Talk:Thomas Aquinas/Archive 2

January 28, 1225?
In the right-sided caption, someone put in "January 28, 1225" as Thomas' date of birth, but it's odd that January 28 is also his feast day. Can anyone explain why? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Birth date discrepancy
OK, what the heck’s going on here?
 * In the lead, it’s "c.1225"
 * In the infobox it’s "c.28 January 1225"
 * In the first sentence of the Biography, it’s "1224".

So which is it to be? Let’s at least be consistent. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If the DOB is 1225, and he's 19 when he wants to be a Dominican (1244), he can't be imprisoned by his family "for two years," and then released in 1244!24.248.91.2 (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"five ways" in latin
I don't know, but "quinquae viae" looks a bit incorrect for me because quinque is invariable, it's just quinque —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.226.183 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in what the use of the word 'proofs' in this page without inverted commas means in terms of neutrality, given that the existence of a god is a disputed matter. Are we to make any reference to this issue (even if just an introductory disclaimer)? Are there guidelines for this? Your thoughts appreciated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.136.55 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please study Thomism. These things cannot be studied properly by reading an Encyclopedia. You will think differently once you study the five evidences.

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Year of birth and territory of Roccasecca (Copied from the reference desk)
(I'm copying a slightly edited version of this thread from the Humanities desk because most of the discussion is relevant to this article. See also the comments two threads above, by the way) ---Sluzzelin  talk  19:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

