]

What are your thoughts on coherentism and Van Tillian presuppositionalism? Are these two things compatible with Thomism?

[@greggy553]

Materialism is another form of relativism

[@martam4142]

Materialism is a cult and cancer.

[@georgigeorgiev381]

Thank you very much!

[@georgepatton5380]

start with intellect, undermine divine revelation. ☦️

[@billc3114]

Skepticism as in decartes?

[@GoingMeta]

@The Thomistic Institute: you say in this video that our minds would be empty without sensory experience. What about the angels, who lack sensory experience, are their minds empty? Or would you not consider them to have minds?

[@emmashalliker6862]

Angels aren't humans.

[@horsegirl3222]

Unlike humans, who learn and therefor know through their senses, angels have no form or matter and therefore no senses. They instead know through “infused knowledge”

[@alegref.2983]

One of the best videos ever.

[@clementbretanno1116]

Thank you so much, Father for the explanation. Would love it if you could view some light on the writings of Pope Benedict XVI (some of which cover relativism in modern society)/that is invaluable yet so difficult to be found anywhere. God bless you and your ministry.

[@a.d1287]

but how can we be sure that what we to be truth is truth?where does certainty stem from?

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Certainty is an analogical phenomenon. It's only with Descartes that certainty is reduced to a univocal understanding and delimited to the standard of mathematical proof. In ancient and medieval philosophy/theology, there is certainty borne of demonstrative proof (in the speculative order) and certainty borne of dialectic proof (in the practical order). As concerns the latter, one can have certainty that things exist and move; one can have certainty that he is making the best choice given his limited understanding; or one can have certainty that his parents are his parents. Certainty is extended in a further sense when we speak of the certainty of faith since this is based upon testimony rather than by experience. That's a thumbnail sketch.

[@a.d1287]

@@ThomisticInstitute ok thank you .is it possible to make a video on it? this topic come up alot when talking about matters concerning truth.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

@@a.d1287 Check on the video on argument and dialectic. That gives a rough sketch on dialectical knowledge. The video on doubt, opinion, knowledge, and belief will also be helpful. We will also be releasing a video shortly on faith, which should shed some light on the matter!

[@a.d1287]

@@ThomisticInstitute alright thanks

[@fr.gregorypine5137]

@@a.d1287 Cheers!

[@kamiljan1131]

Now, that is one of the best channels on YT I’ve seen, you could try to go on talks on some bigger christian channels to show some more people those videos! Thank you sooo much pope-dressing priests!

[@Bob-cn5or]

Thanx, very good! I would qualify, however: In the realm of natural reason, we can have absolutely true (non-trivial) beliefs, but we can not be absolutely sure, whether they are true or not (truth is not certainty).

[@miguelrc4790]

Are you certain about that?

[@Bob-cn5or]

@@miguelrc4790 No. That's the reason why my statement is not self-defeating.

[@ranakek]

If it's an absolute truth and you have it, it doesn't matter whether you know you have it or not, it's still true.

[@Bob-cn5or]

@@ranakek Sure it's true. But what does it mean: It does not matter whether you know you have it or not?

[@xgrunewald8142]

Ich empfehle als Ergänzung das Buch von Josef Pieper: Thomas von Aquin. Josef Pieper erinnert daran, dass nach Thomas von Aquin unser Erkennen dadurch ermöglicht wird, dass das Sein von Gott bereits erkannt ist.

[@0G0G3x0G]

Loving these videos but the sound effects are so distracting. What’s with that clanging metal or knife sharpening sound?

[@rhionuique]

Thank you for this vedio

[@antoniomoyal]

"Sounds familiar?" I love it

[@mathewsbanda2749]

Role of Intellect in Acquiring Knowledge according to thomas

[@AidenRKrone]

What does the Dominican Order think of Molinism? I know the Thomist Dominicans and Molinist Jesuits had a big blow up back when Molinism first hit the scene, and the pope at the time forbade any accusations of heresy from both sides, and now both views exist in the Catholic Church, although Dominicanism seems to be the most popular.

[@kurthein]

That was amazing.

