What do you think?
Rate this book
Summa Theologica
Summa Theologica, Volume 1
"The Summa Theologica is the best-known work of Italian philosopher, scholar, and Dominican friar SAINT THOMAS AQUINAS (1225¿1274), widely considered the Catholic Church¿s greatest theologian. Famously consulted (immediately after the Bible) on religious questions at the Council of Trent, Aquinas¿s masterpiece has been considered a summary of official Church philosophy ever since. Aquinas considers approximately 10,000 questions on Church doctrine covering the roles and nature of God, man, and Jesus, then lays out objections to Church teachings and systematically confronts each, using Biblical verses, theologians, and philosophers to bolster his arguments. In Volume I, Aquinas ¿ the existence and perfection of God ¿ the justice and mercy of God ¿ predestination ¿ the cause of evil ¿ the union of body and soul ¿ free will and fate ¿ and much more. This massive work of scholarship, spanning five volumes, addresses just about every possible query or argument that any believer or atheist could have, and remains essential, more than seven hundred years after it was written, for clergy, religious historians, and serious students of Catholic thought."
592 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1274
288 people are currently reading
450 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Aquinas
2,555 books1,137 followersPhilosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican friar and theologian of Italy and the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle and elements of Neoplatonism, a system that Plotinus and his successors developed and based on that of Plato, within a context of Christian thought; his works include the
Summa contra gentiles
(1259-1264) and the
Summa theologiae
or theologica (1266-1273).
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Saint Albertus Magnus taught Saint Thomas Aquinas.
People ably note this priest, sometimes styled of Aquin or Aquino, as a scholastic. The Roman Catholic tradition honors him as a "doctor of the Church."
Aquinas lived at a critical juncture of western culture when the arrival of the Aristotelian corpus in Latin translation reopened the question of the relation between faith and reason, calling into question the modus vivendi that obtained for centuries. This crisis flared just as people founded universities. Thomas after early studies at Montecassino moved to the University of Naples, where he met members of the new Dominican order. At Naples too, Thomas first extended contact with the new learning. He joined the Dominican order and then went north to study with Albertus Magnus, author of a paraphrase of the Aristotelian corpus. Thomas completed his studies at the University of Paris, formed out the monastic schools on the left bank and the cathedral school at Notre Dame. In two stints as a regent master, Thomas defended the mendicant orders and of greater historical importance countered both the interpretations of Averroës of Aristotle and the Franciscan tendency to reject Greek philosophy. The result, a new modus vivendi between faith and philosophy, survived until the rise of the new physics. The Catholic Church over the centuries regularly and consistently reaffirmed the central importance of work of Thomas for understanding its teachings concerning the Christian revelation, and his close textual commentaries on Aristotle represent a cultural resource, now receiving increased recognition.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
August 28, 2020
Reason precedes faith in understanding. Logic does not create Truth, it can only preserve Truth. Being is Truth not thinking, not knowledge, not becoming and not appearance but rather Being is the Good instilled by the prime mover into the universe and the only immaterial object in the universe such that its very Being is its existence and its actuality is its potential infinitely satisfied such that everything else is such that all determinations are a negation of the infinite such that becoming precedes Being everywhere except in reference to the One, the Good, the pure intellect understandable by the Soul, all of this and more are in this book in one way or the other.
This is truly one of the all time great Philosophy books and when I looked up its influences on Wiki it came back and said ‘all of Western Philosophy’. Of course, Descartes would vehemently disagree. Descartes makes being=thinking and assumes the world away in order to get at his cogito ergo sum. St. Thomas Aquinas does no such thing and he believes the Truth is out there even if we at times must find it in ourselves through God’s Grace. Once Reason trumps faith and raises its head two things are going to happen, Science (justified true beliefs also known as knowledge) will flourish and absolute Truth is going to get sublimated over first by the likes of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger until ultimately the Truth is no longer going to be considered to be out there and knowable but will become fuzzy until the realization becomes there is no central overriding authority determining certainty.