I have been looking at Thomas Aquinas's birthtown of Roccasecca on modern maps of Italy and comparing its location to this map of the Kingdom of Sicily. To me, it almost looks like Roccasecca was not part of the green area marked as Kingdom of Sicily, but rather part of the yellow area marked as Papal States. WP's map shows the boundaries of 1154 and states that they would remain virtually unchanged for 700 years. The map may not be completely accurate. Either way, Roccasecca lies near the boundary, but on which side? Thank you in advance for maps or other references showing exactly to which territory Roccasecca belonged in 1225, the year Thomas Aquinas was born. ---Sluzzelin talk  17:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Italian page for the city has it more definitely placed in Lazio. But another problem is that in 1225, the Kingdom of Sicily was supposed to be a papal fief; it wasn't, because it was ruled by the Holy Roman Emperor (as Frederick II was both king of Sicily and emperor), who was constantly at odds, or in outright war, with the Pope, so the boundaries were not very stable. In fact in 1225 Frederick well on his way to being excommunicated. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Catholic Encyclopedia names the place "The Kingdom of Naples" . The same page also states that the birthdate is not certain; it may have been 1225 or 1227. ៛ Bielle (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The abbot of Monte Cassino had settled a junior line of the counts of Aquino there in the tenth century. Though under contention, Roccasecca was part of the lands of the abbey of Monte Cassino. It didn't become effectively a papal fief until it was purchased in the sixteenth century. In between, it was the current allegiance of the conti d'Aquino that really mattered. I've added some translation from Italian Wikipedia to offer a history sub-section. --Wetman (talk) 07:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone! That leaves me with two questions regarding the article on Thomas Aquinas:
 * The current text says that Aquinas was born "at his father Count Landulph's castle of Roccasecca in the Kingdom of Sicily, in the present-day Regione Lazio." What should replace the Kingdom of Sicily? I can't think of an adequate way of putting it, please help.
 * Bielle makes a good point. The article's lead sentence says Aquinas was born "c. 1225", the biography section's first sentence says he was "born in 1224", the box on the left says "Birth c. 28 January 1225". He is a member of Category:1225 births, and his birth is also featured in the articles on 1225 and January 28. The TA article also says "The Roman Catholic Church today celebrates his feast on January 28, the date of publication of the Summa." Would it be right to remove all references to Jan 28 as his DOB? And would it be best to set all year-of-birth references to "c. 1225", or can something be said for 1227 or another year? Bielle's reference states: "From Tolomeo of Lucca . . . we learn that at the time of the saint's death there was a doubt about his exact age (Prümmer, op. cit., 45). The end of 1225 is usually assigned as the time of his birth. Father Prümmer, on the authority of Calo, thinks 1227 is the more probable date (op. cit., 28). All agree that he died in 1274." If there is doubt, should both years be mentioned? Should TA still remain a member of the 1225 article and category?
 * ---Sluzzelin talk  11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the birthdate, January 25 was (probably) still 1224 at the time, since the new year (probably) didn't start until March or Easter or some other date, but we retroactively say it was 1225. (But if the date is disputed between 1225 and 1227 then this explanation doesn't work!) I would say that if Roccasecca was part of the territory of Monte Cassino, then it is more likely in the Papal States than in Sicily, even if Monte Cassino was effectively independent. Or perhaps we can just say it was in "Italy" and link to Italy in the Middle Ages. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence for a 28 January birth. Feast days are mostly chosen to coincide with a saint's date of death (although in Thomas's case it was chosen to coincide with a significant event in his life, the publication of the Summa).  It seems someone has got the wrong end of the stick and extrapolated 28 January into a birth date.  It should be removed.  That leaves the uncertainty of when he was born.  Seems the best we know is "between 1224 and 1227".  Why not leave it as simple, and accurate, as that?  I don't believe we can pin it down even to a single year, based on the varying sources.  But maybe one source is more reliable than another; I wouldn't know about that.  My main concern, and interest, is in having his vital data shown consistently - even if consistently wrong (better that than the mishmash we have at the moment).  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed all years of birth to "c. 1225" and removed all dates of birth. Didn't remove Category:1225 births yet. Also still unsure whether and how the referenced speculation on 1227 should be included. The territory of Roccasecca remains unchanged because I lack references, but it probably should be changed to Papal States and/or Monte Cassino as explained by Wetman and Adam above. ---Sluzzelin talk  00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (section 1.1 : "Thomas [Aquinas] was born in 1225 at Roccasecca...midway between Rome and Naples." This agrees with the Lazio identification for Aquinas's birthplace; I'm changing the article accordingly. Claudius972 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Name used when referring to Thomas Aquinas
In most parts of the article "Aquinas" is used to refer to "Thomas Aquinas". Sometimes "Thomas" is used as a short form for "Thomas Aquinas". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in its article Saint Thomas Aquinas refers to him in general as "Thomas" although three times "Aquinas" is used. I thought that you usually refer to him as "Thomas" because "Aquinas" (Aquino) is simply the place where he was born. Are both abbreviations of his name right or is "Aquinas" wrong and if so why? Can somebody shed some light on this question? --Baikonur (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear some opinions on this. While reading the article for the first time just now the constant use of Aquinas (rather than Thomas) seemed rather jarring. Jlandahl (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a solecism. If no one objects I will change all of the references to "Thomas" soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.10.225 (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For this same reason, I changed the Defaultsort key to Thomas as well, since Aquinas is not a last name. This way, he is placed alphabetically with Teresa of Avila and Therese of Liseaux rather than with Augustine of Hippo and Anselm of Canterbury. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

???
This page is boring i wrote a 10 paragraph report on him and posted it twice and u guys keep deleting it wat the heck

Kikk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikk1010 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Featured article
Which improvments are needed to promote this article to FA.--Vojvodaeist 14:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

His name
The second sentence of this article is, "He is frequently referred to as Thomas because "Aquinas" refers to his residence rather than his surname." I find that quite puzzling. What is it purporting to explain? That people refer to him frequently? That he was not only named "Thomas", but also "referred to" as "Thomas"? What's the difference? Does it mean that calling him "Thomas Aquinas" is a misnomer? I just don't understand the sentence at all. Unfree (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It means that calling him "Aquinas" is a misnomer. --Baikonur (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