[@haydongonzalez-dyer2727]

Love it

[@themel5436]

a question, why aren't you idealists ?? are you dualists then ?? good video and thanks in advance, greetings from Spain

[@fragrantdeco3579]

Whoever did the sfx for the video needs to repent. I never want to hear a generic sword clank as long as I live.

[@jegsym]

Show us the leads! Have a great show, guys.

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks!

[@llamatime952]

Skepticism might have been used like that in the past, but not it's mostly used as doubt in claims. It seems like you might be referring to solipsism which is the belief that nothing can be known except that you exist.

[@angelojaspio1002]

How about the vission of god?

[@7dragonsproperties351]

Is Epistemology study of knowledge?

[@XooxyBoo]

Yes

[@neuronneuron3645]

Skepticism and relativism have newfound ground with the Darwinian revolution. The idea of essences and the philosophical methods that give rise to such an idea are both called into question. As essences (of living things) have a common origin and the lineage of successive and increasing complexity from simple organisms to humans sees the cause of the essence of things to be a natural process and not an act of a Creator invalidating the conclusions derived from reason and the apprehension of the apparent essences of things. i.e. intuitively the nature of things instinctively point to a Creator of these natures but this it turns out by Darwin is not the case. Contrary to this, one can consider a metaphysical immutable space of possibility in which essences exist like the Platonic world of the forms such that the diverse species of evolution only instantiate what is possible and do not fully exhaust possibility. And then such a world of forms would require a Creator, with the essences considered to be in the mind of this Creator.

[@benandsylvia]

Experience is not reliable. Just because I see,hear or feel something does not make it true. A friend of mine had a religious experience. God spoke to him and he made big changes in his life. His god ,one of many was Shiva. And similar to that another friend had the same experience but the god that spoke to him was jesus. Could they both be true? Is it possible both experiences were false,meaning they were some kind of dream or hallucination? There are many people who seem perfectly normal act and talk normally but whenever I get them to open up I hear strange things. The world is being taken over by lizard people. UFO abductions, ghostly encounters and on and on. Yet, no falsifiable evidence. I work with the public in a large city so I've dealt with many different types of people. The things I've seen and the stories I've Been Told would blow your mind. I have seen myself some very strange things but I never jump to conclusions to say it was a God or a ghost or an alien or a lizard person. I scratch my head and say that was odd and sometimes I find out the answer and sometimes it's left unknown. Simply assert that it was God or a lizard person or Sasquatch only satisfies the person who believes in those things using confirmation bias. I prefer to just say I don't know then to label something as God. Extraordinary things should require extraordinary evidence to be believed. Man says, "I own a flying dog." Sure,ok. Man says, " I own a Chihuahua that doesn't bark." Ya,right ! This I gotta see !

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Wow! I also would not believe accounts of lizard people, especially religious visionary ones. Experience is reliable in the sense that the world is real, and we have real, if limited, access to its nature through sense and understanding. But concrete experiences, especially visions, are not therefore something that we can easily understand or communicate. We share knowledge with one another of pretty basic things, but we tend to trust our own experience more than others. That said, sometimes it is very reasonable to trust that, for example, China exists, even if we have not experienced it. True matters of faith, however, are not based on personal experience, but on God's revelation in a more special sense. God gives to faith the power to grasp mysteries about himself, and even to understand them in a partial way in this life.

[@callumedwardshaw840]

The internet has illumined everything, it seems to me.

[@nickd7986]

then it seems Intelligence causes no harm to others nor harms oneself

[@simon2636]

Nice explenation ... But I think that in disproving relativism or scepticism it's important to remember that even the thomistic definition of truth is not simply "objectivistic". You use the word "truth" as if it was synonymous to "reality". It's not. Truth is a compatibility (adaequatio) between reality (rei - that which is objective) and mind (intellectus - the subjective). Both components are there. I know that in common use of language such nuances are not needed. But how many times (especially in discussions about abstract things) there are situations where evaluating the truth of a statement or idea requires you to say "well... it depends on what you mean by or " - and isn't that relativistic? Well, we should say no, but it than again it depends on what we mean by "relativistic" doesn't it? ;)

[@D-Ice55]

No What you are saying is "correspondence Theory of Truth". That is not what Aquinas holds. For him truth is ontological. And of course a trancendental.