Aquinas, probably the ultimate scholastic, does answer the question how many angels can fit on the head of the pin, and scholastic naysayers use that example to mock the scholastics since they really don’t understand that it is more relevant than most people realize. In the context of the Summa it is just as relevant as how many Bosons (e.g. photons) would fit in one place. Bosons are particles which carry force. A photon is a particle that has a spin of one and carries electromagnetism. A force carrying particle such as a Boson does not carry matter (the same as an angel, at least according to Aquinas). The logic and characteristics that Aquinas assumes for angels align very closely to what modern day Physicists would say about fundamental particles with a spin of one. A system’s validity such as physics or Catholicism is dependent on its internal coherence. Aquinas does everything in his power to provide that coherence. Recall, in physics that the double slit experiment leads to contradictions in our understanding of the world and that all systems are incomplete such that there will always be statements which are true but which cannot be shown to be true. That is a feature of all systems not a bug and Aquinas is squaring the circle as best as the paradoxes of existence will allow.
In this volume it was clear that Aquinas loved his Aristotle but only as it gets interpreted by pseudo-Dionysus who was obviously influenced by Plotinus and also as it applies to Being as Truth and why there is something rather than nothing in addition Maimonides is often credited in defense of his positions.
In one of the resolved questions Aquinas will show that the Soul is not in itself and for itself since it is knowable through its activity and not its Being through having its existence as its essence and that always the Matter is for the Form such that the concrete exist for the abstract with a telos (purpose) and a efficient cause (a mover or designer) . The language that Aquinas uses is heavily influenced by Aristotle as filtered by Plotinus, pseudo-Dionysus and Maimonides, and will ultimately gets used by the Existentialist with their becoming/being contrast and their freedom of the individual as an ultimate good in itself and their existence precedes essence. Also, I noticed Dante put Aquinas in Paradise, now I realized that he clearly was influenced by this book at a deeper level than I had realized beforehand. I can’t say that Spinoza, or Hegel were directly influenced by Aquinas, but I can say they were definitely influenced by the same influences and I know that Heidegger was definitely from my readings of his books and from the book The Early Heidegger.
Of all the Philosophers that I have read, and note I think of Aquinas as a Philosopher not as a Theologian, with the only exceptions being Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, I don’t think anyone else has had a bigger impact on Philosophy. The logic, reasoning, and argumentation used within the section of the Summa have influenced most of my favorite writers and how they understand the world and their love for wisdom.
This is truly one of the all time great Philosophy books and when I looked up its influences on Wiki it came back and said ‘all of Western Philosophy’. Of course, Descartes would vehemently disagree. Descartes makes being=thinking and assumes the world away in order to get at his cogito ergo sum. St. Thomas Aquinas does no such thing and he believes the Truth is out there even if we at times must find it in ourselves through God’s Grace. Once Reason trumps faith and raises its head two things are going to happen, Science (justified true beliefs also known as knowledge) will flourish and absolute Truth is going to get sublimated over first by the likes of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger until ultimately the Truth is no longer going to be considered to be out there and knowable but will become fuzzy until the realization becomes there is no central overriding authority determining certainty.
Aquinas, probably the ultimate scholastic, does answer the question how many angels can fit on the head of the pin, and scholastic naysayers use that example to mock the scholastics since they really don’t understand that it is more relevant than most people realize. In the context of the Summa it is just as relevant as how many Bosons (e.g. photons) would fit in one place. Bosons are particles which carry force. A photon is a particle that has a spin of one and carries electromagnetism. A force carrying particle such as a Boson does not carry matter (the same as an angel, at least according to Aquinas). The logic and characteristics that Aquinas assumes for angels align very closely to what modern day Physicists would say about fundamental particles with a spin of one. A system’s validity such as physics or Catholicism is dependent on its internal coherence. Aquinas does everything in his power to provide that coherence. Recall, in physics that the double slit experiment leads to contradictions in our understanding of the world and that all systems are incomplete such that there will always be statements which are true but which cannot be shown to be true. That is a feature of all systems not a bug and Aquinas is squaring the circle as best as the paradoxes of existence will allow.