His name was Tommaso d'Aquino, or Thomas from Aquino. In his own time he would have been called Tommaso and a bit later, San Tommaso or St Thomas. But in modern English writing he is often referred to as Aquinas - similar to the way Leonardo is now referred to as da Vinci, even though the da Vinci part indicates where he came from (people would have called him "Leonardo" not "Signor da Vinci"). Gerry246 (talk) 10:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Christian Democracy??
The section entitled Modern Influence had been given a "Christian democracy" sidebar. Since this section has no discussion of Christian democracy, I've deleted it. Aquinas of course wrote about law and the state from a philosophical point of view, but it is the Christian Democracy movement which has (possibly) adopted his teachings, not he who adopted theirs. If we must include the Christian Democracy sidebar, then to be fair we must include all other modern movements which take heavily or seriously from Aquinas' teachings. If - for the sake of argument - we were to include (for purpose of fairness) all of these modern political currents and philosophies which have taken a lead from this masterful man, then we would have several more pages added to this Wikipedia entry, all of them merely sidebars of political movements. In short then, we must seriously consider the possibility that sole Christian Democracy sidebar would be a politically motivated effort for that movement to appropriate Aquinas solely for themselves - which would be quite a narrow thing, considering the broad scope of this man's teachings.

Peter of Ireland
It would be nice to see some information on Peter of Ireland, one of Aquinas' teachers during his early visit to Naples and author of a commentary on the De Interpretatione. Wareh (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Aquinas' body, burned?
Hi folks. Im new to this article discussion although I constantly come back to the article for reference. I was just wondering, I read in a book not really related to Thomas' philosophy that made the claim that his body was exhumed and burned, or maybe it was burned before it was buried I can't remember. The author claimed that it was done in a honorific way since it was thought that the flesh of holy men gave of a healing odor or something like that. Anyway I never heard this anywhere and the author really didn't source it reliably. Anybody heard of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.242.174 (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to my knowledge (gained from the lecture of this guy) his head was cut off and the rest of his body boiled. It was done in this way because his fellow monks intended to preserve the skull and the flesh as relics. Such practice in fact was not unique in middle ages (although the official Church strongly opposed it) and was aimed at protecting a body against decomposition. It was very rarely applied in the situations when the deceased was an especially highly esteemed person. Imho this information isn't worth mentioning in the article though... Mroq (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Decline of thomism in the 1970s
The article should maybe try to explain the causes that led to thomism's decline in the 1970s, at least in the form of neothomism. One of the reasons is the Church's active dialogue with other religions, many of which had been frankly opposed to the aristotelian origins of thomism. Another reason is the general intellectual turmoil that the West experienced in the years that followed the 1968 cultural revolution. Many former thomists either adopted entirely secular philosophies such as structuralism and phenomenology or embraced new intellectual currents within the Church itself, such as anonymous Christianity, ecclesiology of communion and liberation theology. ADM (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this would be more appropriate for the Thomism article than here.

morbid obesity
The article makes absolutely no mention of the fact that Thomas Aquinas was incredibly fat even by the standards set by modern Americans. I feel that this information reflects on his philosophy and his theology and should definitely be included in any biographical entry on the man. 173.170.158.233 (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Claims of Levitation
For a long time it has been claimed that Aquinas could levitate. That should be mentioned in this article. Not because it is an uncontested fact that he did so, but rather that the claim has been repeatedly made. Clearly we would need mention who made the claims, who believed the claims, what was the official Vatican line on the claims, all with the relevant citations. Pnelnik (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * [[image:Skeleton-warrior.jpg|left|130px]]

''The Wikipedia philosophy can be summed up thusly: "Experts are scum." For some reason people who spend 40 years learning everything they can about, say, the Peloponnesian War -- and indeed, advancing the body of human knowledge -- get all pissy when their contributions are edited away by Randy in Boise who heard somewhere that sword-wielding skeletons were involved. And they get downright irate when asked politely to engage in discourse with Randy until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment.'' Lore Sjöberg, from "The Wikipedia FAQK" Autodidactyl (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, my philosophy is that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and thus I conclude that it is very improbable that Aquinas did indeed levitate. Such myths sometimes build up around religious figures. However, the claims of levitation should be mentioned in Wikipedia, not because some great scolar believed them and said that they are well-attested, but rather because the claims are part of Aquinas' legacy. Being aware of the claims would help people understand the impact Aquinas has had. In the same way, claims of the miricals of Jesus are mentioned in wikipedia. Wikipedia articles cannot state that such events really took place, but it does need to report that such claims have been made. Pnelnik (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

And for the record here are some of the places which mention claims of Aquinas' levitation:
 * Levitation article in allexperts.com
 * Christopher Hitchens wrote the following in his book God is Not Great: Aquinas was discovered by awed monks and novices to be blissfully levitating around the interior of the cathedral. Rest assured that we have eyewitnesses for this event.