[@simon2636]

@@D-Ice55 I'm not sure I understand. I tried to draw some conclusions from St. Thomas' own definition of truth: "veritas intellectus sit adaequatio intellectus et rei [...]" - Summa contra gentiles, lib. 1, cap. 59, n. 2. If it's based on the correspondance theory - which is the most classic and common theory of truth - then how iis it not what Thomas holds? And how is it contrary to the belief that truth is "ontological" (whatever that means) and also a transcendental?

[@D-Ice55]

@@simon2636 Because the correspondance theory is that you check against reality your own thoughts i.e knowledge. Since we only have access to the world through knowledge, it is impossible to check knwoledge against the world in order to see if it corresponds with it. The "intellect" is not the "subject". Because "subject" is the res cogitans and res extensa of descartes i.e. the towfold of subject and object. In the texts of the medivials you ill see that they have it exatcly swoped around. What we call "Object" was or them "Subject". Now Aquinas has a theological notion of Truth i.e you participate in the divine Being and a philosophical. You have (("Intellect" ---- "Res") God)) Aquinas does not ground his "correspondance theory of Truth" in Epistemology. Your reading of the SCG is exactly this. "Correspondence" for Aquinas is a kind of real relation or "occult" sympathy between being and knowledge. You can read this in the summa. He always "talks" like this:" It seems as if..." , "It looks like both are saying ... " Then his account of "being" is not univoc but analogical, which means nothing has "being" but God. Because "being" is the towfold of "possibility" and "actuality" i.e being and non-being. Because the possible is not actual so non-being. This is also important for the contingency argument (proof) of God. Because contigent means that everything has to possibility to not-be. Otherwise you are an atomist (demokrit, epikur). This is what makes his theory of truth and ontological rather than epistemological one. In "De Veritate" (a book which lays out his Truth theroy) he start with a relation of "truth" to being. Like a mode of existence. If you start with Epistemology you would ask " How do we know a thing" and this implies a static notion of being i.e atomist. That the world is self-sufficent (or like today some people call it "existential inertia"). And this is Aritotels mistake. That is "unmoved mover" is co-eternal with "the world". Therefore nobody takes the "cosmological proof of God" serious anymore today. Because if you have a atomistic notion of being. The world is eternal. So you start with an eternal being (the world) to argue to an eternal being (god).

[@simon2636]

​@@D-Ice55 I understand your point even less now xD "...we only have access to the world through knowledge" AND "it is impossible to check knowledge against the world in order to see if it corresponds with it" - How is that sentence not self-contradictory? :/ The notion that is surprisingly existentialist (or at least non-essentialist) - which is a really weird thing to attribute to someone like Aquinas - but who knows, maybe I don't know his philosophy that well. It doesn't bother me because I'm also not a fan of classical metaphysics where there is no such thing as "non-being". It also doesn't bother me if it makes a case for scepticism, because I believe that truth about reality is hard to obtain. For the rest I don't see how it's relevant to my point. I don't see how I need to: be an atomist; ignore the contingency of contingent beings, swap the words "objective" with "subjective" (whole languages got swaped throughout history so whatever), or make ontology seperate and opposed to epistemology... ...to hold the classical definition where in order for a statement to be true, you need to BOTH have the proper notion of the statement AND it being adequate to reality. I don't even see how such use of the word "truth" appeals more to the correspondence theory than for example to the coherence theory or even pragmatic theory. For me they are all somewhat there. That's what makes "veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus" for me so elegant.

[@D-Ice55]

@@simon2636 If I have the notion of "triangularity" in my intellect and I see something which matches to it, it corresponds to it. But for this you have to have a huge metaphysical system presopposed and God has to exist. This i what I tried to explain. Because if you start with "classical Metaphysics" i.e Descartes british empiricism, you cannot have this correspondence theory of truth anymore. Also Aquinas doesnt start with epistemology because you need a metaphysical foundation which through you read this. There are no "Facts" to discover which are "just there". So Epistemology collapes and you can no longer have such notion as "truth". This is the contemporary porblem within philosophy. Therefore I took the example of the cosmological proof. If you read this proof with descartes metaphysics, it maks no longer sense. If you say "I don't care I stick with scholastic metphysics" then you do not have all of these problems. But who can saythat he has not mixed scholastic metaphysics with some "modern" inventions? Also language is important if you are a realist. Because there is a huge difference in calling things "subjects" or (like Kant) calling things "objects". So you cannot say its just words, because then you are a nominalist. And nominalism leads directly into descartes rationalism and so on.