In this volume it was clear that Aquinas loved his Aristotle but only as it gets interpreted by pseudo-Dionysus who was obviously influenced by Plotinus and also as it applies to Being as Truth and why there is something rather than nothing in addition Maimonides is often credited in defense of his positions.
In one of the resolved questions Aquinas will show that the Soul is not in itself and for itself since it is knowable through its activity and not its Being through having its existence as its essence and that always the Matter is for the Form such that the concrete exist for the abstract with a telos (purpose) and a efficient cause (a mover or designer) . The language that Aquinas uses is heavily influenced by Aristotle as filtered by Plotinus, pseudo-Dionysus and Maimonides, and will ultimately gets used by the Existentialist with their becoming/being contrast and their freedom of the individual as an ultimate good in itself and their existence precedes essence. Also, I noticed Dante put Aquinas in Paradise, now I realized that he clearly was influenced by this book at a deeper level than I had realized beforehand. I can’t say that Spinoza, or Hegel were directly influenced by Aquinas, but I can say they were definitely influenced by the same influences and I know that Heidegger was definitely from my readings of his books and from the book The Early Heidegger.
Of all the Philosophers that I have read, and note I think of Aquinas as a Philosopher not as a Theologian, with the only exceptions being Plato, Aristotle and Plotinus, I don’t think anyone else has had a bigger impact on Philosophy. The logic, reasoning, and argumentation used within the section of the Summa have influenced most of my favorite writers and how they understand the world and their love for wisdom.
February 25, 2022
Way back at the beginning of Christianity, St. Augustine developed the official theology in light of Plato. Aquinas re-developed the entire Christian theology in light of Aristotle – respectfully called in this book “the Philosopher”. According to Aquinas, Aristotle's philosophy and concepts were more appropriate to understand God and His creation; not to mention the entire Aristotelian logic that should sustain the new theology.
Centrally to Aquinas is the understanding of God as the prime mover, as the absolute simple, as the only entity whose essence and existence are the same, as pure power and actuality, as infinite, as perfect, as giving and keeping all beings in being and away from nothingness, and so on. Then there is the priority of the form over matter, the actuality-potentiality distinction, the Platonic identity of being with goodness, the diverse and strict hierarchies of beings, God's purposes, the Trinity, the necessity of evil in accomplishing God's purposes, the free will of humans and the necessity imposed by God, the human as the rational animal, the universals, the knowledge and truth as rooted in intellect, the imaginative power, and so on. The project is to stay faithful to the Scripture, to appropriate the Aristotelian concepts and logic, to overcome St. Augustine when needed, to discredit Platonism, and to assert God's perfection and authority. Equipped with this schema, Aquinas approaches topic after topic in a Q&A fashion: starts with the opposite of what he wants to prove, gives arguments for this position and against it, and then concludes and states the official dogma.
One suddenly notices how extensive and dogmatic this entire project is (and this is only the first of the five volumes) when one gets acquainted at extreme lengths and details with the taxonomy and purpose of angels. The faithfulness to the Scripture is sometimes avoided by stating something like: “Moses did not tell the truth because the people were not ready for the truth; the truth would have promoted idolatry in the masses." For us moderns, here are some risque topics and standings from this book: the demonology, the Aristotelian conception that woman is just a defective male useful only for procreation, the effect of celestial bodies on humans and the implicit justification of horoscopes, and a few similar. Given the extensive length and its dogmatic nature, this book is quite boring. When compared with Aquinas's theology, Kant's theology seems wild and highly speculative. And talking of Kant – by reading this book one realizes how much indebted and influenced by Aquinas was Kant.