Hitchens is not a fan of religion, but he certainly is knowledgeable and so is a relevant source. He and Chesterton provide sources in the 21st and 20th century. There are plenty more particularly in earlier centuries. Pnelnik (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Levitation". Yes, but did he? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

what did he try to do?
Well Thomas Aquinas triedto bridge the gap between reason and faith.I learnt that in scal studies in 7th grade.So he had a bridge then on one side it says reason and on the other it says faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.78.198 (talk) 01:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Miracle of the Herrings
I was a bit surprised there was no mention of the Miracle of the Herrings; apparently it was the reason he was made a saint - as described on QI, he liked herrings but they weren't available where he was living, he was given some pilchards and he said they tasted of herrings - this was interpreted as a miracle and meant he could be canonized. I don't know enough about the story to add it to the story, but it is, apparently recognised as one of the weakest miracles so it seems interesting and worth mentioning in the article. -apepper 212.84.98.181 (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The Five proofs of God's existence
In the article page at the heading "Nature of God", a reference is made to five definitions of the nature of God.

However, there is only a brief references to The five proofs of God's Existence. These should be outlined as they gave rise to other Epistemological understandings, and influenced later thinkers, such as Kant.

My I offer my opinion: The importance of these "proofs" cannot be over estimated. A number of Schools of thought sprang up as a direct result.

MacOfJesus (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Origins
Was Thomas of italian or german origin? Because there is written that he was related to german emperrors. Thanks.--213.151.217.149 (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I found this ref on the web: "Aquinas's uncle was Frederick II, a maverick leader of the Holy Roman Empire. Thommaso was named for his grandfather, who had been the Empire's military commander..." http://www.who2.com/thomasaquinas.html. Suggests that he might have been "German." Nationalities were a bit slippery back then. Nation-states hadn't quite evolved that much. Seems to me that there is more Italian in his ancestry than German, but definitely related to HRE. Student7 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Need to designate as "Saint" or "St." in title
This common honorific is used by all scholars. Eliminating it is ugly Protestant Know-Nothingism. I am well aware that wikipedia has a southern, Confederate-USA, white Protestant bias. That is the problem. Philosophers canonized by the Catholic Church need to have this shown in their page heading as would occur in a paper Encyclopedia. The omission is offensive and a bit frightening to American Catholics who are being subject to a Kulturkampf by the right wing in that country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.202.79.10 (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre...and not a little disturbing that some sort of automated bot is removing "Saint".

Scholars are perhaps over-eager to include honorifics in identifying figures from now-fashionable countries. For example, calling Kong Qiu "Confucius" or "Kong Fu-Zi" encapsulates the honorific "Master" whereas Qiu was his actual given name (and Kong his patronym).

Wikipedia is a culture war waged by Southern USA whites on the world, that's clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.202.79.10 (talk) 07:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

All saints should have the title St. placed before their names in their articles the same way that anyone with an Order of the British Empire, or Order of Australia have their titles placed after their names. Just because some countries don't recognize these titles doesn't mean they aren't put on their names, so just because some religions dont recognize saints is no reason to not put St. on the names of people the Catholic church (or an other denomination) recognizes as saints.--Thea thea thea (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Talking about bias without signing your post makes the argument unconvincingClosedthursday (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Evolution
An editor has substantially improved the section on Thomas' ideas on evolution. The new language does raise questions. I assume that "spontaneous generation" did not arise with Thomas. Is that correct? Should that be pointed out? Incredibly, I found an elementary US textbook from 1860 or so that was still teaching spontaneous generation, though the theory was dead by then! Should the persistence of the theory be mentioned? His ideas on mutations were partially correct - nature does create/allow mutations. Most of these die. That was correct. He did not understand that this led to evolution. Can/should we put a "fine point" on this? Student7 (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