[@joshuafritz1386]

Great start on the video. Unfortunately, the video misses the noetic theology of the Catholic Church. This causes Aquinas to remain in the theoretical, as does reason. Very close, but not quite. B minus.

[@jamesbancroft2467]

0:40 could the human race ever have a time where *nobody* voices those views?

[@dmitryalexandersamoilov]

In topics of metaphysics, be a supernaturalist. There are some things we can only know because we define them that way. In topics of science, be a naturalist. No other way of knowing is as successful as empiricism when it comes to technological innovation. In topics of ethics, be an anti-realist. We decide what's right and wrong. We don't have to bend to logic in inventing beautiful futures for our society.

[@itsjustaryde1802]

Solipsism and skepticism aren’t the same thing but Fr. Brent frames them as though they are. To continually say skepticism while meaning solipsism is misleading. It also feels to me as though Fr. Brent equivocates a philosophical definition of skepticism with the common everyday use of the word. I’ve never heard of a skeptic who would deny the existence of truth or truths. Generally speaking it seems to be the desire for truth that drives most skeptics. Given sufficient evidence, using the means Fr. Brent illustrates so well, they will believe the truth. To be skeptical is not a form of despair but of hope. To be a limited creature that comes to know a truth is a triumph; not a labor of the hopeless. It could just as easily be said that unquestioning acceptance is a privation a God given intellect. Should we not question bad theology? How do we come to know the difference? By being skeptical. Truth will stand up to skepticism it's just that some truths are more difficult to arrive upon than others.

[@mikealrodriguez6907]

You are mistaken here. Fr. Brent is using the philosophical meaning of 'skepticism,' whereas you are using the vernacular meaning of the word. In philosophy, skepticism is the position that certitude of knowledge, and possibly knowledge itself if you're extreme enough, does not exist. Solipsism, on the other hand, is the position that nothing exists, or can be known to exist, outside of one's mind. These are two very different things, and there is no confusion of them on Fr. Brent's part. The epistemological tradition you are referring to when you use the vernacular definition of "skeptical" is called empiricism.

[@curiouschris98]

These videos are wonderful. They really are. Wonderfully produced, animated, presented, everything. Hoooooowever…those sheathing sounds whenever something new pops up on the screen are very grating and very loud. They distract from the wonderful content being presented, at least for me. Still gray stuff though!

[@ThomisticInstitute]

Thanks for the feedback. Much appreciated!

[@davidgagnon3781]

The Sophists were training lawyers and politicians.

[@ArtyomLensky]

"were"?

[@davidgagnon3781]

@@ArtyomLensky Our Unis are full of Sophists.

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

Here is a philosophical critique of the video on Thomistic epistemology: The video presents Aquinas' view that human knowledge originates in the senses, is processed by the intellect, and concludes with rational judgments. This account can be critiqued in several ways: - It assumes an overly linear model of knowledge flow. In reality, background concepts shape perceptions, and reasoning guides future sensations. - Abstracting universals from particulars via active intellect is problematic philosophically. The mechanism by which this occurs requires further explanation. - The passive intellect seems to present the mind as a blank slate at birth. But modern science indicates innate structures guide learning from experience. - The priority given to sense-derived knowledge underestimates forms like rationalism that emphasize a priori reason. Intellectual intuition is downplayed. - The Aristotelian conception of intellect/reason as unified faculties is simplistic compared to contemporary modular models of mind. - The view is very intellectualistic, ignoring emotional, intuitive, and social aspects of knowledge acquisition. Alternative perspectives such as empiricism, rationalism, constructivism, intuitionism, and emotivism provide fuller accounts by recognizing the complex, nonlinear nature of human knowledge. Aquinas pioneered connecting sensory input to abstract reasoning, but modern philosophy builds on his account in important ways. Evaluating different epistemologies allows selecting an optimal balance between experience, reason, intuition, and contextual factors in human knowledge.