Centrally to Aquinas is the understanding of God as the prime mover, as the absolute simple, as the only entity whose essence and existence are the same, as pure power and actuality, as infinite, as perfect, as giving and keeping all beings in being and away from nothingness, and so on. Then there is the priority of the form over matter, the actuality-potentiality distinction, the Platonic identity of being with goodness, the diverse and strict hierarchies of beings, God's purposes, the Trinity, the necessity of evil in accomplishing God's purposes, the free will of humans and the necessity imposed by God, the human as the rational animal, the universals, the knowledge and truth as rooted in intellect, the imaginative power, and so on. The project is to stay faithful to the Scripture, to appropriate the Aristotelian concepts and logic, to overcome St. Augustine when needed, to discredit Platonism, and to assert God's perfection and authority. Equipped with this schema, Aquinas approaches topic after topic in a Q&A fashion: starts with the opposite of what he wants to prove, gives arguments for this position and against it, and then concludes and states the official dogma.
One suddenly notices how extensive and dogmatic this entire project is (and this is only the first of the five volumes) when one gets acquainted at extreme lengths and details with the taxonomy and purpose of angels. The faithfulness to the Scripture is sometimes avoided by stating something like: “Moses did not tell the truth because the people were not ready for the truth; the truth would have promoted idolatry in the masses." For us moderns, here are some risque topics and standings from this book: the demonology, the Aristotelian conception that woman is just a defective male useful only for procreation, the effect of celestial bodies on humans and the implicit justification of horoscopes, and a few similar. Given the extensive length and its dogmatic nature, this book is quite boring. When compared with Aquinas's theology, Kant's theology seems wild and highly speculative. And talking of Kant – by reading this book one realizes how much indebted and influenced by Aquinas was Kant.
May 13, 2024
Aquinas is describing the structure of the rational mind using the language tools of greek philosophy. Today this project is assumed by the discipline of cognitive neuroscience.
Fundamentalist Theology is a mediocre pursuit divorced from the humanistic University tradition.
The universe has a rational order , which is summarized in the rosetta Window of notre dame, the Logos i.e. the lamb of god is the living Word through and by which the structure of rationality is constituted. Thus faith has a rational dimension , and can use the rational mind to pursue the Logos , which deletes the apologetic notion that god is hidden whenever the fundamentalist sheep is divorved from the opiates of the herd mentality.
Aquinas is a proper continuation of Western heritage , as is developed through the global politics and world history events leading up to the historical drama of the new testament.
The catholic tradition achieves coincidentia oppositorum in my opinion , that is , it covers the spectrum of opposites that constitutes the totality of authentically held position- both the right and the left are contained within its tradition. The proper way forward for authentic swedish religiosity is to pursue Nordic catholicism in my opinion , the signs are showing here and there , as the romantic protestantic movement will go up in flames or wither and die
Fundamentalist Theology is a mediocre pursuit divorced from the humanistic University tradition.
The universe has a rational order , which is summarized in the rosetta Window of notre dame, the Logos i.e. the lamb of god is the living Word through and by which the structure of rationality is constituted. Thus faith has a rational dimension , and can use the rational mind to pursue the Logos , which deletes the apologetic notion that god is hidden whenever the fundamentalist sheep is divorved from the opiates of the herd mentality.
Aquinas is a proper continuation of Western heritage , as is developed through the global politics and world history events leading up to the historical drama of the new testament.
The catholic tradition achieves coincidentia oppositorum in my opinion , that is , it covers the spectrum of opposites that constitutes the totality of authentically held position- both the right and the left are contained within its tradition. The proper way forward for authentic swedish religiosity is to pursue Nordic catholicism in my opinion , the signs are showing here and there , as the romantic protestantic movement will go up in flames or wither and die
April 12, 2021
É impressionante como A Suma é estruturada. Dividida em Questões e Artigos (sua unidade básica), Santo Tomás sempre nos apresenta os dois lados de uma pergunta. Antes de apresentar sua opinião, ele apresenta da forma mais honesta possível todos os argumentos que refutam sua própria tese, para só então explicar, utilizando a razão natural, qual seria a verdade e porque cada argumento daqueles apresenta algum erro. Depois dele, ninguém se aproximou em inteligência e compreensão da realidade.