missin details
this man was also a leader in modern antisemitism of the middle ages and the pusher into several disputation between jews and catholics that almost always ended in mass sluaghter of jews and the wiping out of entire comunities in france and spain. weird that non of this is mentioned on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.130.11 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Find a reliable source and add it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "leader in modern antisemitism of the middle ages" cannot be correct since the middle ages weren't in any way what we call 'modern'. He might (if correctly sourced) have been the founder of a certain kind of antisemitism that still survives in modern times, maybe, perhaps. If correctly sourced. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 20:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What is claritas?
The Influences section contains this sentence: "It is remarkable that Thomas's aesthetic theories, especially the concept of claritas, deeply influenced the literary practice of modernist writer James Joyce, who used to extol Thomas as being second only to Aristotle among Western philosophers." And yet no definition of claritas is given anywhere in the article. Will someone please fill this in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.54.124 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Claritas is a Latin word for "clearness, brightness, splendor."

Obesity
One of the traditional facts (in the sense of being something "everbody knows", whether true or not) about Aquinas is his reputedly immense obesity, and the anecdote about the monks in his refectory having to cut a huge slice out of the table for him to be able to sit at it is probably second only to Pope Joan in the canon of well-loved but probably untrue stories about Catholic antiquity. I'm only surprised that this article mentions neither, not even to dismiss them.

Why is that? Nuttyskin (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He drank beer everyday.. believe me. 203.81.67.182 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Butler's Lives of the Saints's entry on Aqunias says: "He was so perfectly mortified, and dead to his senses, that he eat without reflecting either on the kind or quality of his food, so that after meals he often knew not what he had been eating." Geremia (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * He is thought to have walked 9000 mi around Europe, not a mean feat. http://www.btcatholic.org/Houses-Aquinas-FactsAboutStThomasAquinas Of course, it could be that he was too heavy for a donkey! Still....Student7 (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lombard
Why is it not mentioned that he was from a Lombardic family which still were the nobility in Southern Italy at this time? -- Zz (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have a RS, please do add it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Quoting Pseudo-Dionysius
In Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagite, it says that Thomas quoted him 1700 times, despite being revealed by Peter Abelard some years earlier. You would have thought that a) Thomas might have been aware of that and therefore been a bit more careful and b) that this might have introduced some problems in Thomas's writings that might have been commented on by modern authors. I have the feeling that Abelard's credentials may have been overstated.