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

Most of these critiques fall into (a) missing the fact that St Thomas does recognise the role for deductive reasoning in knowledge, just that the senses are prior, (b) missing the fact that St Thomas only wishes to provide a general philosophic account of how we come to know rather than study the specific processes that happen in the brain which cause knowledge, or (c) missing the fact that there is nothing wrong with a correct epistemology like St Thomas's negating false ones such as intuitionism and innatism

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 In the face of the defense mounted for Aquinas’ epistemology, I must assert that it is not just incomplete, it’s fundamentally flawed. The notion that knowledge passes neatly from sensation to rational deduction is not just an oversimplification; it’s archaic. We know that knowledge is a maelstrom of cognitive processes-memory, imagination, emotion-and Aquinas’ quaint schema just doesn’t cut it. The veneration of sensory experience as the bedrock of knowledge in Aquinas’ philosophy? Reductive. Our sensory inputs are inextricably linked with our mental frameworks, and any model that fails to recognize this is simply inadequate. Aquinas’ view of the senses as some sort of unblemished conduit to truth is at best naive. And what of the glaring void where social and linguistic contexts should be? Knowledge doesn’t bloom in the vacuum of individual minds; it’s a collective endeavor, sculpted by the society and language we are immersed in. This isn’t just an oversight in Aquinas’ philosophy; it’s a colossal blind spot. As for the proponents who wave away the evidence for innate cognitive structures, their stance is bafflingly obstinate. The wealth of data from neuroscience and developmental psychology irrefutably shows that the human mind is prewired for learning, contradicting Aquinas’ tabula rasa fantasy. Moreover, the defense’s misinterpretation of modern critiques is frustrating. It’s not about pitting Aquinas against intuitionism or innatism in some philosophical battle royale; it’s about recognizing that his framework is outmatched by the complexity of contemporary thought. And let’s not gloss over the issue of a priori knowledge. Aquinas’ framework gives short shrift to rationalism and the very possibility of knowledge that doesn’t trace back to sensory experience, a glaring omission that cannot be understated. So, while Aquinas might be a titan of historical philosophy, it’s time to admit that his epistemological model is a relic, overshadowed by the intricate understanding of knowledge we have today. Defending it feels less like intellectual rigor and more like clinging to a sinking ship out of a misplaced sense of reverence.

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

@@Enigmatic_philosopher Memories and imaginations are ultimately based on the senses. For empirical proof of this, try asking someone who has never seen or heard of an elephant before to imagine a pink elephant. They cannot, because they have no observational grounding to make what you are asking pink. Emotions are neurophysiological, and thus can only be detected by sensations. Emotions regardless are ex post to knowledge, and hence I cannot derive some sort of theory of physics or some technological insight from them as you seem to be suggesting, only that something has caused this emotion. We may categorise sensations, but such frameworking can only occur because we have had prior sensations. It's quite possible, place Robinson Crusoe on his island, and he can immediately learn a number of things, like where to find food, the geography of his island, how best to shelter himself etc. Even if Friday were to come along and build upon this knowledge, he would only be able to help Crusoe because Crusoe can interact with Friday through his senses. If you do not believe me, try speaking to a deaf man about the theory of relativity and test his knowledge after. Having a prewiring for learning doesn't mean one necessarily has knowledge, and this is the point that Aquinas makes. This prewiring still needs interaction with sensory data to begin conceptualisation and deduction in order to be at all useful for acquiring knowledge. Indeed, the complexity of so-called modern systems only serves to demonstrate that it is Thomistic epistemology which outmatches them. Innatism and intuitionism nearly always relies on making their proofs imperceptable, incredibly difficult to conceptualise in their reader's mind. If you want proof of this, read "Critique of Pure Reason" by Immaneul Kant, noted innatist philosopher. Empiricists such as St Thomas not only understand how humans form categories from senses, but are able to use this in order to make their points clear, which some mistake for shallowness. Indeed, Aquinas's epistemology does negate a priorism, and this is because it is wrong; every concept you have used so far has at some point been sensed by you then matched with similar senses to form the concepts you are expressing to me.