December 22, 2020
Why five star review? Well, though it might be obvious, because it's Thomas Aquinas. Is he hard to read at times? Yes. Is he pedantic? Yes. Does he ask questions that never have nor will likely ever occur to me? Yes. But, he was clearly a brilliant man and a deep, penetrating thinker in Christian thought and as such deserves the praises he is given.
February 5, 2021
this whole book is just one long 'gamer moment'
Aquinas manages to bastardise Augustine and Jerome beyond belief, hate jews, muslims, dissenters, AND remains ambivalent about women... and gets made doctor of the church.
Not once does Aquinas apologise in the book for being a massive idiot. Martin Luther and Jean Calvin sure showed this big idiot, eh?
Aquinas manages to bastardise Augustine and Jerome beyond belief, hate jews, muslims, dissenters, AND remains ambivalent about women... and gets made doctor of the church.
Not once does Aquinas apologise in the book for being a massive idiot. Martin Luther and Jean Calvin sure showed this big idiot, eh?
Read
February 22, 2023Defining Eternity
Aquinas, Thomas. 1993. “Summa Theologiae, 1a.10.q, 1.” Opera Omnia, Leonine edn., vol. iv. In Aquinas: Selected Philosophical Writings, translated by Timothy A. McDermott, 209-211. New York: Oxford University Press.
This essay analyzes the definition of eternity. The process by which this essay arrives at the definition of the concept of eternity is by identifying the issue, raising the philosophical question, proposing the philosophical answer, and breaking down the predicate-terms of the proposition and their relationships.
The issue of the text is whether God is eternal. This issue then prompts the definition of eternity. To define eternity, the philosophical question, “What is eternity?” is raised in the text. This question seeks the formal definition of the concept and it seeks the essence, nature, and intention of that concept.
In the text, the philosophical proposition is, “Eternity is the simultaneously whole and perfect possession of interminable life.” (1a.10.q, 1, co.)
This proposition is divided into four (4) predicate-terms.
The first predicate-term is the noun “possession”. This is the supreme genus of eternity. The word “possession” here means the act of possessing. The text supports this explanation by stating, “To possess something is to hold it firmly and unmovingly. So to signify eternity’s unchangeableness and constancy Boethius used the word possession.” (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 6) Hence, eternity is the act of possessing or having an asset or property. What is this asset or property? It is endless life.
The second predicate term is “of endless life”; it is a differentia. In this phrase, “life” is the direct object of possession, and “endless” is the adjective that modifies “life”. First, I want to examine the word “life”. Eternity is the possession of life, so whatever exists only but is not alive can not be eternal. Anything that does not have life such as material things, for example, a rock, a chair, or a book, can not be eternal. What differentiates what is alive and what is not alive or simply existing is activity. The text states “That which exists in eternity is, in fact, also alive.” (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 2). Activity is the movement from one place to another, and duration is the movement from one point in time to another point in time. Therefore, anything that is alive is one that has duration. The text supports this when it states that “Life covers activity too, while existence doesn’t, and the flow of duration is more apparent in activity than in existence: time, for example, measures changes.” (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 2) What is alive, compared to what is not alive or simply existing, has activity. Things that simply exist do not have activity, so, they do not have duration, and therefore can not be eternal. However, duration has two kinds: with ends and without ends. Here we are talking about a duration that has no ends, hence the word “endless” that modifies the word life. The text states that “things existing in eternity are endless, lacking both beginning and end (for both may be called ends)”. (1a.10.q, 1, co.) There are beings that have beginnings, durings, and endings, they are called mortals. There are also beings that have beginnings, durings, but no endings, they are called immortals. Then, there are beings that have no beginnings or endings, but with durings, they are called eternal beings.