It's amazing how few answers we get to questions about one of the best known theologians/personalities of the Middle Ages. Student7 (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation of titles
Is there a generally accepted english translation of Doctor Communis or Doctor Universalis? I mean, not just any translation, but one applied to Thomas with currency in English. 24.191.87.42 (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would assume "Doctor of the Church." Probably the primary systematic theologian of the RC Church. Student7 (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy and Theology
I moved a number of topics from Philosophy to Theology, but I'm not sure where "Just War" should be. 24.191.87.42 (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is correct where you have it under "Theology." Goes along with "pro-life" which is against war (among other things! :), basically. Student7 (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Aquinas' philosophy
Dear Community. I have a question: Can Aquinas have section "criticism" or is he except from critique? I created a short section where I summerized Bertrand Russell view on Aquinas with references with a hope that other editors will contribute other critical opinions. However, user 71.237.133.57 keeps deleting it by saying that Russell misunderstood Aquinas. Since articles about other philosophers have pages containing critique, then I believe, Aquinas should not be exempted. Moreover, such a section is mandatory to have an unbiased coverage. Denysbondar (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure that Russell is the greatest critic. Aquinas was attempting, in his Summa Theologica, to integrate the "newly" discovered Aristotelian thought with Western religious thinking, which critics generally have given critical acclaim.
 * Russell, on the other hand, has a more selfish pov, to replace Thomas with his Principia Mathematica. While this was prodigious, it (eventually) did not have the same impact that Thomas' work did. Mathematics/Logic did not replace religion, per se, nor did Russell's book "prop up" either of these fields any more than other contemporary applications, or questions by Hilbert.
 * While we are on the topic, "Principia" is nearly unreadable, and in fact, mostly unread today, consisting, as it does, of pages of symbolic logic. While Thomas is hard to read, since we use a different form of proof nowdays, it is often used in references. Student7 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any criticisms of Aquinas' philosophy should be kept on a separate page. Including Russel's criticisms on Aquinas' own page greatly undermines the neutrality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.32.143 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Impressive use of irony. Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm reviving the argument against this section. It is inappropriate for the following reasons: Given these points, I will be removing this section. It would be reasonable to reintroduce this section if actual legitimate criticism could be found (there are some out there). Evolutionist79 (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Including only a single philosopher's criticism, especially of one who, as already mentioned, is significantly less significant historically than Aquinas, is entirely unnecessary. This kind of stuff belongs in a different article.
 * It is absurd to criticize Aquinas as a philosopher without reference to Aristotle, who's philosophy is the foundational framework for Aquinas' work. Aquinas' work was designed to synthesize natural philosophy with revelation.
 * The included content is only an attempt to criticize incredibly specific details of Aquinas' philosophy. It's like taking Principia Mathematica and complaining about one or two of the insignificant corollaries contained within without regard to the whole.
 * The argument that Aquinas just "falls back" on revelation is entirely invalid. This is obviously disproved by simply looking at the first part of the Summa Theologica which begin without any type of revelation. In fact, all of his arguments for the existence of God, in no way, rely on revelation. Obviously later, but generally much later, especially in the final part of the Summa does Aquinas begins to incorporate revelation into his work.


 * You're welcome to re-open the discussion. But please, do start with discussion, rather than removing the text. Note that "The argument that Aquinas just "falls back" on revelation is entirely invalid. This is obviously disproved by simply looking at" is your OR William M. Connolley (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you Mr. Connolley for checking me. You are correct, though I do not believe my previous 3 points are invalidated by them being OR. I will wait for any other thoughts on this matter before making any changes. Evolutionist79 (talk) 20:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding section “Final days and ‘Straw’(1272–1274)”
There seems to be a slight inaccuracy in the parenthetical insertion regarding the Eastern Orthodox and the Second Council of Lyon. In fact, the Schism resulted from a number of doctrinal and disciplinary issues, of which the chief seems to have been a dispute over whether the bread for the Eucharist should be leavened or not. It is true that the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularios, was excommunicated by the papal legate, Cardinal Umbert of Silva Candida, neither the Eastern Orthodox Church nor the Catholic Church has ever been excommunicated as a body. (Cardinal Umbert's authority to excommunicate, moreover, is in doubt because the pope who sent him, Leo IX, died before the cardinal issued the bull. Subsequent popes did not confirm the excommunications, nor did they apply to subsequent patriarchs.) See Wikipedia article East-West Schism.

AthanasiusOfAlex (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Summa Theologica vs Exact Exposition Of The Orthodox Faith
Saint John of Damascus did not make a first attempt at a Summa Theologica as is quoted on numerous Roman Catholic websites, he wrote the Exact Exposition of The Orthodox Faith in 600 or so AD. Meaning he did not attempt, he DID write the only summa theologica that the rest of Christianity recognise. There was no reason for Thomas Aquinas to perform the plagiarism his works and fill them with papal influences dogma and corruption. Thomas of Aquinas in Orthodoxy is seen as the person who attempted to plagarise, revise and republish the works of a great man and Saint; John of Damascus. This contention should be noted, since the premise of the article is with a POV entirely biased to a Roman Catholic perspective. This does not in anyway affect his impact on Western society, regarding the other things he wrote or revised. Afterall; what is Western philosophy and theology other than a rewrite and revision of the Eastern writers of antiquity through to the medieval era.