[@Enigmatic_philosopher]

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 In addressing the defense of Thomistic epistemology and its claims that empirical grounding is necessary for conceptualization and knowledge acquisition, it is crucial to contrast this view with the contemporary understanding of cognition from a naturalistic perspective. Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that Aquinas's emphasis on sensory experience as the foundation for knowledge is not entirely dismissed by naturalism. Indeed, naturalism recognizes the role of sensory input in shaping our conceptual frameworks. However, the contemporary understanding of cognition extends beyond the simplistic model of sensory data leading directly to knowledge. Modern cognitive science suggests that our cognitive faculties are not merely passive recipients of sensory information but are active interpreters, pattern recognizers, and inference makers. These faculties have evolved to construct useful models of the world that allow for survival and thriving, not necessarily to provide direct access to truth or knowledge in the philosophical sense. When it comes to innate capacities, the critique of Aquinas's rejection of a priori knowledge is bolstered by developments in the cognitive sciences. It is now understood that humans are born with certain prewired tendencies and frameworks for learning, such as the ability to recognize faces, infer intentions, and acquire language. These are not learned through sensory experience but are instead innate capabilities that allow us to make sense of sensory data in complex ways. This does not mean that we have innate knowledge in the Platonic sense, but rather that the architecture of our cognition is predisposed to organize and interpret sensory input in particular ways, which is a point that Aquinas's model seems to underestimate. The argument that Aquinas's epistemology is superior because it is more comprehensible to the layperson conflates clarity of communication with epistemic validity. The simplicity of an explanation does not necessarily make it more accurate or true; complex phenomena often require complex explanations. The fact that Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" is challenging to conceptualize does not undermine the validity of its arguments; rather, it reflects the depth and complexity of the issues at hand. Finally, the appeal to Occam's razor in the philosophical justification for atheism is pertinent here. When comparing theistic and naturalistic explanations for cognitive faculties and knowledge acquisition, naturalism does not require the assumption of a divine being to account for these phenomena. It provides a simpler explanation by attributing the development of our cognitive faculties to evolutionary processes and the natural environment. Occam's razor thus favors naturalism because it does not multiply entities beyond necessity. Aquinas's epistemology has historical merit in its focus on empirical evidence, it does not fully accommodate the complexity of contemporary cognitive science. The naturalistic perspective provides a more nuanced and empirically supported account of how our cognitive faculties operate and evolve, better aligning with the current understanding of knowledge acquisition and cognition. This naturalistic approach, which is more parsimonious and grounded in evolutionary biology, offers a stronger foundation for atheism, as it does not require theistic assumptions to explain the development and functioning of human knowledge.

[@thefrenchareharlequins2743]

@@Enigmatic_philosopher Saint Thomas does not deny that human beings are capable of active interpretation as later empiricists do, but that such interpretation is impossible without initial sensory data. You have continually evaded this fact. Without sight, one would not be able to recognise faces. Without hearing (or sight to see writing or touch to read Braille), one would not be able to learn languages. I note the irony in the fact that in order to make such claims about how human cognition works, we first need to see, through our senses the relevant organs where this prewiring or framework-making takes place. And philosophically speaking, it would involve innate ideas in the Platonic sense; if one wishes to make scientific claims about how precisely the brain processes information into knowledge, then that is correct, but if one wishes to infer from this the philosophic position that any method for knowledge must involve innate ideas, then this would indeed be Platonism. No, I am noticing a striking correlation, as I have successfully proven empiricism above and wish to give some of the ramifications, like those present in literature. Indeed, you seem to be conflating correctness with, what I struggle to call complexity, because that implies some kind of order. In contrast, the so-called "complexity" present in Kant's work is more aptly called verbiage, as his proofs consist of page-long sentences, combining a multitude of qualifications, parentheses, side remarks, and subordinate clauses, while you are waiting for the verb of the sentence. True genius is found in St Thomas's work, where he can combine all the particulars of any of his positions into one concept. This last point demonstrates a substantial unfamiliarity with St Thomas's philosophy. Philosophy, he considers, is a completely natural subject, beginning with the senses and proceeding via reason and logic. It is only theology according to him which requires divine revelation.