The third predicate term for "possession of endless life" is "complete." This term is used to describe eternity because it emphasizes that eternity is not simply a series of temporal instants or "nows." In the text, it says, "to deny that it [eternity] is temporal instantaneity he calls it complete" (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 5). The reason "complete" is used to describe eternity is because everything that exists in eternity is in a complete and unchanging state, without any sense of succession or progress from one "now" to the next. This explanation is based on the supporting text and reflects the relationship between the differentia and the genus.
The fourth predicate term is "simultaneously whole," which differentiates "possession of endless life." The text supports this by stating that "Eternity is called whole not because it has parts but because it has nothing lacking to it" (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 3). This means that eternity is whole and lacks nothing, unlike the temporal world that is characterized by constant change and imperfection. The adverb "simultaneously" modifies "whole" and emphasizes that eternity is not limited by time, as stated in the text, "deny that eternity is time" (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 5). Time is a measure of change and progression, while eternity is timeless and encompasses all moments, past, present, and future, all at once. The sense of wholeness that eternity brings is beyond the limitations of time and is not subject to change or decay.
In this essay, the definition of eternity was examined by following this process: First, identifying the issue. Second, asking the philosophical question. Third, proposing a philosophical answer, and lastly, analyzing the proposition's constituent terms and their relationships.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1993. “Summa Theologiae, 1a.10.q, 1.” Opera Omnia, Leonine edn., vol. iv. In Aquinas: Selected Philosophical Writings, translated by Timothy A. McDermott, 209-211. New York: Oxford University Press.
This essay analyzes the definition of eternity. The process by which this essay arrives at the definition of the concept of eternity is by identifying the issue, raising the philosophical question, proposing the philosophical answer, and breaking down the predicate-terms of the proposition and their relationships.
The issue of the text is whether God is eternal. This issue then prompts the definition of eternity. To define eternity, the philosophical question, “What is eternity?” is raised in the text. This question seeks the formal definition of the concept and it seeks the essence, nature, and intention of that concept.
In the text, the philosophical proposition is, “Eternity is the simultaneously whole and perfect possession of interminable life.” (1a.10.q, 1, co.)
This proposition is divided into four (4) predicate-terms.
The first predicate-term is the noun “possession”. This is the supreme genus of eternity. The word “possession” here means the act of possessing. The text supports this explanation by stating, “To possess something is to hold it firmly and unmovingly. So to signify eternity’s unchangeableness and constancy Boethius used the word possession.” (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 6) Hence, eternity is the act of possessing or having an asset or property. What is this asset or property? It is endless life.
The second predicate term is “of endless life”; it is a differentia. In this phrase, “life” is the direct object of possession, and “endless” is the adjective that modifies “life”. First, I want to examine the word “life”. Eternity is the possession of life, so whatever exists only but is not alive can not be eternal. Anything that does not have life such as material things, for example, a rock, a chair, or a book, can not be eternal. What differentiates what is alive and what is not alive or simply existing is activity. The text states “That which exists in eternity is, in fact, also alive.” (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 2). Activity is the movement from one place to another, and duration is the movement from one point in time to another point in time. Therefore, anything that is alive is one that has duration. The text supports this when it states that “Life covers activity too, while existence doesn’t, and the flow of duration is more apparent in activity than in existence: time, for example, measures changes.” (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 2) What is alive, compared to what is not alive or simply existing, has activity. Things that simply exist do not have activity, so, they do not have duration, and therefore can not be eternal. However, duration has two kinds: with ends and without ends. Here we are talking about a duration that has no ends, hence the word “endless” that modifies the word life. The text states that “things existing in eternity are endless, lacking both beginning and end (for both may be called ends)”. (1a.10.q, 1, co.) There are beings that have beginnings, durings, and endings, they are called mortals. There are also beings that have beginnings, durings, but no endings, they are called immortals. Then, there are beings that have no beginnings or endings, but with durings, they are called eternal beings.