Thomas Aquinas fills a purpose only for the Roman Catholic church and the mindset of those that follow such theology and philosophy. This part is accepted, but how he came to develop these ideas should be noted.

I am considering raising the point that "Thomas Aquinas is an important person to Roman Catholics" to minimize but imply the contention that his works do not essentially apply or are considered of any value beyond that realm of thought. Your ideas will be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Two or three infoboxes?
I can entirely understanding including two separate infoboxes for different purposes; Template:Infobox person for simple biographical information and list of people he 'influenced', and Template:Infobox saint for his attributes etc. But why do we have two of the former? Could an editor not decide on a suitable image (I favour the second image), so chose to use two boxes? I propose moving the second inbobox to the lead and incorporating the 'Notable work(s)' parameter into it. -- Hazhk Talk to me 23:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as especially controversial, so I've gone ahead and made the changes. I've explained reasoning here. -- Hazhk Talk to me 02:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Some inconsistencies?
In his work 'Quaestiones disputatae: de veritate' ("Discussions' Subjects: on the truth"), Disputationes were a method for discussing about phylosophy or theology subjects in the academic environment of the university of its days, somethig like an special arrangement of a lecture or a teaching method ('Sobre la verdad. Cuestiones disputadas sobre la verdad', Julian Velarde Editor, Biblioteca Nueva, Madrid, 2003, ISBN: 84-9742-100-0), In Article 2,of ('Q D'), 'On if truth is mainly in intellect than in things', saint Thomas Aquinas cites Ibn-Sina's, Metaphysics, book 6:'The true and the false are but in the mind', and also a quota by Augustin: 'The true of any thing is the property of its being that has being stablished to it'.

This seems pointing that Aquinas equaled 'true', as something close to the concepts of 'essence' or 'substance', it would be good somebody adding info abouth the ethnic background of Thomas Aquinas, hence about his language backgroung, as some words, ideas or concepts may have very different meanings or evocations in different cultures, and translations can't transpose accurately all the correlates in a word, an example of this would the discourse by Edith Stein on 'Ens', 'Entity', that can be finally described as an individuality, something that can be distinguished from other existing things, even when millions exactly the same may exist, the many pages about this from E Stein can be explained as Edith having an Hebrew language background, or Hebrew 'collective unconscious', the deep meaning of words in European languages being alien to her, as she boarded that train when it had thousands of years of running.

The attribution to saint Thomas Aquinas of a work on: 'Treaty on the Philosopher's Stone and on the Art of Alchemy', would be in conflict with the rejection of Alchemy by the member of the 'Preacher's Order' and Head Inquisitor in the kingdom of Aragon in the XIV Century, Nicolau Eimeric, that considered heretic and akin to witchcraft any use that could be made of gold obtained by 'Alchemy transmutations', Eimeric attacked posthumously the work of Raimon Llull and his followers, Llull approached also Alchemy, and king Philip II of Spain had an Alchemy lab close to his private rooms, with the aim of obtaining gold to finance his political campaigns, however, in comments about the summary of the 'Manual for Inquisitors', by N Eimeric, summary made by J Marchena, the fact that while R Llull supported the 'Immaculate Conception' of Mary the Virgin, 'Immaculate Conception' that in these days was not a Catholic Doctrine Dogma as it is today, is pointed that neither T Aquinas nor N Eimeric endorsed the 'Immaculate Conception', and even T Aquinas seems having wrote actively against this 'Faith's Dogma'.

It would be interesting, if this discussion is considered a right place for this, knowing more about the connection of T Aquinas with Alchemy, that was condemned as heretical because it involved also an 'Spiritual Transmutaion', close tho the proposals of Gnostics and Hermetics, and also how to match the T Aquina's active denial of Immaculate Conception with his reported direct visions of Mary. --Jgrosay (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Psychology
The "psychology" section of the article has been tagged as needing additional references since September 2011. While this seems to still be true, I have further tagged it as the style seems to me innappropriate for a wiki article. While the first two paragraphs seem borderline to me, the bulk of the text is written in the form of a statement of religious fact rather than as a neutral account of Thomas's theories and ideas. It seems to me to require significant attention, from an expert, hence the second additional tag. LookingGlass (talk) 10:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposal of laws and definitions thereof
Currently writing a report on Aquinas, and was reading through the citations.. Aquinas defines "human law" as such: just as, in the speculative reason, from naturally known indemonstrable principles, we draw the conclusions of the various sciences, the knowledge of which is not imparted to us by nature, but acquired by the efforts of reason, so too it is from the precepts of the natural law, as from general and indemonstrable principles, that the human reason needs to proceed to the more particular determination of certain matters. These particular determinations, devised by human reason, are called human laws, provided the other essential conditions of law be observed