[@chrisvanallsburg]

Please stop with the clashing knives sound effect. Not necessary. Otherwise, these videos are wonderful. Thank you.

[@FL_WEED]

Agreed. It was rather distracting and didn't match with the visuals. But otherwise great video, lol.

[@bloodmooncomix457]

I now see that satan's kingdom on Earth would be absolutely NOTHING without him using "our" God given abilities to think, reason and create and exploiting our greatest weakness....... Our own sinful nature! 🙏😠

[@Chispaluz]

I love my Dominicans

[@ThomisticInstitute]

We're very happy to have them here at the Thomistic Institute, too! Thanks for taking the time to watch and comment. May the Lord bless you!

[@brackguthrie9470]

Whatever is considered "truth" is all to often dependent on who wields the power. I have no doubt there is truth. I just find it hard to believe that any single school of thought contains the complete "truth". Any person or any religious or philosophical entity that claims to know the complete truth of anything is simply exercising arrogance. Since we are always learning, truth is always expanding according our level knowledge. What were St Thomas' thoughts of the neurological and physical structure of the brain? If he had any thoughts on the subject, he was probable 100% wrong. Not because he was stupid, but because he was not in possession of the truth. HIs knowledge was not sufficient for him to arrive at truth. Can you arrive at truth without using a philosophical framework that you know will lead you in the direction of your religious or cultural bias? I find that your epistemology is more interested in acting as an apologist for Catholic moral teaching than for discovering truth. You start with your opinion of truth and create philosophical framework to support it.

[@erinsymone1645]

Spot on.

[@mattisonhale6227]

What a garbled mess of uninformed prejudice. You claim to "wonder" about St. Thomas's thought, but then dismiss your own train of thought by supplying a puerile mixture of sophistical Marxism. Nonetheless, you expressed it as a comment on a video series aimed at patiently reasoning through complex metaphysical questions. It is pitiably lazy to simply point out that no "single school of thought contains the complete 'truth'" and then refuse to learn anything. I suppose that pointing out how others are not omniscient saves you the trouble of using your own mind, but it leads to this rather impotent pontification... ultimately, just shouting at the wind. I wish you'd had a good teacher.

[@brackguthrie9470]

@@mattisonhale6227 There is nothing Marxist in my comment. I am much closer to Ayn Rand than Marx in my philosophy. I stand by my comment. All religion is an exercise in explaining one's own world view...and all too often forcing that world view on others.

[@das.gegenmittel]

Aquinas is such a copy cat of Aristotle.

[@michaelabbott9080]

"human beings are made for truth"..that is a huge pre suppositional assertion,and one that you make ,then skip over very quickly.You do not explain why this is so,you offer no explanation at all,nor do you provide any demonstrable evidence to support that hypothesis..As for experiences,yes l do experience things in the natural world,but l can also demonstrate that those things are real (barring a descent into hard solipcism)..l simply cannot do that with supernatural claims.I cannot demonstrate that they are real,nor can l investigate them.if they involve interaction with the natural world in any way,then we should be able to demonstrate and validate that...They should leave evidence..evidence we can examine...

[@PeterDobbing]

The contrary to 'there is Truth' isn't 'there is no truth'. This is just straw mannery. Relativism doesn't have to be the bete noire you claim. From a developmental perspective the nature of truth reflects the mindset of the searcher. A heteronomous mindset convinced there is truth etc 'out there' would buy into your objectivist epistemology. But this isn't the only show in town. As consciousness becomes more autonomous truth can no longer be characterised in this way. The realisation dawns that all so-called truths are a function of the way people are. This actually leaves a door open for an absolute that defies the limits of your reason. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

[@martam4142]

Jesus, what a load of garbage.

[@studiooriginals]

Your argument for skepticism being inherently pessimistic is quite poor. You have simply asserted as much.

[@danielpoot7275]

Father, how not to become a bigoted believer?