The third predicate term for "possession of endless life" is "complete." This term is used to describe eternity because it emphasizes that eternity is not simply a series of temporal instants or "nows." In the text, it says, "to deny that it [eternity] is temporal instantaneity he calls it complete" (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 5). The reason "complete" is used to describe eternity is because everything that exists in eternity is in a complete and unchanging state, without any sense of succession or progress from one "now" to the next. This explanation is based on the supporting text and reflects the relationship between the differentia and the genus.
The fourth predicate term is "simultaneously whole," which differentiates "possession of endless life." The text supports this by stating that "Eternity is called whole not because it has parts but because it has nothing lacking to it" (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 3). This means that eternity is whole and lacks nothing, unlike the temporal world that is characterized by constant change and imperfection. The adverb "simultaneously" modifies "whole" and emphasizes that eternity is not limited by time, as stated in the text, "deny that eternity is time" (1a.10.q, 1, ad. 5). Time is a measure of change and progression, while eternity is timeless and encompasses all moments, past, present, and future, all at once. The sense of wholeness that eternity brings is beyond the limitations of time and is not subject to change or decay.
In this essay, the definition of eternity was examined by following this process: First, identifying the issue. Second, asking the philosophical question. Third, proposing a philosophical answer, and lastly, analyzing the proposition's constituent terms and their relationships.
December 15, 2019
Parts of this were really good, but most of it made me think he should have gotten married and had lots of little children instead of just sitting and thinking.
July 20, 2022
I can’t believe I finally finished this - only four more volumes to go😂☠️
April 23, 2018
Ce livre a transformé ma vie spirituelle et intellectuelle. Il m'a ouvert les yeux à la richesse de notre héritage médiéval, injustement oublié aujourd'hui. Je ne prie plus de la même façon, je ne pense plus de la même façon à mon père. Thomas n'a pas fait que corriger mes doctrines: il m'a donné un modèle de comment vivre.
Pour cette raison, j'ai eu à coeur de faire une vulgarisation de la summa, pour le public francophone:
https://phileosophiablog.wordpress.co...
Pour cette raison, j'ai eu à coeur de faire une vulgarisation de la summa, pour le public francophone:
https://phileosophiablog.wordpress.co...
Read
March 18, 2025I didn’t read it in full but I did turn to a page I found particularly interesting: Question LXXXII
Conclusion: Intellect supervenes will. Will desires what the intellect presents as good. Since the will follows the intellect, moral choices depend on knowledge of what is good. Only a moral framework can assume what is good, but the true good lies independently from humanity.
Conclusion: Intellect supervenes will. Will desires what the intellect presents as good. Since the will follows the intellect, moral choices depend on knowledge of what is good. Only a moral framework can assume what is good, but the true good lies independently from humanity.
September 7, 2017
The entire Summa Theologica, for free, on the Amazon Kindle. It's a bit more difficult to navigate than a print version, but it's well worth any minor struggles.
A solid translation.
A solid translation.
March 9, 2021
Just a slog to read. I sort of get it, but not really?
I am definitely a subpar Catholic.
I am definitely a subpar Catholic.
Read
October 17, 2024Read Q1-49 for class
January 4, 2020
Wow. This is something. 119 questions in volume 1. Aquinas attempts to reason through unknowable mysteries of life and the universe in this exhaustive and exhausting tomb. Questions such as the role, hierarchy, existence and function of the heavens, angels, God, and the Holy Ghost are such examples of questions he ponders.
Much of the framework is a meticulous deconstruction of the bible. He questions and defends the literal and interpretive stories of the bible. Creation and God's 6 days of work are examined thoroughly as one example.
The framework is a question, an argument, a counter argument and finally Aquinas' conclusions. He serves as the final word in the logical answer to the questions as a judge would in a difficult case. The fact is that there is no way to know the answers to these questions and this exercise in hypothetical conjecture, although somewhat interesting, is also a sisyphean task in rhetoric.