aka it is (or should be) the result of applied reason on the part of humans. Natural law is defined roughly as: [...] it has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law [...] It is therefore evident that the natural law is nothing else than the rational creature's participation of the eternal law.

aka it is roughly an approximation of the god-willed eternal law. The wiki article however says that the natural law is the result of reason, as well as being a bit vague in some other areas. I'm a new wiki-er, is it acceptable for me to edit, or am I perhaps (understandably) wrong about my interpretation of his work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.201.89 (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First you'd need to set up an account and sign in. That way also people can address you.  Secondly, in respect of your question, the prime objection to doing what you propose is that it would seem to fall under the category of Original Research see:No original research and as such it would be a big no no.  I suggest reading up on OR and generally familiarising yourself with Wiki editorial rules.  Within these then, the third party, verifiable, substantive information you come across may well benefit the article.  Hope that helps.  LookingGlass (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

List of Works
This article is purportedly about a scholar. It would seem pretty basic to include a section listing his works. But yet we find no such section in this article, an oversight that cries out for rectification. Please also include, under the Summa Theologica, a list of the names treatises within it. JKeck (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Just found this: Works by Thomas Aquinas. JKeck (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle
Fellow editors,

I've added a few things to the introduction regarding Aristotle's influence on Thomas Aquinas, which I felt were not dealt with sufficiently. As can be seen from his writings, "the Philosopher" played a huge role on Thomas' views on issues as creation, what constitutes things (material cause, final cause, etc), eudaimonia, the importance of reason, etcetera. Thomas brought into the Church a huge amount of Greek philosophical concepts, most of which are inherently Aristotelian. Thus, I feel it would be inadequate to mention him so briefly in the introduction.

Furthermore, Thomas is also renowned for his eucharistic hymns, so I mentioned that. Do you think it would be inappropriate to add "poet" to his occupation box as well?

Kind regards,

--&#38;レア (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Reason & Faith
I just read a very authoritative and rather short book on Medieval thought that wrapped up TA in a couple of dozen pages.

It made clear at the outset, that in the big picture, TA's significance is that he separated reason and faith. This is mentioned here, but is nearly lost in the details. 76.250.61.95 (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Aquinas was a semirationalist, unlike Augustine, who was a rationalist. Augustine argued that reason alone is needed to prove the existence of God. Aquinas argued you need reason and faith. I guess this is the basis for the Church doctrine that faith informs reason--no faith, no reason. Luther, in turn, was an antirationalist. To Luther, reason was the enemy of faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

God's Being
♥ God is unknown to us in this present life and, crucially, philosophy understands its own ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by San Pedroo (talk • contribs) 20:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of heretics
In the section Treatment of heretics it says "Simple theft, forgery, fraud, and other such crimes were also capital offenses"

This is not true. Simple theft usually resulted in nothing more than imprisonment or simply being banished from the city. The latter no doubt qualify as harsh punishment for people with very limited means. Rulers had to keep at least an appearance of being just. This was essentially the same sense of justice as that of the citizens. It was not uncommon for citizens to bring food to the prisoners, who in deed suffered harsh conditions. The Middle Age was nothing like The Lord of the Ring, which is not just fiction, but unrelated to the Middle Age. It's the Middle Earth! It was usually only the Church that swayed so much power that it could exercise unreasonable punishment, like burning people at the stake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense
IP108.18.160.26, please don't insert unintelligible text into the article. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)