[@devnath4]

Let go of all your 'ideas' or philosophies of God. they are human constructs. they are trying to fit God into their system of ideas. Look into the eyes of your neighbor. Look at Nature. look within. You'll find Him there. God is unknowable [beyond sensory knowledge] - stop looking for him, and you will find in faith. Clinging to ideas and philosophies will lead you to bigotry. Being a believer means - being rooted in GOD / LOVE, how you relate and communicate/ respond to individuals, society, issues, etc. with love.

[@nomore9004]

what?

[@devangelism5810]

Skepticism is dispare? Really, and believing most human beings throughout history will be tortured for eternity is somehow uplifting? LOL

[@noelyanes2455]

It’s based

[@newtonswig]

See, this is my problem: Aquinas has a pre-information-age understanding of the intellect. The light of God does not shine through geometry, any more than arithmetic or any other form of ratiocination. A calculator does not possess the light of God. I say it again: geometry is insufficient to determine Telos. Empathy is the spark of truth finding at the heart of the human soul. Aristotelian methods for determining Telos could be the work of a mad automaton. Such methods have rightly been abandoned by biology. But everybody in every science as much as true friendship empathise with their subject on the basis of their virtues. Thomism only needs a small bug fix- you see Telos by empathy- and it becomes unstoppable. Without it, to the world outside Catholicism, it remains a quaint relic of when some guy reconciled Christianity with now anachronistic science.

[@newtonswig]

Republishing my comment on another video as context for anybody interested: Thank you for the beautiful video- explaining Thomas at his best. I will certainly be subscribing, as I find his work to be a rich and stimulating synthesis of Aristotle, all of the thinkers inspired by him (as in Avicenna’s contribution to the Quinque Viae as expounded here), as well as a deep spiritual insight. However, seeing your continuing responses to other commenters I cannot help but pick the bone I have with him here, perhaps in the hope that you will take it away. Simply, I do not think that one can see Telos from the outside of the object. I believe in Telos. I even believe that we can see it. I believe that we are all capable of becoming one another’s gardener- that we can, carefully, and with piety, bring one another closer to the flourishing that is the resting point of all our clockwork hearts. But this seeing as much as its enaction has only ever been accomplished by the agape that Thomas himself advocates. The deep empathy of seeing virtue past the creaturely surface. Why does the Catholic establishment persist with its complementarity, as if we finite imbeciles discovering artefacts of infinite hands could know through geometry alone? Why with creaturely biology treat this half holy beast? Moreover, with a method of biology that has since been abandoned by a science that has learned its limits? I am, for the record, neither gay nor a first communioned Catholic. I am only offended by the persistence of a blind spot in an otherwise great thinker that has caused so much cruelty since. Apologies if I come across over forthright. I thank you again sincerely for the video, and in advance for your reply.

[@mattisonhale6227]

I do not think you know how a calculator works.

[@newtonswig]

@@mattisonhale6227 you think a calculator possesses the light of God? Funnily enough, a calculator is one of the few things I’d back myself to build out of logic gates. How do you think they work?

[@rh5591]

Take that, straw men!

[@evkoum]

You have been debunked from Jay Dyre :-)

[@Trigathus]

pretty freakin based. unfortunately i can see how this leads to the Western deification of science.

[@jeremyjames1659]

Wasn't Thomas Aquinas a Platonist? So the Vatican turns a pagan into a "Saint"? That sounds about right lol

[@MrJm323]

Everyone who studies philosophy (which started with the pagan Greeks) is, therefore, a pagan? And, no, he was not a Platonist. He was much more an Aristotelian. St. Augustine was a Platonist. So, by your logic, St. Augustine shouldn't have been sainted because he was a "pagan" (since he embraced the study of pagan Greek philosophers).

[@josephmariaotf]

You believe Platonism is a religion (not an school of philosophy) and that St. Thomas of Aquinas was an adherent to it, not (the greatest exponent) of Scholasticism and still wanna be sassy about him and the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church? ‘That sounds about right lol’

[@mrwater5772]

What absolute nonsensical babble. Constant misrepresentations and plain false claims. Someone please make a debunking video.

[@8shizzle]

Blah blah blah....So what ???