Why I choose to complete reading the 119 questions is due to my defective inability to quit a book I have begun. This was quite a slog. Did I learn something? Sure. Going through 119 questions on the meaning and origin of life and the defense of the bible and Christian doctrine does provide the reader with a more complete understanding of Christian theology, but man was this long and tedious. The questions cannot be answered by humans, though Aquinas does his best to argue his ability to rationalize the answers. In this he falls short. This is not due to a lack of effort or intelligence, but a natural limit of human comprehension of subjects beyond our scope. His objective seems more to defend Christian doctrine than to prove the unproveable. In that spirit he achieves a level of success. He gives a foundation for those wishing to believe in the word of the bible and Christianity. It is doubtful that unbelievers would consider his argument sound and convincing enough to convert to Christianity after reading this book. There are 2 more volumes beyond this one. I will not be proceeding on to those works. I've had enough.
Much of the framework is a meticulous deconstruction of the bible. He questions and defends the literal and interpretive stories of the bible. Creation and God's 6 days of work are examined thoroughly as one example.
The framework is a question, an argument, a counter argument and finally Aquinas' conclusions. He serves as the final word in the logical answer to the questions as a judge would in a difficult case. The fact is that there is no way to know the answers to these questions and this exercise in hypothetical conjecture, although somewhat interesting, is also a sisyphean task in rhetoric.
Why I choose to complete reading the 119 questions is due to my defective inability to quit a book I have begun. This was quite a slog. Did I learn something? Sure. Going through 119 questions on the meaning and origin of life and the defense of the bible and Christian doctrine does provide the reader with a more complete understanding of Christian theology, but man was this long and tedious. The questions cannot be answered by humans, though Aquinas does his best to argue his ability to rationalize the answers. In this he falls short. This is not due to a lack of effort or intelligence, but a natural limit of human comprehension of subjects beyond our scope. His objective seems more to defend Christian doctrine than to prove the unproveable. In that spirit he achieves a level of success. He gives a foundation for those wishing to believe in the word of the bible and Christianity. It is doubtful that unbelievers would consider his argument sound and convincing enough to convert to Christianity after reading this book. There are 2 more volumes beyond this one. I will not be proceeding on to those works. I've had enough.
November 6, 2015
As a person who identifies as a protesting catholic christian, Reading this work helped me to see the monumental corpus of Aquinas' thought. A thoughtful person should not have to agree with all of his conclusions to recognize the scope of his genius. Rather his extensive reading of the father both Christian and Pagan. I confess at times the dullness of my own mind made it difficult to penetrate his exact meaning or conclusion.
It should be sufficient to say there is no question that Aquinas is afraid to answer.
It should be sufficient to say there is no question that Aquinas is afraid to answer.
October 25, 2020
Thomas Aquinas goes through many arguments to explain God, Angels and Christian doctrine.
This book examines items in the Bible. The format of the book is to state a question, an argument, a counter argument and finally Aquinas' conclusion.
After reading a few of this format I found it extremely difficult to follow the arguments of each side. I realized the only part I was interested in was Aquinas' conclusion.
On each question I went directly to Aquinas conclusion and that's where I found the value of the book.
This book examines items in the Bible. The format of the book is to state a question, an argument, a counter argument and finally Aquinas' conclusion.
After reading a few of this format I found it extremely difficult to follow the arguments of each side. I realized the only part I was interested in was Aquinas' conclusion.
On each question I went directly to Aquinas conclusion and that's where I found the value of the book.
February 5, 2017
Theological masterpiece
A very educational read about the theology of the Catholic church. A little tough to grasp easily and stimulates the mind to higher thoughts
A very educational read about the theology of the Catholic church. A little tough to grasp easily and stimulates the mind to higher thoughts
June 26, 2024
It isn’t light reading, but when the topic is interesting, he’s fascinating. Some sections were a slog for me, such as his work on the knowledge of angels.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews